357.AD/12–1150: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
niact
[Received December 11—1:08 p. m.]
Delga 415. Re Korea. Confirming Ross-Hickerson telecon, Fawzi Bey gave us this morning with great reluctance and on most personal and most confidential basis in order protect his relations with his Asian colleagues, the following text of draft resolution for cease-fire which was basis for discussion in Asian group meeting yesterday evening. This text is being worked on by Sir B. N. Rau whose redraft will be basis for discussion at Asian group meeting 11:30 this morning. Text follows:
“The GA
Considering that resolving of the conflict in Korea is an important step towards the restoration of world peace and friendly relations among nations;
“Reaffirming its objective for the establishment of a united, independent and democratic government in the sovereign state of Korea;
“Recommends that:
- “1. There should be immediate cessation of fighting in Korea;
- “2. A cease-fire line should be demarcated;
- “3. As soon as the cease-fire has become effective,
representatives of _____ should meet to make recommendations for
- “(a) Rehabilitation and restoration of normal conditions in Korea;
- “(b) The establishment of a united, independent and democratic government in the sovereign state of Korea.”
Authorship of this draft was claimed by Fawzi but we have reason to believe Pakistanis participated in draft.
Differences within Asian group centered around numbered paragraph 3. The general trend of opinion seemed to be that the specific countries to meet would be the Four Big Powers plus Communist China plus two neutrals (India and Egypt).
Second point of difference within group is apparently whether future discussions should be limited to Korea or be more comprehensive to include other FE subjects.
Fawzi said best authorities agreed that coupling Communist China with other governments in text resolution did not mean recognition [Page 1516] Communist China. He said that if anyone had any doubt about this question they could clearly state in Assembly that recognition would not be implied. He said Egypt would so state.
Fawzi said that he felt his draft took fully into account our concern, with which he agreed, that no political conditions should be attached to the cease-fire.
Ross took following line strongly but on personal basis:
- (a)
- Getting into specifics or modalities of who would discuss what with whom or broadening possible future discussions beyond Korea if not implying could readily be misinterpreted as implying political conditions to a cease-fire.
- (b)
- Getting involved in specifics regarding future discussions would seem to involve, from viewpoint of Asian group which is seeking the cease-fire, confusion of issues which might impair acceptability of cease-fire resolution to Assembly.
Fawzi said their objective was “cooperation from both sides (US and the other party)”. He said the Asians wanted to cooperate with us but did not want to be in position of dependence on our views. They wanted to avoid having to act on basis of “green light from any quarter”. He said he thought that if it were desirable to avoid specifics concerning future discussions he at least was willing to consider doing so without committing himself, however, on this point.
Fawzi then raised question whether we were prepared to give priority to cease-fire resolution over six-power resolution. Ross said that in principle we were willing do so; however, he added, we would have to reserve our position on this point until we knew specifically what Asian group wanted to propose.
In this connection, Ross went on, it was very difficult to give authoritative views of USG in absence of specific proposal. In this connection Ross asked Fawzi (a) whether Fawzi would not be willing use his influence at 11:30 group meeting to prevent final decision being taken before we had opportunity [(b)] to see any draft proposal that may emerge from 11:30 meeting before final decision is taken but without committing group to acceptance of any views we might have to express. He added they would try to give us draft about 1 o’clock but would hope to have our comments before end of afternoon to permit them to make final decision at further group meeting late in afternoon preparatory to filing draft Tuesday morning.1
With regard to point (b) Fawzi finally agreed to give us last night’s draft on basis indicated above.