396.1 GE/5–454: Telegram
Seventh Plenary Session on Korea, Geneva, May 4, 3:05 p.m.: The United States Delegation to the Department of State1
Secto 102. Repeated information Tokyo 22, London 120, Paris 199, Oslo 5, Seoul 40, Moscow 45. Tokyo pass CINCUNC. Department also pass Defense, CINCPAC, COMSAC.
Seventh plenary session May 4 consisted speeches by representatives Canada, Netherlands and Ethiopia.2 At conclusion session Prince Wan Thailand presiding announced no further speakers were inscribed. Suggested that Wednesday and Thursday could profitably be spent in informal discussions and proposed next plenary session be held Friday, May 7. Proposal accepted.
Pearson, head Canadian delegation, delivered eloquent defense of United Nations and US, attacked Molotov and Chou speeches and dissected North Korean unification proposal. Pearson stated Canada represented at conference because she is UN member and that responsibilities of conference derive solely from decisions taken by UN on Korean question. He stated that Canada has supported and remains [Page 197] bound by UN decisions and that Canada will not support any proposal which denies their validity or which would equate moral and political status of UN with aggressors in Korea.
Pearson quoted Molotov’s expression of sympathy with movements for national freedom and expressed hope that any people attaining freedom would do better than Lithuania, Bulgaria or Mongolian People’s Republic. Pearson also observed that right to be free does not include obligation to be Communist. He further remarked that it would be no contribution to Asian peace or prosperity, independence or dignity, if East Asian co-prosperity sphere were exchanged for Chinese East Asian co-Communist empire.
Pearson vigorously defended US against Communist charges of aggressive imperialism, citing Canadian experience with her powerful neighbor as proof of nonaggressiveness of US people.
Pearson explicitly rejected Communist charge that US began Korean hostilities and compared such charges with “those which came out of Moscow and Berlin in September 1939, to prove that peace-loving Nazi Germany had been the innocent victim of aggression by Poland”.
Pearson asked if Chou’s call for removal of foreign troops from Asia included Russians at Port Arthur. With respect to Chou’s injection of POW issue, Pearson stated that it is difficult to understand why Chou raised this issue if he sincerely desired to press forward to a solution of the Korean problem.
Pearson expressed suspicion that North Korean reunification plan includes “words and phrases designed to camouflage a scheme which would bring to Korea the reverse of freedom and independence”. He particularly attacked the proposed all-Korean commission with its built-in Communist veto. He asked several penetrating questions concerning North Korean plan: (1) Would “democratic social organizations” exclude anti-Communist or non-Communist organizations; (2) how would representatives of these organizations be chosen for this all-Korean commission?; (3) does phrase “terror groups” mean anti-Communist political parties?; (4) if no UN or other impartial international supervision, how can free elections be guaranteed in districts where bitter animosities, fears and local tyrannies make impartial Korean supervision quite impossible?; (5) “Does Nam Il really wish us to believe that representatives of North Korea feel they can work amicably and constructively on all-Korean commission with representatives of what he contemptuously calls the ‘Syngman Rhee clique’?”
Pearson stated solution for unification problem must be found in principles of UN resolution providing for union of all Korean people [Page 198] under government chosen by those people. United Korea, he added, will need some international guarantee against aggression and some international economic assistance to repair destruction of war.
In concluding Pearson referred to Colombo Conference resolution as “an important and constructive effort by group of free Asian states to assist in, and I hope take some responsibility for, peaceful settlement of Asian problems in their part of the world.” In unspoken reference to Chou’s allegation UN had lost moral authority in Asia he called attention to importance attached in Colombo resolution to role of UN.
Pearson’s final word was warning that “failure here may well necessitate further collective consideration by those who, as result of such failure, will feel increasingly threatened, of further ways and means to meet that threat.”
