740.00119 Control (Korea)/5–3047: Telegram
The Political Adviser in Korea (Langdon) to the Secretary of State
133. Cite Zpol 736. An off-the-record meeting of Bunce and Tounkin of Subcommission 1 on May 28 failed to resolve wide differences in point of view between US and USSR regarding consultation. USSR refused to accept American proposal to consult parties and organizations on wide basis which would include approximately 100 parties and organizations and would make eligible for consultation those who signed the agreement contained in communiqué number 5. USSR position as indicated this meeting is that tentative agreements reached year ago to consult 30 parties and organizations and to send questionnaires to other parties and organizations not orally consulted is still pending.
[Page 657]USSR also insists on including in the decision the three points in Hodge’s December 24 letter, thus apparently accomplishing the provision contained in paragraph 2 of Chistiakov’s letter to Hodge of February 28 in reference to informing beforehand those parties and organizations selected for consultation was basis on which they would be excluded from consultations. US proposed that in addition to these three points Marshall’s statement in paragraph 2 of his letter May 2 regarding freedom of opinion be included in the text. The US proposal was entirely unacceptable to Tounkin who would not consider modifying his original position outlined above. Acceptance of USSR position would inevitably lead to conflict as to the specific parties to be orally consulted unless American delegation accepts disproportionate Communist representation.
During the discussion it became quite clear that public statements of opinion by Koreans opposing the Moscow agreement in whole or in part would be interpreted by the Soviet delegation as fomenting and instigating active opposition. Further the discussion indicated that the Soviets would not consult with parties and organizations which have already publicly opposed trusteeship, although such groups would be eligible to submit their views in written form. Tounkin strongly implied that Marshall’s statement regarding freedom of opinion was not a valid part of the agreement between the Foreign Ministers in spite of the fact that the Secretary referred to it in his letter of May 13.
Because of inability to reach a compromise in Subcommission, General Brown requested a formal meeting of Commission, which was held 29th. Soviet delegation stated they were not prepared to discuss the disagreement out on the matter of consultation at this meeting but would discuss it at the later meeting.
General Brown read into the record our point of view, including wide consultation with all political parties and social organizations with membership over 1000. He requested reconvention on May 30 to continue discussion of the matter but Soviet delegation asked reconvention May 31 which was approved.
The matters mentioned above and other trends indicate a possible Soviet policy of limiting those consulted to leftist organizations insofar as practicable and utilizing these organizations consulted as sources of procurement of personnel for the provisional government. An intimation has also been made but their ideas of this govt is a govt by Ministers appointed not elected.