Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 99: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
C–57344. For information CINCUNC Adv 454.
1. “Report of sub-delegation meeting of 15 Nov.
“2. Lee opened asserting UNC proposal on 2 agenda item is contrary to spirit of agenda and contrary to previous proposals of UNC. He stated UNC sought to reverse agenda but this couldn’t be done as it was result of agreement by both sides. Lee continued saying objective of UNC proposal was to delay an armistice even to the point of wrecking the conference and implied that its aim was to carry on the military adventure in order to maintain tension and enlarge the scope of the war. Turning to Communist proposal, he stated its objective was an early cessation of hostilities to pave the way for further agreements; that it put first things first. While UNC proposal violates spirit of agenda, Communist proposal does not and should, therefore, be adopted.
“3. UNC delegates replied each agenda item has 3 elements, where, how, and when. The UNC proposal on agenda item 2 fulfills all 3. It does not violate the letter or the spirit of the agreed agenda. UNC asserted Communists had yesterday disclosed the real but previously concealed meaning of their proposal. This attempt to conceal was not conducive to good faith but it was understandable in view of nature of the concealed matter, since it rendered Communist proposal even less acceptable. UNC asserted armistice is a body of agreements which when signed becomes basis for cessation of hostilities. Stated Communists were seeking cessation of hostilities on basis agreement on 2/5 of agenda. UNC asserted military action can cease only after armistice is signed, not on basis of partial agreement. This has been understood by both sides from the beginning. Said Communists now contradict the earlier statements of their senior delegate and themselves. They themselves recognize these contradictions by the phraseology of their proposal which admits continuance of operation is legal even though Communists say continued operations would be an expression of bad faith.
“4. UNC continued saying its position is that military action will cease on basis of an armistice agreement, not 2/5 of it. This has been clear to the world since the beginning of negotiations. Thus, there is no need for an otherwise useless demarcation line to assist Communists to expose this intent on the part of the UNC. The provisional demarcation line is unnecessary and irrelevant. UNC said we need not be [Page 1140] ashamed of our progress, namely, an agreement that when an armistice is about to be signed the demarcation line will be drawn along the line of contact.
“5. UNC continued since the duration of these talks cannot be predicted, UNC cannot and will not cease military action until armistice agreement is reached. But it desires an early end. The quickest way for Communists to bring about peace and secure their own objectives with respect to location of a demarcation line is to cooperate fully in a joint venture to work through remaining items of agenda. The question is: Are Communists sincerely interested in completing the rest of the agenda quickly and fairly? If they are, they will find the UNC has no objective but to reach these highly desirable objectives as early as possible.
“6. Lee asserted UNC subjective interpretation of Communist proposal resulted in distortion. Yesterday’s explanation could have been omitted since the proposal is self-explanatory. The proposal says that the demarcation line will be revised. There is no legal restriction on the UNC carrying out any military adventure until the armistice is signed. The UNC was seeking hidden motives in the proposal only to convince the people of the world to its own direction. The Communist proposal is so fair that this would fail.
“7. He continued, Communists have never mentioned that they are seeking a cease fire prior to signing of armistice, and the UNC should not assume it. According to the agenda the demarcation line must be settled during the discussion of item 2. The item requires the fixation of the line, but Communist proposal provides for its revision. Hsieh continued saying that the determination of the area in which both sides are willing to stop fighting must be a preliminary to the settlement of other items.
“UNC attacked inconsistencies between Communist expositions of their proposal made yesterday and those made today. Said these shifts gave impression Communists did not know what they intended. SCC [?] asserted today Communists say cease fire will not come into effect until armistice is signed. If Communists mean that, the line of contact at that time becomes the military demarcation line. Then the Communists agree with UNC proposal. Why then do they wish to establish a demarcation line now? It has no meaning nor function. What is the purpose of Commie proposal? If none, Communists should accept UNC proposal. If Communists mean something else, their proposal is not clear and today’s explanation is inconsistent with its intent.
“Lee replied the agenda item includes the fixing of the demarcation line. He said both sides have come close as to where to fix the demarcation line. As to the when, Lee said it must be settled during the [Page 1141] discussion of agenda item 2. Consequently, if neither side develops further military operations a de facto cease fire will result even if the agreement is not yet signed. However, he added, since UNC asks to go on fighting Communists proposal allows for revision of this line. UNC is seeking to reverse the ‘natural order’ of assembling an armistice agreement.
“UNC asked are we trying to settle item 2 as written or according to interpretations placed upon it by Communists? The item involves only where, the when, and the how, and the UNC proposal satisfied all 3. UNC asserted Communists have added to these a provisional demarcation line and zone not required by item 2.
“Today, for the first time during the current discussions, Communists delegates, particularly Hsieh, showed lack of aggressiveness and little enthusiasm.
“Adjourned 1430 to meet at 1100 16 Nov 51. Signed Joy”.