Office of the Historian

740.00119 Control (Korea)/6–649: Telegram

The Ambassador in Korea (Muccio) to the Secretary of State

confidential
Seoul, June 6, 1949.

658. I called on President Rhee this morning and conveyed to him orally substance Deptels 410 June 21 and 416 June 3. At Rhee’s insistent request and because I feel effect will be salutary, I agreed send him paraphrases of Deptels 410 and 416.

Rhee informed me he had recently received telegram from Chough seeking authorization purpose [propose?] retention US troops Korea for additional year and that he had replied instructing Chough refrain from making such proposal. Rhee said he told Chough retention large US military force Korea did not “mean much” and that statement committing US “stand by” Korea would be more effective and preferable. Rhee also said if it ascertained Chough made remarks attributed him regarding size and equipment Korean security forces Rhee would instruct Chough to make correction.

On at least 3 occasions during conversation Rhee made it plain he no longer interested in retention US forces but rather in public assurance continuing US support for ROK. Apart from citing remarks made by Acting Secretary June 1,2 I told Rhee it my understanding Department considering early issuance of statement along lines apparently desired by him. In course conversation I made it clear withdrawal of combat team would be virtually completed by June 30.

Repeated CINCFE.

Muccio
  1. See telegram 666, June 1, from New York, p. 1036.↩

  2. The remarks referred to were reported by the Department in telegram 402, June 1, to Seoul, the text of which read as follows:

    “Acting Secy Webb at press conference June 1 asked to comment re reports troop withdrawal Korea responded that we have had program in Korea which involved withdrawal troops, as already announced, which proceeding normally, that there nothing new about things happening there now—is just part of plan which has been part of normal Govt program. Added ‘Current troop movements are a continuation of those that started last Dec and represent one stage in the implementation of GA resolutions concerning Korea. They are geared to the steady improvement in capabilities of Korean security forces. Current movements represent no change in US support for realization of aims set forth in two GA resolutions on Korea. There is no lessening of our determination to assist Korea in achieving those aims’.” (740.00119 Control (Korea)/6–149)

    ↩