Luns, Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs, followed with a deliberate defense of the US and UN. He skillfully answered many allegations made by Nam Il and Chou En-lai in their speeches of May 3. He stated that reason Netherlands Government is represented is to maintain principle of collective security and to realize UN ideals that unification in Korea must not be achieved except by will of people freely expressed in secret elections. He reiterated Netherlands Government will “not be found guilty of having failed to confer full justice to this principle.” He likened general statements of Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, and DPROK to those introduced in eight years of UN debate by representatives of Communist Governments. He expressed surprise that same technique was being used in special conference for establishment of peace in Asia. Luns doubted any agreement could be reached “if everything which is in conformity with a dogmatic blueprint of Communist theory is being labeled as good, and everything which is not fitting in with this blueprint is being condemned in offending terms.”
In answer to the Communist allegations that US was guilty of aggression against Korea, he stated that four years of investigation and endless discussion in UN have made it abundantly clear who was responsible for war.
Referring to Nam Il’s speech on 3 May relating to character of 1948 elections in ROK, Luns expressed amusement that Communist representatives are “lecturing us with regard to democratic processes and freedom of elections.” He pointed out UN investigations found character of ROK elections satisfactory and quoted resolution of temporary commission on Korea adopted by General Assembly on 12 December 1948, which he stated erased all doubts.
[Page 199]Regarding Nam Il’s proposal of April 27 for free and democratic elections, Luns expressed view that such concept sounds democratic but in reality has nothing in common with true democracy nor with free expression of wishes of Korean people.
Referring to Chou En-lai’s vigorous attack on UN of 3 May, he stated that he failed to see what common base is left to this conference for fruitful discussion leading to mutually satisfactory agreements. He made point that if it was Chou’s intentions to split ranks of free world by making it appear that interests of Asian countries lie elsewhere than interests of non-Asian ones, or that countries which recognize PRC are divided on Korea, he desired to remind him of some well-established facts. He then referred to Security Council resolution of June 27, 1950 which determined North Korea as aggressor, supported by India’s vote; to General Assembly resolution of October 7, 1950 which reaffirmed aim of unified, independent and democratic Korea with UN forces remaining until no longer required; and the resolution introduced in Security Council November 10, 1950 calling inter alia for withdrawal of Chinese forces from Korea and assuring China protection its legitimate interests, supported by Norway and the UK. He added fact that this resolution was killed on November 30 by Soviet veto.
Luns also referred to fact that group of 13 Asian states, a considerable number of which had recognized People’s Republic of China, and all members of UN, had appealed to the Peiping Government not to allow its forces to cross 38th parallel. He cited General Assembly resolution of December 14 which brought Ambassador Wu as Chou En-lai’s representative to Lake Success to negotiate an end to conflict in Korea. He emphasized that Wu was ordered to leave by Chou En-lai on December [19,] 1950 and did not meet with UN Commission.
Luns used long Communist delay accepting principles December 3, 1952 General Assembly resolution submitted by India to offset Chou’s argument that US was responsible for delaying armistice negotiations.
Luns expressed hope that this misrepresentation of facts by Communists will not continue.
Ethiopian delegate, Zawde Gabre Heywot, briefly reaffirmed his nation’s loyalty to UN and to principle of seeking establish just and durable peace through collective security. Defined purpose of conference as completion task of unification of Korea by peaceful and democratic means as called for in UN resolutions. Noted that under UN sponsorship representative government had been established in South Korea and referred to ROK as only legal government in Korea. Made only general references to issues before conference. Said problem of elections was where and by what means they should be conducted. [Page 200] In this connection, called attention to fact UN Commission already in existence. Concerning withdrawal problem, merely stated UN had no desire keep troops in Korea indefinitely.
Comment: Net effect day’s session was strengthen picture broad Allied unity which had become somewhat blurred due to failure many friendly delegations respond promptly with strong defenses UN and US and with rebuttal Communist charges. Pearson’s analysis North Korean unification plan and reassertion basic principles of UN resolutions particularly effective.