Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Korea, Volume XXIII, Part 2

84. Telegram From the Embassy in Korea to the Department of State¹

Seoul, September 5, 1955—5 p.m.

301. Tokyo pass CINCUNC. Ref Embtel 299, Tokyo 195.² The following letter dated Sept 3³ was delivered to me today via Presidential messenger:

“Dear Mr. Ambassador: It was kind of you to transmit to me a memorandum⁴ expressing the views of your esteemed Secretary of State and I would appreciate it if you would forward to His Excellency the following:

Your memorandum dated August 29 was appreciated. My reply has been delayed to permit a careful survey of public sentiment throughout the country to ascertain the consensus of opinion regarding cessation of the current demonstrations which the American Ambassador has indicated you desire.

We have found an overwhelming public demand for the continuance of peaceful, orderly demonstrations until there is positive assurance the critical situation will be remedied. The feeling is widespread that the security of the nation and the citizenry is in imminent danger and the people want the rest of the free world to know that their anxiety will not permit them to rest. They do not want to be caught unprepared as was the case five years ago.

We have received assurances that the demonstrators will adhere to the spirit of non-violence which is a long-established tradition in Korea. However no one can guarantee that the general public will always manage to restrain each participant’s actions under extreme provocation though every effort to this end will be made. But people alarmed over threats to their survival as a nation and as individuals are not always docile or good-natured and we hope an early solution will avert any possible mounting of tension.

On the whole, I have looked with sympathy on the manifestations of inward concern by the people over their future, and I believe the people in friendly nations are taking into consideration that their legitimate demands are their inalienable right. Protracted demonstrations might create, it is true, problems related to retaining the public’s spirit within bounds.

Our people had thought that by their demonstrations, they were rendering a service to the United States since Korea and the United States have identical views and policies regarding democracy as opposed to Communism. The only force the demonstrators sought to exert was a moral force, a peaceful appeal to the world conscience. They were crestfallen and amazed to face American tanks and war weapons arranged against them to protect enemy spies whom you had promised more than a year ago to have removed. My people remember this promise, made in the presence of President Eisenhower and others, and it was expected that the United States would cooperate with us. As for the use of force, the idea had not entered the minds of the people of Korea. In spite of this, some officials and the press in the United States still insist on calling Koreans mobsters, rioters, and terrorists. This is not the way to calm the feelings of a wronged and wounded people.

I review these things in the hope that you will better understand our position and help others become aware of our good intentions.

I should add one point of utmost importance. In addition to the dissolution of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission as soon as possible it is imperative that we regain possession of three strategic and vital areas of Korea south of the 38th parallel now occupied by our enemies without our consent or concurrence. This situation gives them a death grip on our throat and our people cannot rest in peace with destruction so threatening and ever-impending.

I deeply believe that even for the best interests of America’s honor and prestige the infamous armistice should be declared at an end. Such a step has full legal, moral and military basis. You are aware, I am sure, that Korea is no longer under any obligation with regard to the Armistice Agreement.

It is my conviction that if you stand firm on this point the Communists will accept it because they want to demonstrate their ‘sincerity’ in this ‘peace offensive’. Even if they should not, the United States has the absolute right to declare the Armistice null and void by reason of the Communist violations which began the day the document was signed and have continued with contemptuous boldness.

As for the implication that the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission will not withdraw its members under ‘duress’, let me say we have nothing but respect for this sense of national honor. However, we ask our friends to compare the possible loss of our lives with the possible loss of face involved in retreating from an awkward situation, and I believe the matter will be seen in its proper perspective. Furthermore, if the truly neutral nations represented on the Commission view their passivity in the face of Czech and Polish betrayals of their task in the light of being an accessory after the fact, it will be admitted steps for immediate dissolution of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission are obligatory. If the truly neutral members of the Commission are duly sensitive to the ignominious treatment they have suffered so long from thousands of their Communist colleagues, they should rather draw moral support from public manifestations of indignation instead of being tempted to construe them as an intended ‘duress’. Failure to act will mean greater dishonor while heeding to the just demands of my wronged people will go toward reestablishing honor and dignity which cannot stand divorced from justice.

In the final analysis, publishers who acquaint their readers with their views are doing a civic duty and a praiseworthy one, yet few persons regard the resulting editorials as a form of duress. The man on the street who writes a letter which appears in a newspaper is exercising a right no right-thinking person will challenge. And when the public at large, lacking means of letting their wishes be known other than by personally marching in the streets together with others of like mind, so express themselves it seems prejudicial to brand such action as ‘duress’. Sincerely yours, Syngman Rhee.”

Lacy

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 795.00/9–555. Confidential; Priority. Repeated priority to Tokyo.
2. In telegram 299 from Seoul, September 3, the Embassy reported that during the 7 days since the Republic of Korea was asked to stop the anti-NNIT demonstrations, South Korean spokesmen had stated on several occasions that the demonstrations would continue. (Ibid., 795.00/9–355)
3. A signed copy of Rhee’s letter to Lacy is ibid., Seoul Embassy Files: Lot 59 F 180, 350.2—Demonstrations—1955.
4. Not found in Department of State files. Apparently the memorandum conveyed to President Rhee a request to stop the anti-NNSC demonstrations. The Embassy was instructed to make such a request in telegram 144 to Seoul, August 26, summarized in footnote 2, Supra.