740.00119 Control (Korea)/8–2647: Telegram
The Political Adviser in Korea (Jacobs) to the Secretary of State
priority
304. Cite Zurc 1071. From Hodge, Brown and Jacobs. Fifty-sixth session of Joint Commission held for 2 hours August 26 with General Brown as chairman. Soviet delegation replied to US delegation’s proposals [Page 770] made at 53rd session on August 12 (Seoul PolAd 271, that date) to the effect that those proposals were unsatisfactory and counter-proposed:
(1) That oral consultations be dispensed with and Sub-commission number 2 study written replies to questionnaires while Sub-commission number 3 drafts recommendations regarding personnel; (2) that a provisional assembly be created from among democratic parties and organizations of 10,000 or more which fully support the Moscow agreement (would exclude anti-trusteeship parties and organizations and possibly others), half from North and half from South Korea (an important revelation of Soviet desires) on proportionate basis as to membership and influence; (3) that provisional charter prescribe how elections shall be held and (4) that the provisional assembly participate in working out charter, in forming government and conducting elections on free, equal and secret basis with equal right of all parties and organizations to nominate and electioneer.83
There followed some fruitless discussion on correct interpretation of Marshall–Molotov letters on question of parties and organizations to be consulted, that is, what is meant by upholding Moscow agreement. The Soviet delegation consistently held to its view that mere signing of declaration required by joint Communiqué number 5 did not overcome presumption of bad faith on part of parties and organizations which remain members of the Anti-Trusteeship Committee.
The Soviet proposal as anticipated limits membership in the consultative body to parties and organizations coming within their yet undefined definition of a democratic party. It specifically excludes all those which struggle against the Moscow decision, including those which they claim are members of the Anti-Trusteeship Committee. The American delegation will reject this proposal at their next meeting, August 28 or 29.84
Commission then discussed outline of joint report in accordance with which each delegation will draft its ideas and attempt on Friday morning, August 29, to combine the two drafts into one joint report. Soviet delegation will not, however, include anything in the report relating to incidents prior to reconvening of Joint Commission on May 20, 1947.
Reference last sentence, Deptel 177, August 23, Soviet delegation has released here Molotov’s letter of August 22[23?].
The Soviet rejection of our last proposal and the monotonous constant rehashing of the Soviet views along the line given in Molotov’s letter of 22 August, leaves few, if any, issues to discuss in the Joint [Page 771] Commission. On our part, the record is complete. The only unfinished task is the preparation of a joint status report which is almost impossible of agreement. Even the outline of this report is in dispute; it will be difficult to keep the Joint Commission in session after September 1. Effort to continue can only be justified by strategic reasons not known locally.
- Copy of translation of Soviet statement was transmitted to the Department in despatch 65, August 30, from Seoul, not printed.↩
- In telegram 305, August 27, from Seoul, Mr. Jacobs reported that General Brown had refrained from calling a meeting, while Subcommission 1 was trying to draft a joint report (740.00119 Control (Korea)/8–2947).↩