795.00/4–651: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1373. Padilla Nervo gave Gross following report concerning Asian-Arab group mtg Apr 5. (See No. 1371, Apr 6 also).
[Page 313]Padilla found the group concerned about three things:
- (1)
- Speaker Rayburn’s statement, which apparently caused some consternation in the group;1
- (2)
- Reported intention of US Govt to issue statement on Korea; and
- (3)
- Feeling that this was time to take some action looking toward peaceful settlement Korean question.
The group reached no agreement as to what steps, if any, might be useful. There was considerable expression of opposition to the issuance of a statement by the US Govt, or by the countries having forces in Korea. Much of the apprehension was based upon lack of knowledge as to the substance of the proposed statement, whether it was a reaffirmation of existing policy or what its implications might be. Several members of the group expressed the view that if the UC issued a statement, the Asian-Arab group might also usefully issue a statement “in order to have equilibrium in the situation”.
Padilla told Gross, as the latter had anticipated, (ourtel No. 1367, April 5) there was considerable support for public appeal by the Asian-Arab group addressed both to the UN and to the Chi Coms to respect the 38th parallel. In line with prior discussion between Padilla and Gross, former told Asian-Arab group he thought it would be a useless and dangerous move. He expressed view group should coordinate its views with other dels, especially US, in order to avoid the issuance of separate statements by individual UN members or groups of members. When pressed by group for info concerning proposed UC statement, Padilla suggested that group get in touch with US del.
Speaking further in opposition to suggestion of “appeal to both sides”, Padilla thought it important not to lose sight of desired result and that all steps should be avoided which might complicate the mil situation and indicate disunity in the UN. An “appeal to the UN, or an appeal to both sides” would cause a great deal of controversy and would put the UN forces at a disadvantage.
[Page 314]Entezam told group that best way to progress was to urge Peiping to answer Entezam’s approaches. Padilla thought that ball was in the hands of Peiping, that the UN has stated its policy and reiterated its principles and has set up the GOC to be available for efforts toward peace.
Padilla stressed with group importance of consulting with other dels, particularly the US, before taking any action, even the suggested action of urging Peiping to get in contact with Entezam.
A member of the group suggested to Rau that GOI might sound out Peiping to explore what moves CPG might consider useful. Padilla volunteered view that this would not be a wise step. That before the Asian-Arab group (after consultation with US and other dels) had decided upon its course, a vague approach to Peiping could not result in anything practical or positive, but would merely be taken as indicating doubt and disunity.
Zafrulla Khan expressed views that it was not necessary for group to meet with numerous UN dels but that it was of first importance to meet with US del. Zafrulla suggested that he, Rau, Fawzi and perhaps one or two other members of group should make arrangements for talk with USUN. Padilla expressed agreement with this suggestion and urged that group communicate with USUN quickly.
There was considerable discussion of arranging a “stand still” and of “maintaining the status quo” in order to give the Asian-Arab group time to consider its next moves. Padilla explained that this referred both to UC withholding its statement and also an attempt to do something immediately to head off a possible major offensive “by either side”.
Only concrete suggestion made, however, was possible group appeal to UN and to Chi Corns not to cross 38th parallel.
Padilla recd impression majority of group was impressed by his argument against such a course.
However, after mtg had ended, Azkoul (Lebanon) and Palar (Indo) remained behind to talk further with Padilla. Both Azkoul and Palar insisted upon the importance of taking some step immediately and both favored an appeal “to both sides” to prevent deterioration of the present situation. Padilla renewed his objections to this course, stressing again the importance of attempting to persuade Peiping to acknowledge Entezam’s approach.
Rau promised Padilla to keep latter informed and also agreed that Asian-Arab group would take no action without prior discussion with GOC.
Padilla appeared surprised that group had not yet sought mtg with [Page 315] Gross and expressed belief they would do so promptly, possibly during week-end.
Dept’s urgent comments would be greatly appreciated as to general line to be followed with Asian-Arab group, particularly re their concern about UC or similar statement. We, of course, will continue to oppose issuance of appeal by Asian-Arab group to UN or to “both sides”.
-
In debate on the House floor on April 4, Speaker of the House of Representatives Sam Rayburn made the following remarks:
“I have never in my long service in this House said a thing or done a thing that might have a tendency to deceive the Members of the House. Since even yesterday, with 30 enemy planes coming over in Korea, with the massing of troops in Korea and Manchuria, and not all of them Communist Chinese by a great extent, I say to this House in all earnestness and in all seriousness that it is my firm belief that we are in greater danger of an expanded war today than we have been at any time since the close of the World War in 1945.” (Congressional Record, vol. 97, pt. 3, p. 3311)
At his news conference on the following day, President Truman was asked about the Speaker’s statement. He replied that he had no comment to make, but added: “… the Speaker is a truthful man.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1951, p. 215)
↩