Memorandum of Conversation, by the United Nations Adviser, Bureau of European Affairs (Allen)



  • U.K. Views on GA Action on Korea


  • Mr. Tomlinson, U.K. Embassy
  • Mr. Hickerson, UNA
  • Mr. Johnson, FE
  • Mr. Wainhouse, UNP
  • Mr. Ward Allen, EUR

Mr. Tomlinson showed us an instruction from Mr. Eden which the Foreign Office wanted discussed with the State Department despite the fact it had crossed with a telegram from the Embassy reporting the latest US views. Its substance follows:

Mr. Eden recalled that at his February 4 meeting with Mr. Dulles,1 agreement was reached on the course of action to be followed on Korea at the GA, i.e., that we should “try not to take any major political initiative but seek to maintain intact the unity of opinion achieved over the successful passage of the Indian Resolution” and avoid controversial debate. At the same time, in Mr. Eden’s view, “it will be necessary for the GA to take note formally” of the Chinese Commie and NK rejection of the Indian plan. We may also need to forestall other initiatives (i.e., Indonesian or Latin) “not entirely in accordance with our own views.” It would thus be good to have a draft resolution ready and Eden suggests one covering the following points which would have broad humanitarian appeal:

The GA would “take note” of the rejection of the GA Resolution of December 3.
The GA would appeal for an immediate exchange of seriously sick and wounded PW’s.

The Resolution might also include other points such as a reaffirmation of the UN’s desire for an early armistice and confirmation that the offers of September 28 at Panmunjom and the December 3rd Resolution still remain open.

Mr. Hickerson replied that as Mr. Tomlinson was aware, we have long been favorably disposed to re-making our previous proposals for the exchange of sick and wounded, but prefer to do so directly by the UC rather than through a GA resolution. He recalled that Mr. K. Menon (India) had suggested this be done directly, in the course of his last GA speech. Mr. Johnson reported that a telegram directing General Clark [Page 788] to make such a proposal before the GA convenes was transmitted this afternoon.2 While we did not agree that some formal resolution noting Commie refusal of the December 3 Resolution was “necessary”, we are willing to predict that tactically some counter-resolution will be desirable and Mr. Hickerson indicated we would have no objection to including in it a general GA blessing of the exchange proposal which by then will have been made. In this context our previous objection, that it would stimulate undesirable initiatives from others, would not be valid. In discussing the possible counter-resolution, Mr. Hickerson indicated that we have now dropped at least for the present the idea of a special negotiating committee to stimulate further contributions, although that does not mean a lessened interest in getting more troops. As to Mr. Eden’s suggestion of also including confirmation that the previous peace offers remain open, Mr. Hickerson suggested it might be better to do so indirectly, after noting with grave concern Commie rejection, by expressing the hope that they would reconsider and accept either the December 3 proposal or one of the others made in September at Panmunjom.

It was agreed that UK thinking generally parallels our own, except that the UK puts more emphasis on a broadly humanitarian, non-contentious resolution which would get 54 votes, and we feel that is impossible in any event.

  1. For a report of this meeting, held at London, see telegram 3654 from Bonn, vol. v, Part 2, p. 1564.
  2. The reference was to telegram JCS 931724, Feb. 18, p. 785.