Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Far East, Volume VI

740.00119 Control (Korea)/7–1047: Telegram

Lieutenant General John R. Hodge to the Secretary of State

secret
priority

Seoul, July 10, 1947.

196. Zurc 887. Fortieth meeting of the Joint Commission was held p.m. 9th July, General Shtikov chairman. Present as guest was Lieutenant General Charles H. Gairdner, personal representative of Prime Minister Attlee in Japan.

Discussion of the list to be approved for consultation continued as in previous meetings. No progress was achieved except to clarify the Soviet position as indicated below.

An analysis of the developments in the Joint Commission indicates that it has reached an impasse over the question of consultation after lengthy discussion throughout the 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th meetings.

Disagreement on the issue of broad consultation has continued without material change for over 3 weeks, except for minor concessions in which the Soviet has paid lip service to the principle of broad consultation. Resolution appears doubtful.

The conflict between the American and Soviet delegation is now clearly discernible in the position taken by the Soviet delegation in regard to the list of applicant parties and social organizations with which the Joint Commission will consult. This position is that applicant parties and social organizations may be included on the list only through mutual agreement. Thus the Soviets could block the inclusion on the list of certain rightist parties and in effect create a Soviet veto of consultation. The American position is that an applicant party of [or] social organization will be included on the list unless it is specifically excluded by mutual agreement. The American position is based on the Marshall–Molotov letters, which specifically assert that exclusion shall be by mutual agreement only. This position has been consistently held by the US in all subcommission meetings and was written into Joint Commission decision number 12 as paragraph 5.

The Soviets insist on application of their unilateral exclusion principle by eliminating from the 463 applicant parties:

1. Those organizations which are not in fact social as covered by their definition of a social organization under the Moscow decision. The Soviet has not however specifically stated their definition.

2. Those organizations which are purely local in nature such as district and other narrow organizations. In this Soviet base their contention on the fact that decision number 12 required organizations to submit application through central zonal offices. A district organization not having such an office is by implication not eligible for consultation.

3. Those parties and social organizations specifically organized to fight the Moscow decision (primarily those parties which according to delegation are members of anti-trusteeship committee). Their contention is that membership in such a committee is prima facie evidence of the fact that signature on the application for consultation which pledges the signer to fully uphold the Moscow decision is worthless because [of?] membership in the committee mentioned. The Soviet delegation consistently refuses to proceed for exclusion of such parties and organizations as provided under the third agreed proposal adopted for the reconvention of the Joint Commission, but insists on their exclusion from the list for initial consultation unless such parties and organizations publicly renounce their membership in the anti-trusteeship committee and again affirm their intention to fully support the Moscow decision.

The position of the American delegation is:

1. That the Moscow decision fails to define a social organization, and the Soviet delegation failed prior to preparation of the Joint Commission decision number 12 to agree on a definition of this term as proposed by the American delegation. The American delegation warned the Soviet delegation that after Joint Commission decision number 12 was approved it would not agree to amendments, and has since stated that definition of social organization must be sought in definitions implied in dictionaries throughout the world. The American delegation is willing to exclude those organizations which do not fall within such a definition.

2. The American delegation has renewed a proposal made to the Soviets several weeks ago, that all organizations with membership less than a thousand or any other reasonable figure acceptable to the Soviet delegation be denied oral consultation. The American delegation cannot accept the contention of the Soviet that organizations without its own central office are under the terms of agreements reached not eligible for consultation.

3. The American delegation’s position is that under Joint Commission decision number 12 all parties and organizations signing the application for consultation (including the declaration contained in joint communiqué number 5) are, under the terms of the Marshall–Molotov agreement, eligible for initial consultation and must be placed on the list. Further, that under the agreements of the 2 Ministers, exclusion from the list can only be had by joint agreement and for fomenting or instigating active opposition to the Moscow decision or to either of the Allied Powers.

It is believed that the basic points of difference are: 1st, the principle of unilateral exclusion from the list, 2nd, specifically exclusion of parties which are members of the anti-trusteeship committee. Although the Soviets have carried out exhaustive discussion on the undesirability of admitting non-social organizations and local organizations to consultation, it is believed that agreement could easily be achieved on such organizations if the basic issues were resolved. The American delegation has repeatedly expressed a willingness to consider the Soviet’s desires and has in fact made a specific offer to consult initially with all parties and organizations with 10,000 or more members, which would arbitrarily exclude most organizations in the district or social categories in question. The Soviet however have not demonstrated any attempts to establish the unilateral exclusion principle and attack of anti-trusteeship committee.

The Anti-Trusteeship Committee has been investigated by the Joint Commission and has been found to be in a dormant state since its members submitted their applications for consultation. The Soviet attack on these 15 member parties is based on the most flimsy of Korean press evidence and the press statements are in fact untrue. In addition, the US has definite positive evidence of the good faith of these 15 parties based on the agreement of some of their leaders to members of the Joint Commission. It is intended in the 41st meeting to state such facts to the Soviet delegation, not in the sense of defending the 15 parties, but in the sense of providing [proving] to them the absurdity of the Soviet position.²⁷

To accept the Soviet demand that members of the Anti-Trusteeship Committee must publicly state their withdrawal prior to acceptance for consultation is clearly a leftist ruse to drive the rightist parties completely away from consultation. Were the 15 rightist parties, which are presently involved and which include the large and important Democratic Party under the leadership of Kim Koo, required to publicly state their withdrawal from the Anti-Trusteeship Committee, they would undoubtedly bolt the Joint Commission because under the principle of freedom of expression they wish to reserve right to discuss freely all angles of future trusteeship. They would carry with them practically all rightist support and the Joint Commission would thus be left with only leftists with which to consult. This would undoubtedly be what the Soviets desire and they are apparently being encouraged in their efforts to eliminate the rightist parties by the current unstable political situation and the activities of Syngman Rhee and Kim Koo.

It is the intention of the American delegation to stand firm on this issue even to the extent of risking a break in the discussions. Confirmation of this intention is required.

Hodge

27. Telegram 197, July 10, from Seoul, reported no substantial progress at this meeting. Agreement was made only to issue a press release, although a text had not yet been prepared. (740.00119 Control (Korea)/7–1047)