795.00/8–2350
Memorandum by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Sandifer) to the Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (Allison)
top secret
[Washington,] August 23, 1950.
Subject: Revised Draft Paper on “U.S. Courses of Action in Korea”
The comments which follow relate to the revised draft, dated August 21, of the paper on “U.S. Courses of Action in Korea”.
We appreciate the extent to which the Comments contained in my memorandum of August 131 have been taken into account in the preparation of the revised draft. However, there are a couple of points to which we attach very great importance which are not satisfactorily covered by the revised draft.
- 1.
- Paragraph 28.—In the introductory sentence to Paragraph 28 (which was previously 26), we note that the following phrase has been added: “once the aggression has been brought to an end”. We are certain to be confronted with the necessity of developing our position and stating it publicly on the question of the future of Korea before the aggression has been brought to an end. It is quite clear from recent developments in the Security Council that there will be continued pressure for the development by the Security Council and even by the General Assembly of a program for the future settlement in Korea. It is essential that we be in a position to influence the development of plans for the future of Korea. For this reason it would be fatal to limit the statement of policy here by including the time element of [Page 632] having it done after the aggression has been brought to an end. We cannot delay longer than the consideration of the Korean question in the General Assembly a public announcement of our general policy with respect to the future of Korea. Accordingly, we urge most strongly that this phrase be dropped. Otherwise the value of the paper is to a very considerable extent nullified.
- 2.
- Paragraph 28 (d).—The recommendation in the earlier paragraph that Korea be demilitarized has been eliminated and it is now provided that the United Nations body referred to shall “advise as to the size and character of military forces and of internal security forces needed by the Republic of Korea”. We consider that an important element of the Korean settlement is the demilitarization of Korea. It is only on the basis of a mutual agreement between the contending parties to eliminate Korea as a source of military contention that there is any hope of obtaining a settlement which will establish peace and security in the area. This might possibly bring about Russian acquiescence in a settlement resulting in the unification of Korea. It seems to us that we should not envisage a settlement which would involve maintenance by the United States of strong military forces in Korea on a continuing basis. Demilitarization of course means that Korea must be assured of adequate protection by the United Nations.
In addition the following minor changes are suggested:
- 1.
- Paragraph 8.—”… and later by initiating action through the United Nations machinery.”
- 2.
- Paragraph 11.—”… thus confuting those critics who had raised the cry of ‘police state.’” Alternatively this clause might be omitted entirely.
- 3.
- Paragraph 13.—”… although this sentiment has not taken the explicit form of advocating use of United States forces …” etc.
- 4.
- As paragraph 25 (a) now contains: a reference to “the problem of Korea”, paragraph 25 (b) may now begin simply, “The problem can only be fairly and correctly resolved” etc., instead of with the present awkward and somewhat misleading formula.
Durward V. Sandifer
- Not printed.↩