202. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Walmsley) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Policy Planning (Bowie)1


  • NSC Planning Board Memo: U.S. Policy Toward Korea

IO did not receive the revised version of the paper on “U.S. Policy toward Korea”2 in time to prepare comments that could be useful for the Planning Board meeting this afternoon. While the revision certainly improves upon the first draft, it does not succeed entirely in meeting the various points which we believe must be taken into account in setting forth a revised policy statement on Korea based upon the adoption of Alternative B.3 I understand that the Legal Advisor’s office also has some problems in this regard. On the assumption that further changes will be made in the paper as a result of its consideration today by the Planning Board, I should like to suggest that representatives of FE, IO and L meet with a representative of S/P early next week to discuss the paper with a view to preparing a revised draft satisfactory to us all.

Since it is understood that the purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of the adoption of Alternative B rather than to carry out a decision already made, it seems to IO the paper should deal with the possible repercussions of the adoption of Alternative B upon other aspects of the Korean problem. For example, would our allies in the UNC regard themselves as still bound by the Joint Policy Declaration? Would our departure from the letter of the Armistice Agreement build up pressures that already exist for a settlement in Korea to an extent that might bring about a renewal of negotiations on unification under terms currently unacceptable to the U.S.? Is the U.S. prepared to meet proposals for adjudication of the legal question whether the action contemplated in Alternative B can be reconciled with the terms of the Armistice Agreement? What will be the effect [Page 404] on support for U.S. positions in the General Assembly and Security Council where, as in the Middle East, we may wish to insist on the scrupulous observance of Armistice Agreements? These are only some of the questions which must be answered before we can approach the next series of questions which would relate to timing, tactics and methods of presentation.

  1. Source: Department of State, S/P Files: Lot 62 D 1, US Policy Toward Korea (NSC 5702, 5702/1, 5702/2). Top Secret.
  2. In response to NSC Action No. 1660 (see footnote 11, Supra), a draft statement outlining “US Policy Toward Korea,” prepared by the Department of State, was submitted to the NSC Planning Board on February 21, under cover of a note from Marion W. Boggs, Director of the NSC Secretariat. This draft was discussed by the Planning Board on February 25. On February 28, a revised draft statement of “US Policy Toward Korea,” prepared by the Planning Board Assistants in light of the Planning Board Discussion of February 25, was submitted to the NSC Planning Board under cover of another note from Boggs. (Both in Department of State, S/P Files: Lot 62 D 1, US Policy Toward Korea (NSC 5702, 5702/1, 5702/2))
  3. See Document 196.