761.5622/9–650: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Kirk) to the Secretary of State
priority
[Received September 6—1:58 p. m.]
623. As recounted mytel 622, September 6 after Vishinsky read note I said to him that the information at my disposal indicates that the question to which you refer pertains to defensive action by United Nations Forces operating in the Korean area in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and that it has, in fact, been brought to the attention of the Security Council for appropriate consideration. I am therefore not in a position to accept on behalf of the United States Government the communication of the Soviet Government on this subject. It would appear to be appropriate for any representations on this question to be presented to the United Nations Security Council.
Vishinsky. We are in possession of data, as I read in the note, and as confirmed by Soviet Government that this incident was not a defensive action but was an attack by eleven American planes on a Soviet plane making, as I said, a training flight between Port Arthur and Haiyan-Dao Island. Since it was a training flight the plane had neither bombing nor torpedo devices which testifies to the fact that the crew did not have any hostile intentions. Furthermore, the resolution of the SC of June 25 because of the absence of two permanent members has no legitimate force. The question as to whether the matter is a subject for SC is special question and cannot be subject for our discussion. As to your statement that it is not possible accept on part of your government any communication this subject, this is contrary to generally recognized rules of diplomatic courtesy. There were occasions when notes which were not in our opinion within competence of Soviet Government were accepted by us in accordance with rules of courtesy. Again I ask you to accept note to facilitate course of settlement of this matter.
Ambassador. Armed forces referred to are operating under command of UN under a commanding officer responsible to UN. Soviet Government has representative at UN and therefore has every opportunity to raise question there. This is not question between US and USSR and therefore I cannot accept the note.
[Page 701]Vishinsky. This is exactly a matter connected with the relations between US and USSR because no matter how it is represented about subordination of these forces to UN fact is that forces are American, under command American national who receives instructions from American Government. There is no headquarters UN in that vicinity. I cannot understand attitude Ambassador wishes to display towards Soviet Government. It is contrary to norms of diplomatic courtesy. For third time I beg Mr. Ambassador to accept note and convey it to those to whom addressed. Moreover this note contains appeal to US Government regarding an investigation and one can hardly try to avoid such duty.
Ambassador. Mr. Minister, in UN 53 nations have agreed to condemn aggression against South Korea. These 53 support UN action there with their moral and physical resources. US is but one of these and is acting under mandate of UN which is doing its best resist this aggression. Your problem is to deal with UN, not US, on this matter.
Vishinsky. In my opinion there is misunderstanding on this matter. Incident took place 140 kilometers from Korea which has nothing in common with operation taking place in Korea. It is generally known we have nothing to do with Korean events. Were planes active in the vicinity of Korea then point of view of Ambassador would be correct. This not case. As said in note, plane was making training flight in region of Port Arthur and Haiyan-Dao Island in zone of Port Arthur naval base which according to treaty well known to US Government temporarily belongs to Soviet Union. All this could be understood if incident had any connection with Korean events. It is strange that American Government does not want investigation action of forces acting under its instructions.
Ambassador. Your Government has a correct way of pursuing this problem through UN. It is question between USSR and SC. I do not see profitability of continuing conversation on this matter.
Vishinsky. This is not correct. This is not question between USSR and UN but between our countries for reasons I had honor to state to you, Mr. Ambassador. It is question of relations between our two countries. I cannot understand how such a position as taken by Ambassador was caused—one which excludes any other estimate but the one I have given (sic). It is contrary to the norms of diplomatic relations and practices of the diplomatic corps. But it is up to the Ambassador to act as he wishes.
Ambassador. I am sure you know I intend no lack of courtesy to you personally. I only wish stress point of view that this is not question of direct relations US and USSR, but between USSR and UN, and should be conducted through proper channels.
[Page 702]Vishinsky. This is not question dealing with person of Foreign Minister, USSR, but one which deals with relations between our countries. I would like to ask Mr. Ambassador if matter is put this way what military action was effected by American destroyer in vicinity 140 kilometers from Korea and 18 kilometers from Haiyan-Dao Island which is in limits of Soviet naval base? What kind of military actions? If not, if no military actions then it was just an American destroyer. Just because there are military actions by UN—just because an American destroyer shoots at Soviet crew, does it mean no other relations can exist between the two Forces? So as I pointed out there is no other connection between this action and military events in Korea.
Ambassador. US Government has already expressed its willingness to facilitate the conduct of investigation into incident in Manchuria. My Government is never against investigation of facts. It will welcome an investigation of this incident but this is a matter for the UN.
Vishinsky. I must state Ambassador gave no answer my question. How we are to act in UN concerns only us, just as this question concerns only USA and USSR. I beg you to accept this note—not you personally but through you to US Government. In my opinion you are obliged as Ambassador to accept communication addressed your government.
Ambassador. For reasons stated I cannot accept this note. Brief conversation then ensued concerning Vishinsky’s departure for Lake Success, I wished him bon voyage and departed at 1345.