LAOS-THAILAND BOUNDARY IN THE MEKONG

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000300060019-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 14, 2012
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: February 10, 1969
• Content Type: CABLE

DEPT. DISTRIBUTION
on,ww? Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5 405-1-/M -;
CY'
REP
AF
NEA
FBO
AID
ARA
Cu
11 CO :15\1
Original to be Filed in Decentralized Files.
10 HANDLING INDICATOR
oct
AGR
Com
FRB
IN T
LA B
TAR
TR
XMB
AIR
USIA
ARMY NAVY
OSO
NA CIA
SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION
POST R UT1N
TO: Action Info.
Initials
AMB/
PO
DCM
POL
EC ON
CONS
ADM
AID
uSIS
FALK
-Action Takentl-
Date:
nt Ibis:
-7;re-fly:
I ???? Cr/
c(DA'
FILE" DESIGNATION
MIT OFFICIAL USE CA-855
TO : BANGKOK, VIENTIANE
FROM : Department of State
DATE:
NO.
Ito 10 10 37 fill 'Pi
SUBJECT : Laos-Thailand Boundary in the Mekong
REF
-77
tzp
SUMMARY
The U.S. Army Map Service (AMS) in fulfilling
its contract with the Royal Thai Survey Department
(RTSD) for 1:50,000 maps of Thailand and a similar
contract with the mapping authorities of the Royal
Lao Government (RLG), has encountered differences
in delineation of the boundary between the two
countries, mainly arising from Thai feelings that
boundaries agreed upon with the French in the 1926
boundary treaty were in certain instances unreason-
able and should be adjusted. As a majority of map
sheets covering this boundary are part of the Lao
series, and a smaller number part of the Thai series,
the boundary will not, under normal operating
procedure, be submitted.in its entirety to authori-
ties of either of these Governments for approval.
However, inconsistencies exist which might lead to
friction or misunderstanding if not cleared up
beforehand.
The following pages state in detail what
these inconsistencies are. Embassies Bangkok and
Vientiane are requested to comment on the desira-
bility of raising these questions with either the
RTG or RLG and the most appropriate channels to
be used.
FORM
10- 64 DS -323
?r,
rn
CC
ORM
Xxcluded from automatic
CoaloOrading ar4
41'3?141?41S :t; !lent Us. OnIt
ontents an assi cation,.
3979 INR/RSF/GE:GEPearcv
?iv
EA/LC - Mar Pratt
1_10
INR:RSFiGE:RDHodgson: c lh
fa ting ate:
2/4/69
Clearances:
EA/TB - Carl J. Nelson
.14_
one
pr
Out
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5 A-855
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE 2
The question of boundaries has not arisen in
corresponding mapping work being done in cooperation
with Lao authorities, who are, presumably, well
satisfied with the terms of the Thai-French boundary
treaty of 1926. However, the desirability of encouraging
the RTG to seek RLG concurrence on points where they wish
to vary the boundary delineation from that shown on the
early editions of AMS maps should also be considered.
A point of difference has arisen between the United States Army
Map Service (AMS) and the Royal Thai Survey Department (RTSD)
over the precise alignment of the Laos-Thailand boundary in the
Mekong River. The Department's Office of the Geographer has
been requested by AMS to assist in the clarification of the
issue.
In 1962 as part of its International Boundary Study (IBS) series,
the Geographer issued IBS No. 20: Laos-Thailand Boundary. This
study was based upon the available treaty and map data but it
also incorporated a recommendation of the French Government's
mapping agency. This latter recommended a certain French
topographic map series which was considered to be more accurate
than other French mapsAn the depiction of international
boundaries. However, at the time of the study, the Department
considered the language of the 1926 treaty to be the binding
delimitation of the boundary. The treaty stated that the
thalweg of the Mekong was to be followed by the boundary except
where islands exist. In this event, the islands were to adhere
to Laos and "in those parts of its course in which the Mekong
is divided into several branches by islands separated from
the Siamese shore at any time of the year by running water, the
boundary line is formed by the thalweg of the branch nearest
to the Siamese shore."
