795.00/11–852

Memorandum of Conversation, by Isador Lubin of the United States Delegation at the United Nations General Assembly

confidential

Subject:

  • Korea
[Page 592]

Participants:

  • Madame Pandit, Chairlady of the Indian Delegation
  • Ambassador Ali Yawar Jung, Indian Delegation
  • The Secretary of State, Dean Acheson
  • Isador Lubin, U. S. Delegation

Madame Pandit stated that the purpose of her visit was to continue the conversation that she had with the Secretary the other evening,1 relative to Korea.

The Secretary said that he had not yet had an opportunity to discuss with Ambassador Gross the results of the latter’s meeting on Friday with Messrs. Menon, Pearson and Lloyd.2 He then inquired as to whether she had any specific plan for the solution of the Armistice difficulties in Korea. He said that he had some idea as to what the Indian Delegation was proposing but that he had not seen “a piece of paper” which would permit him to study the proposal in detail.

In setting up any plan for resolving the Korean situation, the Secretary commented, it was necessary that any proposal should carefully distinguish between the Commission that had been agreed to by the negotiators, namely the Commission to be made up of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and Sweden and any other body that might be created. Moreover, in visualizing the creation of any new body to handle the subject of prisoners, provision would have to be made for a clear determination of its functions. In particular, precaution should be taken to avoid giving such a body any administrative powers which such a group, by its very nature, could not perform.

As a case in point, the Secretary mentioned the fact that any Commission of a handful of people could not take over the responsibility for the prisoners who were in the process of being exchanged. The mere mechanics of moving prisoners, feeding them and getting them to an agreed point, was beyond the capacity of a Commission. Moreover, no Commission could take the responsibility for the discipline of prisoners because in the event of a riot the UN troops would not take orders from anybody but an accredited officer. He pointed these things out, he said, in order to make it clear that each of us must know just what we are doing if and when we create a body similar to that suggested by Mr. Krishna Menon.

Madame Pandit stated that Mr. Menon’s ideas had been discussed by the various members of the Commonwealth and that some of those which had been incorporated in the Canadian proposal had originated in the Indian Delegation. She stated that Australia and New Zealand were not overenthusiastic about Mr. Menon’s suggestions. She added that they were naturally very wary.

[Page 593]

She also said that she had no specific plan for the solution of the Korean armistice difficulties, that she brought no particular suggestions with her from her Government in India and that she had merely been instructed to see whether there was some way of breaking the impasse and seeing an end to the bloodshed.

The Secretary then went into a detailed analysis of some of the problems that will arise with the signing of an armistice. He said that once the air forces had ceased their activities it would be extremely difficult to know just what was going on behind the North Korean lines. He emphasized the importance of having an armistice agreement which would be exceptionally clear and insofar as humanly possible beyond misinterpretation. Otherwise one side might be in a position to accuse the other of having violated the armistice and thus use such an alleged violation as an excuse for resuming the fighting.

Madame Pandit then stated that she would have such ideas as her delegation had discussed put on paper for a later discussion. The Secretary commented that this would be very advantageous, since it would thus permit a discussion of the meaning and nuances of the ideas contained in the proposal.

He further suggested that it might be best to wait until Mr. Vyshinsky spoke on Monday before trying to formulate anything in writing. It was possible, he said, that certain leads might be secured from Mr. Vyshinsky’s speech which might serve as a guide as to what should be included in any proposed plan or scheme.

  1. Presumably, Madame Pandit was referring to her conversation with Acheson on Oct. 29, 1952; see the memorandum by Acheson, p. 568.
  2. For a summary of this meeting, see Delga 150, Nov. 8, p. 586.