Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 46: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
operational immediate
C–58911. HNC 525. For info CINCUNC Adv HNC 525.
“At sub-delegation meeting this date UNC led off with statement strongly denying Communist charge of stalling, pointing out Communist refusal to undertake simultaneous discussion of items 3 and 4. After stating UNC was interested in Communist proposal, and considered it a step forward, UNC then criticized Communist 7 point proposal, point by point. UNC indicated general agreement with Communist principles 1, 2 and 4, though not with exact wording. UNC rejected prohibition on replacement and replenishment and rejected requirement to abandon islands. The UNC line of attack on Communist principles 6 and 7 concentrated on the vague relationship of armistice commission and neutral organ, and the divided, uncertain authority and responsibility. UNC did not attack neutral organ concept as such. UNC insisted on limiting development of airfields. UNC emphasized there are considerable areas of agreement between the 2 sides. Communists reply again charged UNC was delaying conference. Lee stated his side complained UNC comments showed plain intent to ‘interfere in internal affairs’ of his side, condemned replacement and replenishment, insisted UNC must withdraw from islands, rejected any inspection of rear areas other than by neutrals. UNC reiterated refusal to consider any proposal designed to bring about withdrawal by attrition. UNC stated its interest in ‘internal affairs’ was limited to increases in military capabilities during armistice, which we opposed. Recessed 1300. In afternoon session, UNC stated it was still studying neutral nations concept and could not at this time accept or reject it. UNC criticized other features of Communist principle 7, insisted on single armistice commission rather than dual organs. UNC statement on neutral organ follows:
“‘You asked for comments on your proposed principle 7. First, as we have previously explained, we maintain that a single supervisory [Page 1280] organ, rather than 2 such organs, should be responsible for supervising the execution of an adherence to all of the terms of the armistice agreement. We maintain this single supervisory organ should exercise direct authority over all observation activities, whether in the demilitarized zone or in the rear areas. Second, we believe observation should be conducted at communications centers as well as ports of entry. Your principle 7 limits observation to ports of entry. Third, your principle 7 limits the activities of observation teams to the scope of your principle 6. We have already told you clearly and finally that we will not accept the prohibition on rotation, replenishment and replacement implicit in your principle 6. Therefore, that part of your principle 7 which limits its application to your principle 6, is of course unacceptable.
“‘As to the question of representatives of neutral nations in the role of observers, that matter is under active and continuing study. There are features of this proposal which have definite merit. We are not ready yet to either accept or reject this concept. Certainly, however, the relationship of observer teams to the supervisory organ must be clear and direct.
“‘The organization supervising the armistice, whether a single organ or a dual agency such as you propose, must carry out administrative, judicial, and operational functions. By operational functions, I mean observation at selected points in Korea. Now were this organization only judicial in nature, it could function successfully under a charter—the armistice agreement—without need for any other directing head. Since the organization must carry out operational functions, such as observation, that part of the overall organ which executes the observation must be subject to direction from some responsible source. It is our belief that the supervisory organ of the armistice as a whole should have the authority and the responsibility to direct and control these observation activities. Your proposal does not provide such authority and responsibility to any supervising agency.’
“Agreement was reached on substance of UNC principles nbr 1 and nbr 2 of CX 58694.1 Communists again failed to agree to enter sub-delegation meetings on agenda item 4. Communists pressed vigorously for clear and unequivocal statement regarding neutral organ, insisting that progress of negotiations was halted until UNC gave some answer on this point. UNC replied answer would be given in due course. Communists indicated this was stalling, deadlocking conference, and insisted on knowing how long would be required for UNC to answer.
“It is considered imperative to the continued progress of negotiations [Page 1281] that we receive guidance regarding the neutral nations concept as a matter of urgency.
“Signed Joy.”