795B.5/6–2051: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative at the United Nations (Gross) to the Secretary of State
niact
1681. Re appeal for armed force contributions for Korea. We informed Lacoste (France) and, in Jebb’s absence this afternoon, Laskey (UK), of Dept’s decision (Deptel 995, June 19) address communication to SYG before June 25 concerning appeal for armed force contributions, giving to each of them close paraphrase of proposed communication as set forth in Deptel 964, June 5.
Laskey recalling that sometime past he had mentioned to Jebb that we had such an appeal under consideration said Jebb had so reported to FonOff. In response to this report FonOff has sent Jebb reaction as follows: FonOff did not much like idea of appeal as envisaged because they are doubtful if appeal would produce result desired. They felt that if, as was probable, appeal produced only lukewarm and evasive replies, more harm than good would be done. They felt that probably we have obtained about all we can obtain in way of useful contributions. They feel that best chance for additional contributions lies in private bilateral negotiations. They felt, however, that if assured in advance that at least two or three countries which have not yet made any contribution would pretty definitely come forward with fairly substantial contribution there might be something to be said for making appeal.
Laskey telephoned later to say he had reported to Jebb who had little to add to FonOff observations except to suggest that it might help to meet FonOff objections if SYG Lie were to issue a review or assessment of Korean operations over past year, including perhaps in such review an appeal for additional forces. With respect to all of these observations we made no comment except to say that we would, of course, transmit them to Department.
In communicating to Lacoste Dept’s decision, as well as substance of proposed communication to SYG, we stressed as we had to Laskey and in accordance with Deptel 995, factor that further appeal be made because no end of hostilities foreseeable at this time. Lacoste commented on this point that it sounded a “dismal note”. It will convey, he said, impression that there is no hope of letup in Korean war at time [Page 540] when many people here and abroad have been saying that there was such hope.
Lacoste thought there were two ways of looking at matter. On one hand impression would undoubtedly be created of hopeless situation and this impression would be used propagandawise against US and against UN by Communists. On other hand, Lacoste indicated he felt personally there was perhaps something to be said for making things as clear as possible in sense that since we have heard no indication of a desire for peace from Communists that we intend to see things through and are not weakening in any way.
Lacoste subsequently telephoned back to say that he had given further thought to matter. He recalled that at time of AMC discussions with UK and French dels, UK had urged that additional forces should be sought but that we had taken position that an appeal for additional forces was not very likely to bring substantial result. It was pointed out to Lacoste that the issue, of course, at that time was whether or not priority should be given to economic measures. Nevertheless, Lacoste went on, he “wondered” whether the comment which we made at that time was not still well-founded. He wondered whether unless we have info indicating that we may expect fairly substantial additional contributions it would serve any useful purpose to make an appeal. If we do not have such info he would expect that appeal would be relatively fruitless. At same time it would give appearance to Commies that we have serious need of additional forces; Commies would be encouraged, therefore, if appeal yields no substantial result.
We did not comment on Lacoste’s observations except to say we would bring them to attention of Dept.
We also informed Feller (Secretariat) in sense indicated, in view of fact that Lie has frequently raised this question with us, and asked him to inform Lie. Feller asked if we wanted Lie’s comments on proposed action. He was informed we are always glad to receive Lie’s comments but our decision to address communication to Lie before June 25 was firm. Feller then commented on emphasis concerning no foreseeable end of hostilities at this time. He felt that this might embarrass Lie since Lie has had view that appeal for additional forces should follow new attempt at peaceful settlement. Feller wondered whether we might not make appropriate reference to our continuing desire to end war on honorable terms but that so far no response had been received from Commies to peaceful settlement overtures.
Additional conversations will be reported as promptly as possible.