Posted on October 16, 2021 in
Written by: David B. Honig
I do not think it would be really desirable for me to go through all the criticisms that have been conveyed to the details of this Treaty. But perhaps I can say, as far as Siam is concerned, that the criticism has certainly been exaggerated, since we have simply repeated and in no way amended the provisions of the 1896 Treaty, which I believe has reached an agreement which makes it clear for the future and which will delimit these parts of Siam. in which we have the right to interfere between Siamese and Siamese. French and the parts over which we do not have this right. As part of this agreement, there are parts of Siam where we can conclude agreements with the Siamese with whom the Frenchman will have nothing to do, and there are other parts of the country where it is open to France and Siam to agree on what we will have nothing to say. Then there is a third part, which is considered a matter of common interest between the two countries and in which we do not interfere in any way with each other. This is perfectly clear, unambiguous and extremely reasonable in the exceptional situation of this country, and I cannot think of any other plan that is better calculated to prevent an international quarrel over this part of the Far East issue. I am not saying that an agreement can make any argument impossible; that I am not pretending; but I very much doubt that better regulation than this can be done. The same right-wing man who raised the issue of Siam raised the issue of certain commercial rights in the French Congo in 571 and gave an admirable illustration of what I said earlier – that everyone goes for the particular thing they are interested in and says that it should have been done before you reached the final agreement.
I will not discuss these issues; Individual interests are practically protected, not by this treaty, but by separate agreements with the French government. I think it would have been total folly to include in the negotiations with France the question of the true interpretation of the Berlin Treaty, which could have jeopardised the whole of the negotiations and which certainly did not have much relevance to any of the burning issues between the two countries. Baronet raised a more important point by referring to the right French in Muscat. This agreement is full of unresolved conditions that could lead to major difficulties in the future. They must receive not only financial compensation, but also territorial transfers in The Gambia and Niger. A famous Frenchman once said: “There has never been a treaty between the French and the English, but that the French always overwhelmed by their spirit and abilities, which certainly seems to me to have been the case on this occasion. One question I will ask is whether Newfoundland has been consulted. On the 14th. Last April, I asked the good gentleman, the First Lord, how it is proposed to provide for the payment of compensation by His Majesty`s Government to French citizens; Will the agreement providing for this payment and certain French rights on the coast of Newfoundland be submitted in any way and, if so, how will it be subject to the consent of this House? 529 To which the First Lord of the Treasury replied: “As I believe I have already indicated, the compensation is paid by that country and, of course, an estimate of the costs of that payment must be presented. The Government of Newfoundland does not need to be consulted on this payment because it will not participate in it. .