501.BB Korea/7–1648: Telegram
The Political Adviser in Korea (Jacobs) to the Secretary of State
secret
urgent
urgent
Seoul, July 16,
1948.
562. Cite Zpol 1087. Following are my comments in response to instructions contained Deptel 231, July 12:1
- 1.
- Insofar as I can ascertain, considerations set forth second section PolAd’s 533, July 82 remain substantially same as reported except that I sense slight trouble of attitude (or rather feeling that there should be change of attitude) among “opposition” members UNTCOK as result of promulgation at Pyongyang of North Korean Constitution on July 10 and decision of People’s Council to hold election August 25 to elect Supreme People’s Council of Democratic Korean People’s Republic. It is my opinion, therefore, that when UNTCOK is notified of formation of national government here (about week July 26–31) Australian, Canadian and Indian delegates will request instructions from their governments to take no further active part in meetings of UNTCOK except perhaps to complete report relating to events prior to formation of that government. Other delegates—Chinese, French, [Page 1244] Filipino and Salvadorian—will, insofar as their instructions are known to me, be prepared to continue here in consultation with authorities of new government but all of them except Liu (who expects to go Paris anyway) are rather unhappy at moment because Binnerts3 received telegram two days ago from Secretary General Lie that there was no need (and no funds) for Commission as unit proceed Paris.
- 2.
- As regards consideration of statement of US policy set forth in Depcirtel July 10, 1 a. m., I feel that it is good statement and indicates only course which we can pursue at this stage. It seems to me that objection to statement of our policy (contained in paragraph 6 of Depcirtel July 10) could be mitigated or removed if those who object could only be made to understand that our recognition is “de facto” only (presumably until after General Assembly has considered Korean problem) since we are sending “special representative” to carry on negotiations in consultation with UNTCOK rather than full-fledged accredited ambassador or minister. Possibly reference to this fact in another approach to British Foreign Office might persuade it to accept our phraseology rather than the substitute phraseology proposed by it in paragraph 2 of London Embassy’s 3186, July 15, 6 p. m. to Department. If not, however, advantage to be gained in having Great Britain (also China) take parallel action with us is of sufficient importance to cause us to give serious consideration to adoption of British phraseology, especially if by so doing, Great Britain and China would be prepared along with us to raise the status of their Consuls General here to special representatives to “new administration”, term used by British. However, before we recede from our position, we should be pretty sure that Great Britain will take such parallel action.
- 3.
- I feel that action taken by North Korean authorities in promulgating their constitution and setting August 25 for an election, which is tantamount beyond question to establishment of regime in North Korea claiming to be government of all Korea, should be played up as new factor in all future communications which we send to other interested governments.
- 4.
- With regard to question of applicability to North Korea of constitution promulgated here, certain members of Assembly’s Liaison Committee have already noted decision taken at Pyongyang excluding South Korea temporarily from applicability of North Korean constitutions. They are considering whether it might not be desirable for Assembly here to take similar action. We are, as previously reported, taking no action to press matter because it is one Assembly [Page 1245] should decide itself and because any unsolicited advice from us might produce opposite effect.
- 5.
- Finally, UNTCOK should by all means be kept in session in Seoul until General Assembly had completed its consideration of Korea problem. Real consultative function contemplated in paragraph four resolution two has not even begun but aside from that consideration there should be a UN agency here to undertake handling of any developments requiring action in Korea which may arise as result not only of General Assembly action but also any other development adverting international interests. If it is question of money, as I have indicated previously, we should by all means arrange that. If it is question of adequate UNTCOK representation in Paris, 2 rapporteurs or 1 rapporteur and 1 assistant should be chosen while other members remain here. If it is question of present members having become too tired and weary of their jobs their governments should replace them. If it is question of some governments (for instance Australia and Canada) not desiring to permit their representatives to participate in all phases of UNTCOK’s consultative activities, those governments should be persuaded to leave their representatives here to be ready to undertake such tasks as they are willing to undertake or ready to begin immediately upon any phases concerning which directives may be given us result of and during consideration by General Assembly. By all means, small secretariat such as UNTCOK now has here should be kept intact.
Jacobs