740.00119 Control (Korea)/4–949: Telegram
The Special Representative in Korea (Muccio) to the Secretary of State
362. Creation best possible atmosphere for announcing withdrawal USAFIK and augmentation Korean military advisory group progressing favorably.
Immediately upon my return March 29 I assured Rhee decision had been reached by Government of US to furnish Korean security forces adequate arms, equipment and munitions prior to withdrawal of task force and that legislative authority would be sought to continue such support for immediate future. (See despatch 189, April 1).1 I conveyed similar assurances to Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Minister Defense.
[Page 982]On April 4 I again raised question of withdrawal with Rhee. In course of lengthy discussion I told him it was a natural desire of US to withdraw its forces as soon as this could be done without imperiling Korean security and that I felt the training of Korean security forces had made such progress in recent months that withdrawal of American troops might be accomplished in the very near future. Rhee took this calmly, said he realized American troops could not be kept in Korea indefinitely and merely expressed hope they could be maintained until Republic had an adequate force to protect its interests and sufficient arms and ammunitions to supply its force. (Despatch 200, April 5).2
Ministers Defense and Social Affairs now Cheju-do. Rhee personally going there Saturday. Upon his return I hope to be able to have him include in his statement conditions Cheju-do and Cholla-Namdo [South Cholla] praise efficiency security forces, his confidence that they are now competent to maintain stability and defend country and that he is therefore raising with American authorities question of continued presence American troops in Korea. I shall telegraph in this regard early next week. Suggest deferring release regarding formal establishment KMAG meantime.
In discussing UNCOK matters with Principal Secretary on April 1, I inquired whether UNCOK had given any thought to December 12 resolution provision that occupational forces will be withdrawn as early as practicable (my despatch 202, April 6).2 Upon receipt of CA of March 18 “US views of Korean question” I made contents thereof known to Principal Secretary, chairman (Chinese delegate) and French, Philippine and Salvadoran members suggesting they might want to start thinking about this and related questions.
I propose to send early next week communication to new chairman (Salvadoran) in line with paragraph 4 of circular airgram and ask for any comments or views that the Commission might like to make regarding efficiency and adequacy of Korean security forces and timing of withdrawal (Principal Secretary and French delegate both feel that December 12 resolution requires UNCOK only to observe withdrawal and not participate in any decision regarding thereto).
UNCOK has taken no action on petition signed by 63 members National Assembly.3 Principal Secretary indicated that at next formal meeting scheduled next week it was proposed to set up a “sub-committee of the whole” to consider this matter which would also be available to consider withdrawal and military observers. I consider petition primarily internal political maneuver embarrass Rhee. It has received little attention here.