740.00119 Control (Korea)/5–1147: Telegram
The Political Adviser in Korea (Langdon) to the Secretary of State
priority
100. Cite Zpol 625. “Reference Radio Moscow report transmitted by United Press under London dateline May 11 indicating Molotov has accepted proposals contained in General Hodge’s letter to General Chistiakov of December 24 as basis for reconvening Joint Commission. In his reply of February 28, 1947 to General Hodge’s letter of December 24, 1946, General Chistiakov repudiated his apparent prior partial acceptance of the principle of freedom of expression as contained in his letter to General Hodge of November 26, 1946, and as commented on in the third paragraph of General Hodge’s letter to General Chistiakov of December 24 by insisting in his proposal number 2 that those be accepted for consultation ‘who has not compromised himself by actively voicing opposition to that decision’. There may be other points to give rise to possible confusion. Unless and until a simple, clear, definite and specific agreement can be reached with the Russians to accord freedom of expression of opinion to Koreans regardless of their vocal expression of nonagreement with certain principles of the Moscow decision no concrete results can be expected by reconvening the Commission. Should the Joint Commission be reconvened without a definite and specific guarantee of freedom of expression local conditions indicate a large exclusion of rightist leaders and political parties which will result in largely leftist consultation and may interfere with the work of the Commission by creating local disturbances.
In view of the differences in viewpoint contained in the several letters exchanged with the Russians and the necessity to avoid further opportunity for misunderstanding, recommend that the basis of reconvening Joint Commission be as stated in paragraph 2 of reply by Secretary Marshall to Molotov’s letter of April 19 and that the agreement [Page 643] reached be specifically worked and transmitted by both Governments for guidance of the Joint Commission thus avoiding polemic references to previous correspondence. Hodge and Brown concur.[”]