795.00/6–454: Telegram

The Ambassador in Korea (Briggs) to the Department of State

secret

1297. Repeated information Tokyo 771, Geneva 153. Reference: Embtel 1292,1 repeated Geneva 151, Tokyo 769.

[Page 1803]

This morning I delivered to President Rhee following letter dated June 3, first explaining to him orally contents thereof, plus further comments along line Deptel 956 (repeated Geneva 280, Tokyo 2637):

“Dear Mr. President:

“With reference to our conversation of May 26 and to your letter of May 29, 1954 addressed to Ambassador Dean, in particular to the question which you raised of possible revision of mutual defense treaty between our two countries, I have been asked by Secretary Dulles to convey following points to you as representing his views on subject.

“Security treaty between US and Japan, to which you referred, differs basically from mutual defense treaty between US and ROK in that former agreement imposes no obligations upon US and confers no rights upon Japan. That treaty gives to US right to dispose of its armed forces in and about Japan and to utilize such forces for certain specified purposes. Termination clause of that treaty serves to continue treaty in force until such time as both parties agree that other satisfactory security arrangements, either individual or collective, have come into effect. This termination clause, form of which was dictated by special nature of undertaking embodied in treaty with Japan, is thus necessarily in contrast to comparable clauses of mutual defense treaties concluded by US with Australia, New Zealand, and Philippines, upon which termination clause of treaty with Korea is modeled.

“Secretary does not believe that President should recommend to Senate or that Senate would agree to any termination clause which would make it impossible for US ever to terminate its treaty obligations to another nation without latter’s consent. He adds that he knows of no treaty undertaking by which US has thus bound itself.

“I have been advised that Department of State on June 2 conveyed foregoing views to Korean Chargé d’Affaires a. i. in Washington, and further informed him of impossibility of US Government’s agreeing to inclusion in mutual defense treaty of a provision which would commit US to support unilateral military action by ROK to eject Communist aggressors from North Korea. Faithfully yours, (Signed) Ellis O. Briggs, American Ambassador.”

President Rhee received information without any special indication interest. He asked me to thank Secretary Dulles “for his unvarying attention to Korean matters” but did not indicate what action he now proposes with respect to pending US-ROK treaty. I gathered Rhee may already have received report from his Washington Embassy of interviews on same subject at Department.

Briggs
  1. In this telegram, Briggs stated his intention to discuss with Rhee Dulles’ thinking as set forth in telegram 956, May 27, p. 1799. The Ambassador, however, admitted to being unsure if the Department of State regarded it as useful to press for the ratification of the Mutual Defense Treaty or to let matters ride. (795B.5/6–354)