Coll 5/87S ‘United States: Request for Military Air Transit Rights in India and Burma’ [‎220r] (439/609)

United States desire for military ajr transit rights
aXonk“ the North .frlca-inaia route *
Mr* oallraan as&ad %o boo rae &hia afternoon with further
reference to his letter of the 16th May In Mi 1659/0 about the
North Africa-India air route.
2* Mr* Oallrrmn showed mo a short telegram received from
the State Department saying that an early reply would be
appreciated to that letter in respect of Burma. It will be
recalled that the letter of the 16th May desired that the rights
as :od for in general should be exorcised, with respect to Burma,
at the airfield at fingaladon, the airfield in Burma regarding
which (along wiuh throe airfields in India) we have had earlier
representations from tashington*
3* Mr* Gallman also gave m© to understand that the united
States consul at Rangoon had boon informed that the embassy in
London wore about to put forward request* of the nature outlined
in Mr* Gallman’s letter of the 16th May which would cover, ao far
as Buraia was concerned, llinguladon, with the understanding that
the Consul could inform the Governient of Burma accordingly if
he thought fit. The Consul at Rangoon, hr* Oallm&n said, would
havo received this notification from /ushiagton on or about May
Uth. I must have raised my eyebrows at this, since Mr* Galim&n-
explained with some embarrassment that the original communication '
from Washington which was eventually developed into Mr. Gallman’s
letter of May 16th had in fact been received in the embassy at
tho beginning of May, and that it had boon held up in the aabnsay
by juniors on points of procedure without Mr* Gallman hi is elf
knowing of it until some days later.
4« The short telegram which Mr* Gallman showed me, as mentioned /
above, also gave the embassy to understand that in respect of the
airfields in Inala to be covered by the proposals in his letter
of the loth May, there had been some direct contact between the
United States Government and th» authorities of the Government of
India already 5 Indeed the telegram spoke of tho * Indian authorities
having made some counter proposals which the United states
authorities were now considering; and it mis because of this fact
that they were anxious to get on as regards tho airfield in urma.
Mr. Gallman was unable to elucidate this fur&her. I expressed
some surprise on hearing of this and said that it was mows to me
that there had boon any ouch direct contact or that counter
that the United States, when making their communication about th«
Indian airfields through r« Balfour and Mr. James 1 at the ei
of last February, had intimated that if we were not ouruclves
prepared to moves the Government of India in the sense then sug
gested, the united States Ooeernnent would be quite prepareu to
approach India direct).
3 . I did not, however, make any very lengthy comment on what
Mr. Gallman had told me but merely said that these further points
would have to be looked into, and I reminded him that on the
general questions raised in his letter of the 16th May ho had b^sn
warned that we sho<xid probably want first to ask a number of ques
tions before we could decide our attitude, ana that it might be
supposed that these questions would be applicable to the airfields
proposals had boon made (I remembered, but did not tell Mr. Ouili 1