The convention further added "At those points where the filling
up with sand or the drying up of a branch of the river nearest
to the Siamese shore would permanently attach to such shore
islands formerly separated from it, the boundary line would,
in principle, follow the former thalweg of said branch of the
river thus filled up with sand or dried up."
"However, the Permanent High Commission of _jhe7 Mekong shall
be called upon practically to examine each case of this kind
that might arise, and they may then propose to move such boundary
on to the nearest thalweg of the river..."
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5
(.41-855
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE 3
"There are definitely attached to Siamese territory the lands
in the river known under the names of Don Khieo, Don Khieo-Noi,
Don Nhiat, Don Banphaeng, Rat Saipeh-Veunkoum, Don Keokong-
Dinnau and Don Somhong, which can be considered as part of the
Siamese shore..." /Underlining added7
The Carte de l'Indochine 1:100,000, published by the French
Service Geographique de l'Indochine, showed the boundary in this
manner, i.e., the eight specified islands belonging to Thailand
and all others adhering to Laos. In addition, the French
National Geographic Institute had declared the series to be its
"official" depiction of the boundaries of and within Indochina.
As a result, IBS-20 recommended the series as the principal
compilation source for the river boundary where the official
delimitation commission maps did not exist.
However, the office had been aware of the existence of the
Mekong Commission (Haute Commission Permanente Franco-Siamoise
delimitation du M9kong) from the 1926 treaty. Dr. John Bradley,
Geographic Attache for the East Asian area, was requested,
during his next home leave, to seek map or delimitation data
which the Commission might have published. It was judged that
Paris would be a poor source for the material since the French
had already recommended only the 1:100,000 series. On his next
trip to Bangkok, Bradley contact9d RTSD officials who furnished
on June 25, 1964 a copy of "Trace de la Frontiere Franco-Siamoise
du Mekong 1:25,000, 1931" published by the High Commission.
The RTSD did state in its transmittal letter to Bradley that
the Survey Department had "not yet given its approval on this
map." The volume of maps, however, does note that Siam had rati-
fied the work of the Commission.
It was then determined by an Embassy inquiry that Thailand did
consider itself bound by the 1926 treaty. Furthermore, the
Geographer ascertained,thdtthe delimitation maps were official
documents of the bilateral High Commission established by the
treaty. Consequently, the maps were considered to supercede
the French-produced 1:100,000 map series of Indochina as a
compilation base.
In the interim period problems began to develop with the boundary
representation on AMS maps of the Indochina area and of Thailand.
The boundaries on the 1:250,000 series (L 509) were compiled
on the basis of the SGI 1:100,000 series. The 1:50,000 series
of Thailand (L 708) was produced in Japan with the assistance
of RTSD officers based on the High Commission's 1:25,000 series
(then not in Washington). In addition, certain adjustments
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R00030006001915's55
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE 4
appear to have been made to the Laos-Thailand boundary on this
series by the USAMSFE based RTSD officers. These changes
apparently have now to be considered invalid for the Thai
officers exceeded their powers. Finally, boundaries on L7012
(misc. Indochina 1:50,000) and L7015 (Laos 1:50,000) were drafted
in Washington by AMS using again the alignment of the French
1:100,000 maps.
The discrepancies among the series came to light when AMS
decided to re-cast all of the earlier 1:50,000 "rectangular
sheets" into "square sheets." The new series for Thailand was
to be number L7017. The Office of the Geographer in the
Department had written ANS on March 21, 1967 in response to its
request that the High Commission 1:25,000 series should now be
used as the standard compilation source rather than the
SGI 1:100,000's for the river boundary. AMS believed that the
RTSD would acquiesce to this view and accept the adjustments
necessary to conform to the 1:25,000 High Commission maps.
These "corrections" or adjustments were then made for all
Mekong River boundary sheets. It is important to note here,
however, that in changing to the 15' x 15' square format of
the new series, 21 sheets of the 38 sheets necessary to cover
the Mekong boundary fall into the L7015 (Laos) and not into
the L7017 (Thailand) series. The RTSD, as a result, would have
no control over the revisions made on these 21 sheets of L7015;
they are the responsibility of ANS and the Royal Lao Survey
Department.
