Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Geneva Conference, Volume XVI

396.1 GE/5–2054: Telegram

The United States Delegation to the Embassy in Korea

confidential
priority

Geneva , May 20, 1954—6 p.m.

90. Repeated information Department Secto 266, Tokyo 77. For Briggs and Dean; Tokyo pass CINCUNC; Department pass Defense.

1. Morning May 20 Pyun sent us text statement proposes make next plenary. Contains same 14 points transmitted to Seoul in our 84 repeated Secto 239 Tokyo 67.¹ Subsequently Robertson and Young met with Pyun and ROK delegation. Explained to Pyun next plenary probably Saturday and that Chou En-lai inscribed. Pyun said he desires present his 14 points as ROK proposal when next plenary held. Indicated proposal not ROK final position and they might accept changes later.

2. Again explained Pyun we regret his insistence making unilateral proposal because we are missing tremendous opportunity formulate and present single proposal all 16 can endorse. Pyun urged USDel endorse his 14 points which we said would be difficult in view his paragraph 12 and 13 on withdrawal although many points acceptable. Made strong efforts persuade Pyun delete proviso in paragraph 2 of his proposal and substitute “in accordance constitutional processes ROK”. Pointed out his language not only would be ambiguous to US and free world but also appears ignore ROK constitution, ROK Government and particularly functions National Assembly. ROK delegates seemed convinced this argument but Pyun disinclined make revision presumably because his language conforms with instructions from Rhee regarding plebiscite or special vote whether new elections should be held in South Korea for unification purposes. We still have impression Pyun has not transmitted 14 points to Rhee since Pyun omits reference North Korea forces which Rhee is so emphasizing.

3. Re Seoul’s 1208 to Department repeated Geneva 99, Tokyo 716² and Seoul’s 1202 to Department repeated Geneva 93 Tokyo 710³ USDel would point out Pyun’s proposal better than 6 points Rhee has worked out; namely (a) Pyun provides for UN supervision in his first point; (b) requirement UN withdrawal prior elections but instead formulation in his paragraph 13 like US views; (c) no mention of North Korean armed forces; (d) his paragraph 14 simpler than Rhee’s last paragraph.

4. We are concerned that if text Pyun’s 14 points made available to Rhee, he will instruct Pyun to amend less acceptable form. Therefore, while continuing efforts here obtain minor changes, we inclined accept Pyun’s 14 points as best formulation obtainable from ROK at this time. We would hold meeting 16 Friday giving Pyun opportunity present and defend his proposal to group. We estimate most of group will be willing give general support to all except Pyun’s points 12 and 13. We would in meeting 16 and private conversations urge others give wide degree support as possible, focusing on points most acceptable to them and remaining silent on others. We would expect give general support by speech in following plenary.

5. Under circumstances USDel reluctantly sees no alternative for time being but proceed to Pyun’s 14 points in plenary because:

(a) He is wedded to them and determined present proposal in plenary to extent he now refuses make revisions in already mimeographed statement;

(b) Except for paragraphs 12 and 13 proposal⁴ satisfactory in principle⁵ and even paragraphs on withdrawal have merit from negoiating point of view of ROKs putting tough position up to Communists, particularly if ROK delegation willing amend position later;

(c) Pyun’s proposals represent some progress and take pressure off USDel and other 14 for making some move on Korea after long delay and as long as US and ROK have not resolved difficult problem withdrawal in 6-point proposal;

(d) Going ahead as outlined paragraph 4 does not preclude also continuing attempt formulation single proposal 16 can endorse and present at a later date. This will take more time in view problem resolving paragraph 4 of 6 points, (Tosec 213 repeated Seoul 932 and Tokyo 2566⁶) and need for other delegations here consult governments when and if US and ROKs table joint proposal in committee of 9 or 16. Also conceivable after Chou’s speech Saturday we may have clearer picture how proceed in general situation.

Smith

1. Dated May 17, p. 278.
2. Dated May 19, p. 291.
3. Dated May 18, p. 281.
4. At this point, the word “probably” is handwritten on the source text.
5. At this point, the words “majority of Allies” are handwritten on the source text.
6. Dated May 19. p. 289.