501.BB Korea/11–1648: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State
priority
Delga 781. Following are comments on draft resolution submitted in Delga 780:
That draft is result of collaboration between Plimsoll of Australia and Jacobs and Noble of USDel on persistent insistence Plimsoll that he had Evatt’s approval to try to work out with us mutually agreeable draft resolution and that he felt such a resolution could be prepared. Plimsoll states this draft has Evatt’s full approval and both propose that it be introduced as joint US-Australian draft and possibly with China also. Korea working group approves draft and feels it is desirable to present mutually acceptable joint draft as such would avoid much controversy among non-Soviet bloc delegates.
We feel that this draft is not so different from that approved Gadel 415, November 61 as to vitiate principles for which we stand. Also feel Gadel 415’s approval of draft mentioned therein as “basis negotiation” gives authority proceed with Australians in introducing new draft as joint proposal provided Evatt gives aforementioned commitment.
Specific comments on texts of two drafts follow:
Paragraph 3 Department’s draft has been deleted and substance incorporated in Paragraph 2 of new draft.
Paragraph 1 approving temporary commission and 10 reports has been revised to approve only conclusion of reports of temporary commission. Australians argue that having voted against IC’s resolution February 26 they cannot logically approve IC report; they feel that [Page 1330] approval UNTCOK’s conclusions and reference to IC report in second paragraph of preamble of joint draft is adequate. We agree.
Paragraph 2 of joint draft relates to UN’s attitude toward Government of Republic of Korea. Australians still strongly opposed to use of words “envisaged in the resolution of November 14”. While joint draft weaker in this respect than Department’s draft, revision seems acceptable when viewed in light other pertinent provisions of joint draft.
While Australians prepared accept our troop withdrawal as embodied joint draft, Chinese as well as Korean delegations may object reference to time element for withdrawal.
Substantive part Paragraph 4 is important because it provides continuance of a commission and contains important clause “having in mind the status of the Government of the Republic of Korea as herein defined” which as part of this introductory paragraph relates to all six subordinate paragraph[s] of paragraph 4. Australians definitely prefer seven man or five man commission. Also their idea that new commission should have represented thereon as many of present UNTCOK member states as can be persuaded to remain. From Department’s standpoint note should be made of fact that joint draft drops “panel” idea as method of selection. Australians not keen on it.
Paragraph 4 (B) is best phraseology Australians could be persuaded to accept for bringing about unification. They prefer this general language to give new commission broader scope. Hence new draft somewhat weaker than Department’s draft but in view of introductory part of Paragraph 4 and other pertinent sections, we consider this new phraseology acceptable.
Paragraph 4 (D) is Australian idea that this provision may be very helpful to commission in insisting upon “representative forms of government” in North Korea if it be permitted to function there. They first used word “democratic” for “representative” but were persuaded latter preferable.
Likewise Paragraph 4 (E) is Australian suggestion designed give strength to commission’s function of promoting friendly relations with North Korea and possible future Communist states in Manchuria and North China rather than promoting “diplomatic” relations.
In 5 (E) Australians have insisted upon insertion of words “within the terms of this resolution” which we understand they feel will prevent IC from issuing instructions to commission beyond scope of proposed joint resolution.
Fiscal experts advise words added Paragraph 6 necessary enable SYG pay expenses and per diem of alternatives.
Paragraph 9 represents strongest statement to which Australians will agree on subject of recommending recognition of Government of Republic of Korea. While weaker than our draft we feel it does not [Page 1331] embarrass us because of Department’s statement of August 12 and will permit us grant such recognition as may be decided.
Any comments Department may have should be communicated immediately.
- Not printed.↩