In June 1968 the "corrected" sheets were furnished in manu-
script to the RTSD per agreement and in August, at the request
of the RTSD, the bases for the changes in boundary alignment
were transmitted by AMS. In the same month, the RTSD wrote
stating it did not accept the adjustments proposed by ANS but
noted objections only to the sheets scheduled for FY 1969
production. The Thai requested that the original alignment,
derived from the SGI 1:100,000 series, be continued and that
the disclaimer be used to take care of the differences in
alignment. The "territory" involved, of course, is Mekong
River surface.
When the RSTD position became known, AMS again contacted the
Office of the Geographer which took the position that a
permanent change in alignment was a matter for the Lao and the
Thai to negotiate and that the U.S., as a disinterested
spectator, had to follow the last binding, legal document.
The Thai Survey then surfaced an English-language "Report of the
Franco-Siamese Commission of Conciliation" published June 27,
1947 by the Publicity Department of Siam which stated "The
river frontier resulting from the treaties and from the
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE 5
delimitation carried out on the spot should, however, be
revised in such a way as to place the frontier in the principal
navigable channel." The Thai had requested this change for
"technical reasons and with a view to conciliation."
The former probably alluded to the Thai desire to have direct -
access to, and to share sovereignty over, the navigation
channel while the latter concerned the refusal by the
Conciliation Commission to consider Thai claims to territory
on the left bank of the Mekong. These claims, in fact, were
rejected in the same paragraph of the Report as the suggestion
that the main thalweg be used as the boundary. A further Thai
claim to the Bassac was also rejected in a later paragraph.
The problem, as seen from the Geographer's point of view, is
that the Mekong River boundary on AMS maps should follow the
delimitation of the 1926 treaty and its protocols. The
latter would include the 1931 1:25,000 maps of the bilateral
delimitation commission. We erred in our initial recommenda-
tion of the French SGI 1:100,000 series, which was then the
sole "official" map in our possession. When the High
Commission maps became available, the Army Map Service and
the USAF Aeronautical Chart and Information Center, the sole
official publishers of large-scale maps of the region, were
informed of the new source data. The present situation
developed from this change.
Two principal questions arise to inhibit a resolution of the
problem. The first involves the source of the current Thai
mapping position: does it represent actions of the Royal
Thai Survey Department alone or is it the official policy of
the Thai Government? The second question concerns the "Report
of the Franco-Siamese Commission of Conciliation of
June 27, 1947". The Department has only xerox copies of the
cover sheets and two pages concerning the thalweg boundary;
the remainder of the report has not been seen. It has not
been possible, moreover, to verify the parameters of the
Commission of Conciliation but it is doubted seriously if the
Commission had the authority to change the boundary, or to
cause it to be changed. The language used appears to place
responsibility on some other authority, i.e., a Franco-
Siamese boundary commission or perhaps the existing High
Commission for the Mekong.
The French are good and careful cartographers but strangely
they do not appear to have utilized the maps of the 1931
commission in the preparation of their 1:100,000 series. Yet
they have never cited an agreement which would negate the
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5
?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5 CA-855
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE 6
Commission's work. The post-war treaty, in fact, specifically
returns the 1926 treaty to force. Moreover, the Thai mapping
people do not accept the 1931 maps and yet do not categori-
cally state that they have been superceded by a later
agreement or maps. As a result, doubt has been cast as to
the proper compilation source for ?the boundary.
To resolve the current impasse over the boundary delineation
in the Mekong, it would be appreciated if the embassies
could determine the answers to the questions raised above.
If the policy is only that of the RTSD, an approach to the
Foreign Office might ease or end RTSD pressure on ANS. If
the policy is that of the Thai Government, however, the
Report of the Commission of Conciliation could hold the
answer. What, if anything, was ever done about the recommen-
dation of the Commission? Was it accepted or rejected by
higher authorities? If accepted, was the recommendation
acted upon or allowed to die by inaction? In the absence
of clear answers to the question, a recommendation by the
Embassy would be appreciated. The Embassy should bear, in
mind, however, that the majority of the sheets covering the
river will not be revised with the cooperation of the RTSD.
ROGERS
'LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/11/16: CIA-RDP08001297R000300060019-5