Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 24: Telegram

The Commander in Chief, United Nations Command ( Ridgway ) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

secret
operational immediate

C–50075. 1. Admiral Joy will present to the Communist liaison officer at 0900K, 2 Sep. the fol reply to Gen Nam Il’s ltr of 30 Aug regarding alleged violations of neutral zone by United Nations comd acft:

“Gen Nam Il,

“Sr Delegate, Delegation of the Korean People’s Army and the Chinese People’s Volunteers.

“I have recd your ltr of 30 Aug1 concerning an alleged violation of the Kaesong neutral zone by acft of the United Nations Comd. This charge is totally false. On receipt of your allegation that at 0240 hours on 29 Aug a United Nations Comd acft dropped a parachute flare near the Kaesong conference site, the CINCUNC caused a thorough check to be made of the psn of all UNC acft airborne at that hour. It was found that at the hour of the alleged attack UNC acft dropped photographic flash bombs at two points, one 20, and one 25 miles north of Kaesong. The acft which dropped the photo flash bombs were using the light from these flashes for making photos. These photos have been developed, and they prove conclusively that the UNC acft taking pictures were at least 15 miles north of the outer edge of the Kaesong neutral zone. The completed investigation established that on the night of Aug 29, no UNC acft was over the neutral zone and no UNC acft dropped a flare or any other mechanism [Page 871] in the neutral zone. You state an acft circled low and dropped a parachute flare in the vic of the conference site at 0240, 29 Aug. UNC acft do not ‘circle low’ while dropping flares. I concluded, therefore, that your pers have again attempted, to fix a false charge upon the United Nations Comd.

“Your careless regard for truth is further illustrated by the recklessness with which you state that an agreement had previously been reached concerning an air space reservation above the Kaesong neutral zone. In your ltr you made the fol statement, among others:

“‘After the reaching of the Kaesong neutrality agreement, your acft still continued their unlawful invasion of the air above the neutral zone in repeated violation of the agreement.’

“In many other sentences of your ltr you refer to an alleged agreement between us regarding air space reservation over the Kaesong neutral zone. As you know well, the initiation of recent discussions between our liaison officers regarding the Kaesong neutral zone was at your instance. On 11 Aug you stated:

“‘I propose that the liaison officers of both sides meet again to discuss this question and to agree upon a draft of detailed provisions of neutralization. This draft may then be ratified by our two delegations as an agreement to be observed by both sides.’

“You are fully aware that no ratification of any draft provided by our liaison officers has ever occurred. You are fully aware that no agreement concerning an air space reservation over the Kaesong neutral zone has ever been considered, much less ratified by our two delegations. In fact on Aug 18, Col Chang submitted to Col Kinney a document setting forth proposed agreements regarding the Kaesong neutral zone, one of which was concerned with an air space reservation over the Kaesong zone. The record of this meeting of liaison officers reveals that Col Kinney accepted Col Chang’s document with the statement:

“‘We will study this paper and give you our comment the day after tomorrow.’

“The liaison officers have not resumed their discussions since that time, obviously, no agreement could be in effect. Yet, not less than eight times in your ltr of Aug 30, you made ref to an alleged agreement regarding an air space reservation over the Kaesong neutral zone. Such disregard for facts can serve no purpose other than to delay the resumption of the armistice conference.”

2. The above reply will be released to the press here at the same time.

  1. Not printed, but see supra.