711.5622/11–2851
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Johnson)1
Subject: Possible Further Steps re Bomber Shot Down by Soviet Union.
We have again carefully explored, on the basis of Mr. Johnson’s memorandum of November 28,2 the possibilities of further action which would bring home to the Soviet Union and to other nations that they cannot with impunity unlawfully destroy our planes and kill our personnel who are engaged in UN action. In particular, we [Page 1246] have examined the precedent in the Security Council following the incident in August 1950, when one of our planes had by mistake bombed Chinese territory. Our Representative in the Security Council at that time proposed that a commission consisting of representatives of India and Sweden proceed to the spot and investigate the incident, and stated that the US would pay compensation for any damages assessed by this Committee. The Soviet Union, however, vetoed the resolution.
We have considered the possibility of offering a similar resolution in the present case. Careful study, however, has confirmed our original decision that this would not be a good idea. Such a commission would have to base its conclusions and its report on the evidence made available to it. The only witnesses for our version of the story—the pilot and crew of the plane in question—are presumably dead. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, could produce the airmen involved and probably hundreds of Soviet citizens who could be made to testify that they “saw” the US plane over Soviet territory and that they “heard” it open fire. The only evidence we could offer would be the instructions under which the plane was operating and such information as we had as to its whereabouts when last heard from. Since it would be most difficult to persuade a commission that this is conclusive evidence that the plane did not in fact lose its course and reach Soviet territory, we could not be confident of getting a firm finding from the Committee in our favor, and indeed it is not out of the question that it might find in favor of the Soviet story.
In the circumstances, we recommend against raising the question in the UN. We might give further consideration, however, to the possibility of making a protest and demand for redress directly to the Soviet Union. This could perhaps be done consistently with the UN character of the mission on which the plane was engaged, by having the US Government emphasize that it is making the complaint both as the Unified Command and as the Government whose plane and whose nationals were involved. We have requested the Legal Adviser’s Office to inform us whether there would be any legal objection to this procedure.3