Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Korea and China, Volume VII, Part 1

357.AK/2–1751: Telegram

The United States Deputy Representative at the United Nations (Gross) to the Secretary of State

top secret
priority

New York, February 17, 1951—2:35 p. m.

1173. Re Korea—GOC. Grafstrom advised me at noon today on confidential basis that message summarized in our telegram No. 1155, February 14, had been handed to Chinese Communist Ambassador at Stockholm by Swedish Foreign Office on February 14.¹ Chinese Ambassador commented that he did not see very much hope, but would of course transmit message to his government. Message was also transmitted by Stockholm to Swedish Ambassador at Peiping for transmission to Chinese Foreign Office there. Only material changes are that in alternative methods of procedure suggested, there is no reference in (a) to “a person designated by Entezam”, it being assumed that if CPG sends a representative to New York, he would deal with Entezam. In addition, (b) was revised to state that representative of CPG might meet with Entezam or his representative at some agreed place outside China or US.

Grafstrom told me that upon his suggestion Entezam had informed Rau about step taken by GOC, and had requested Rau to attempt to persuade GOI to “encourage Peiping Government to accept the proposals”. Grafstrom stressed that apart from the members of GOC, we and GOI were the only governments who know about transmission of message to Peiping, which GOC is most anxious be kept private for time being.

Because of GOC desire to keep this matter secret, I do not contemplate advising the British here, and assume Department will likewise not advise British. If, however, Department decides it necessary to do so, I would appreciate advance information this fact.

Grafstrom also told me that the Bureau of Ad Hoc China Committee has requested meeting with GOC on Monday, February 19. GOC intends to say nothing concerning its approach to Peiping unless there is a reply by Monday,² in which case GOC will notify bureau of the exchange of messages.

With regard to information in our telegram No. 1155 concerning message sent by GOI to Stockholm reflecting suggestions by Panikkar, Grafstrom had following additional information which he gave me in confidence.

Swedish Ambassador, New Delhi, upon instructions from Stockholm, requested clarification from GOI. Bajpai told Swedish Ambassador that several days ago Panikkar had reported Chinese willingness to take part in seven-power conference, to be held independently of UN. Bajpai said that GOI is not willing to take initiative in attempts to arrange such a conference. GOI considers it hopeless to attempt to induce US and UK to agree to such a conference outside the UN. Bajpai believed US and UK would consider a conference held in such a manner to be “disloyal” to the UN and would also be swayed by fact that Peiping refused to have anything to do with the cease-fire group. However, GOI thought such a conference “would be useful” inasmuch as it would facilitate “confidential negotiations”, and would avoid the “openness of UN debates.”

Bajpai thereupon told the Swedish Ambassador that if Sweden would take the initiative in arranging such a conference, GOI would support Sweden.

Grafstrom read me his instruction from Stockholm, which said that his government did not want to take part in any effort which would set aside GOC. Any further moves are left to Grafstrom’s discretion.

Grafstrom said he would want to consult closely with me as to future steps because he realized that our position would undoubtedly become the UN position.

I expressed gratitude my government for Grafstrom’s unfailing cooperative attitude and gave him assurance of our desire to respect his confidence and to be as helpful as possible.

Gross

1. Telegram 1155 is not printed. The message referred to was from Entezam to the Chinese authorities in Peiping. Its substance was summarized in telegram 1155 as follows:

   “Entezam will state his awareness of fact that CPG, like UN, is anxious to settle conflict in Korea by peaceful means. Exchange of telegrams does not hold prospect of fruitful results. Prior efforts looking toward peaceful solution have failed primarily because of lack of personal contact. Personal contact is essential for exchange of views re preliminary matters, for example, re the personnel who conduct negotiations, the fixing of agenda for discussions, and the like. As Peiping Government is undoubtedly aware, Entezam has appointed Grafstrom and Padilla Nervo, and the three members of the GOC are working as a team. However, it is not essential in connection with efforts by the GOC that Peiping recognize or acknowledge the GOC as a group or a team. It is not necessary to become involved in question of legality of GA resolutions. Entezam would appreciate an expression of views by CPG as to the best method of establishing contact, and to that end would welcome reactions of CPG to following possible alternative methods of procedure:

   “(a) CPG might send a representative to New York to contact Entezam or a person designated by Entezam; (b) representative of CPG might meet with a representative of Entezam at some mutually agreed place outside China and outside US; (c) a representative designated by Entezam might be received by CPG in Peiping for preliminary discussions. In connection with the last alternative, Entezam perceives no need for CPG to issue invitation so long as it made clear that Entezam’s representative would be received.” (357.AK/2–1451)

2. February 19.