330/5–2052
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Hickerson) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Matthews) 1
Subject:
- Security Council Consideration of Communist Bacteriological Warfare Charges.
I have been giving thought to the possibility of action in the United Nations to meet the sustained and sensational Communist charges that [Page 211] the United Nations forces are engaged in bacteriological warfare in Korea.
Such action might be taken in the Security Council, where the Russians would in all probability veto a resolution proposing the creation of an impartial commission of inquiry and a subsequent resolution condemning the Communists for frustrating such investigation.
Tentative outline drafts of the two resolutions are attached.2
There are two alternative lines of procedure which could be pursued in bringing the matter to the Security Council’s attention.
One opportunity will arise when Malik assumes the Security Council Presidency, in the month of June, and when the first report of the Disarmament Commission comes before the Security Council. In the Disarmament Commission, Malik has repeatedly sought to debate the bacteriological warfare question. If, as we expect, Malik repeats the Communist charges in the Security Council, I feel that we should not hesitate to counter these charges by introducing a separate agenda item leading to the passage of resolutions such as those attached.
A second possibility would be to take the initiative in advance of the Security Council debate on the Disarmament Commission report, submitting our complaint and immediately circulating the first resolution. If this is done, it would probably be preferable to start the proceedings before Malik assumes the presidency.
Certain questions must be resolved before a decision can be taken on this course:
- 1.
- Is the Communist campaign tapering off and will our initiative serve to revive it? Our propaganda and intelligence personnel estimate that the campaign is not dying down and that it may reach a high point in June. A Soviet veto would therefore be useful to us.
- 2.
- Are we prepared to carry on a long debate in the Security Council on all aspects of the Korean problem and perhaps other Far Eastern issues as well? We must assume that Malik will attempt to broaden the discussion in this way, including reference to prisoners of war, withdrawal of troops, charges of atrocities, conduct of armistice negotiations, etc. On balance, I do not believe we would find such a discussion harmful at present.
- 3.
- Would our friends in the Security Council and the other states with forces in Korea support an initiative of this kind? It would be necessary to consult with the British, the old Commonwealth, the French, Dutch, Greeks and Turks—the Security Council members with troops in Korea. We would have to inform Brazil, Chile, Pakistan and China before we move. India should also be informed before action is taken.
In deciding whether to take the initiative, we must take into account our discussions with the Indians, as well as any approaches we may wish to make to the Russians.
My own inclination would be to initiate the suggested consultations with friendly Security Council members at once.
- This memorandum was also addressed to Bohlen, Nitze, Allison, Johnson, Sargeant, McFall, and Armstrong.↩
- These tentative outline drafts were not attached to the source text; for the texts of the resolutions as they were introduced into the Security Council, see UN documents S/2671 and S/2688 printed in the Department of State Bulletin, July 7 and 28, 1952, pp. 37 and 159, respectively.↩