Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 49: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Z–36696. Formal reply to General Ridgway’s Sept 6 letter.
(Peiping Radio, English, 0700 12 Sep–RP).
Kim Il Sung, Commander of the Korean Peoples Army, and Peng Teh-Huai, Commander of the Chinese Peoples Volunteers, today sent the following reply to Ridgway’s letter of September 6th.
[Page 907]“General Ridgway:
“Your letter of September 6th persists in denying and refusing to deal with the series of provocative incidents which had taken place since August 22 in violation of the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement and it still persists in its malicious and slanderous allegations that these incidents either had no basis in fact or were purposely manufactured by our side.
“At the same time you bring up a proposal for the changing of the conference site thus trying to run [turn?] away from yourself inescapable responsibility for the violation of the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement and for obstructing the progress of the armistice negotiation.
“We consider your letter completely unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
“The fact that the Kaesong neutral zone is inside the area which is under our command is being used by you to try and cover up the truth about the series of provocative incidents created by your side in violation of the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement and also to try to put on our shoulder your grave responsibility for these incidents. We have to say that these efforts of your side are futile.
“Precisely on this question of the Kaesong zone neutrality our attitude has throughout been one of serious and responsible adherence to the agreement which was reached as a result of your proposal that we both agree to refrain from any hostile act within this zone during the entire period of our conference, whereas your side has never kept to it.
“Let us now in the sight of all fair-minded people in the world examine the facts in the past two months.
“Since the beginning of the Kaesong negotiation your side has twice declared the meeting suspended without any consultation. Once on the pretext that the press could not enter Kaesong and once on the occasion when our military patrol strayed into the area of the conference site.
“To prevent the negotiations from being obstructed, our side on both occasions promptly found a reasonable solution for your side and immediately agreed to the proposal to make Kaesong a neutral zone.
“What about your side? Firstly, ever since the establishment of the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement on July 14, the Air Force of the United Nations Forces has never ceased flying along at low altitude over the Kaesong neutral zone. Later a more specific rule was arrived at on August 16 that no military aircraft was to be allowed over the Kaesong neutral zone, yet the United Nations Forces aircraft [Page 908] went on with their intrusions over the zone and hostile patrols and reconnoitering.
“According to the records in our possession between August 17 and August 30, the intrusions totalled 31 sorties and between September 1st and September 8th, 139 sorties. And though our side has made repeated protests your side has never ventured to give a straight reply on any of these constant hostile violations of the agreement.
“If the Air Force is not included among the armed forces which have to refrain from an hostile act within this zone, is there any neutral zone in the world worth talking about? If the Air Force is included then the hostile acts of the past two months in which United Nations Forces aircraft had intruded over the Kaesong neutral zone and carried out patrolling and reconnaissance are violations of the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement.
“Quite apart from the irrefutable evidence of witnesses and material the logic of the hostile air activities of your side is in itself sufficient to show that the aircraft which twice dropped bombs in the vicinity of our delegations building headquarters in the Kaesong neutral zone on August 22 and September 1st and dropped a flare over the zone on August 29 beyond any doubt belong to the United Nations Forces.
“Moreover, these provocative actions are still developing. At 0135 on September 10th a military aircraft of your side again flew over the Kaesong neutral zone and strafed the conference site. This has been investigated by the liaison officers of both sides and the markings that have been made by the bullets are still there leaving no room for denial.
“We now again lodge a grave protest with you on these unending provocations.
“Clearly the armed units of the United Nations Forces having during the past two months committed premeditated acts of provocation and troops of the United Nations Forces twice on July 16 and August 25 penetrated into Pan Mun Jom and its facilities inside the Kaesong neutral zone and fired at our military patrolmen. On two occasions on August 19th and 30th the South Korean troops belonging to the United Nations Forces penetrated into the Kaesong neutral zone and attacked and murdered our military patrolmen.
“Our side not only has witnesses and material evidence with regard to these two incidents but has also captured members of the reconnaissance unit of the South Korean troops which took a direct part in them.
“All the above facts are enough to prove that although the proposal for a Kaesong zone neutrality agreement came from you, you are trying to make it binding on our side but not on yourself.
[Page 909]“Although your present letter once again takes the assurance that the troops of your side could not possibly have violated the Kaesong neutral zone agreement nevertheless in fact constant violation of the agreement has been perpetrated by your troops during the past two months and yet you have refused to deal with any of them.
“Is not this assurance merely a deception? Of course, we have the power to exercise control over territory for which we are responsible. But as both sides have agreed to make Kaesong a neutral zone during the period of negotiation and furthermore, as our side has accepted the obligations involved in the regulations for carrying out the agreement concerning the neutral zone we have the right to demand that your side, too, accept these obligations and refrain from violating the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement.
“Now all that you have been doing is to try to escape the responsibility for all these agreement violations by making denials and claiming that these incidents have no basis whatsoever in fact and that they have been all deliberately fabricated by our side.
“But the facts are crystal-clear. The evidence is incontrovertible. Attempts of denial on your part cannot possibly hold water. You have, therefore, resorted to the device of diverting attention by proposing the change in the conference site so as to escape the responsibility for dealing with the series of provocative violations of the agreement and in order to manufacture a pretext for breaking off the negotiation whenever you want to do so.
“We must point out that you will not succeed in these attempts. Even if we followed the logic of your slanders that all these provocative violations of the agreement were manufactured by our side and spurious, why is it that your side has not dared to demand an inquiry into all these incidents or to make suggestions on how the matter should be settled or even to conduct a reinvestigation into these incidents, but instead has left it to our side to make repeated demands for inquiry into and settlement of all these incidents?
“In your latest letter you declare that you can still effectively guarantee that your troops would not possibly violate the terms of the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement and since our side has in practice all along guaranteed the carrying out of the terms of this agreement, why do you want to propose a change in the conference site?
“These strikingly obvious contradictions are sufficient to prove that your proposal on changing the conference site is in fact directed at evading the responsibility for the agreement violations and at creating a pretext for breaking off the negotiation.
“Without the slightest doubt ever since the talks began and since [Page 910] the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement our side has been playing its part in the responsible manner to guarantee that Kaesong has every qualification as a negotiation site. This can be appraised by the whole record of the Kaesong negotiations regarding these questions.
“If it were not for the series of provacations recklessly created by your side in violation of the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement, how could the Kaesong meetings fail to proceed?
“If only your side will conscientiously and responsibly deal with the series of provocative incidents and guarantee that the violations of the Kaesong zone neutrality agreement will not recur, the Kaesong conference site is well able to serve the purpose of endeavoring to reach a fair and reasonable armistice agreement.
“If your side does not conscientiously and responsibly deal with these matters no matter what place you make the conference site there is no reason to believe that similar and even more serious provocations will not occur.
“Moreover since it is clear that your side will not abide by a neutrality agreement is there any reason to expect that your side will abide by an armistice agreement?
“Therefore, we now demand of you once again that you put an end at once to the incessant acts of violations of the agreement and deal with the numerous provocations against which our side has lodged protests. Only so can the negotiations be resumed on a normal and equal basis. Otherwise your side will have to bear the entire responsibility for the delay and obstruction in the progress of the negotiations and their consequences.
“We await your reply.”
Signed Kim Il Sung, Supreme Commander of the Korean Peoples Army.
Peng Teh Huai, Commander of the Chinese Peoples Volunteers.