252. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Katzenbach) to President Johnson1
SUBJECT
- Impartial Settlement of Legal Issues Involved in the Pueblo Seizure
You asked for our thoughts on possible US proposals for impartial fact-finding or legal settlement of the Pueblo case. Listed below are several proposals, which could either be advanced here or by Arthur Goldberg in New York.
Frankly, I doubt that the North Koreans would accept any of the proposals. Nor would the Soviets permit the Security Council to act affirmatively on them. But there might be some advantage to demonstrating confidence in our own case, while challenging the North Koreans to put up or shut up.
However, I think we should hold up on any proposals until we see the results of the talks now going on in Panmunjom.
If we do decide to go ahead with one of the proposals, we must make it clear that our willingness to proceed is dependent on the prior release of the crew and ship. To do otherwise would give the North Koreans an excuse for refusing to release either vessel or crew until the investigation or adjudication is completed.
Proposals
—A US statement that we would welcome an impartial fact-finding or adjudication of the legal issues raised by the Pueblo seizure. We would state at the time of the announcement that we are prepared to accept and carry out the findings and recommendations made by an impartial tribunal. If the tribunal finds against us, we will make appropriate amends; if it finds in our favor, we expect North Korea to do the same.
—An arbitral tribunal. For example, we could propose a three-member tribunal consisting of one arbitrator named by the United States, one named by the North Koreans, and a third named by agreement. (If no agreement, the third member would be named by the President of the International Court of Justice.) The tribunal would be empowered to reach its decisions by majority vote. (A single arbitrator or a panel named by the UN Security Council are possible variations on this theme.)
[Page 579]—The Security Council itself undertakes an investigation under Article 34 of the United Nations Charter. This proposal, of course, would be subject to veto but—assuming no veto—the Council could establish an investigating body which would be veto-free.
—The Security Council asks the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. We would state our readiness to cooperate fully in the proceedings and to carry out the findings of the Court. We would insist that North Korea indicate that they would be prepared to do the same. (This would be preferable to proposing that the case go to the ICJ for adjudication, since an advisory opinion avoids the issue of North Korean recognition.)
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL 33–6 KOR N–US. Secret. Drafted by Meeker and Berger and redone in Katzenbach’s office.↩