Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Korea, Volume VII

IO Files

Minutes of the Eleventh Meeting of the United States Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly

secret

New York, October 2, 1950—9:15 a. m.

[Here follows a list of persons present (46).]

1. Korea

Mr. Bancroft reviewed the committee developments on Korea. One question had arisen on a Chilean amendment (A/C.1/564) which proposed the addition of a paragraph reading “Also recommends the Economic and Social Council to expedite the study of long-term measures to promote the economic development and social progress of Korea and meanwhile to draw the attention of the authorities which decide requests for technical assistance to the urgent and special necessity of affording such assistance to Korea.” He indicated our preliminary reaction had been to accept this amendment, but that the Department was a little concerned about it and had urged the Delegation to dissuade Santa Cruz from pushing his amendment on the basis that the resolution already sufficiently covered this point. It seemed to Mr. Bancroft that this position might detract from the approach to Korean reconstruction contained in the Secretary’s opening speech, but he noted that the Department seemed to fear that too many promises would be made to Korea in this regard.

The Secretary believed it was better to promise the same thing several times than to promise different things; the Chilean proposal did not add anything new. Mr. Ross recommended strongly that the Delegation support the Chilean proposal; in his position as President of the Economic and Social Council, Santa Cruz could help us; he already felt that the British had shoved him aside, and Mr. Ross feared he might think the same of us if we refused this amendment, Mr. Dulles thought it much better, from the purely technical standpoint, to accept the amendment. He referred to the fact that he was lunching with Santa Cruz to try to persuade him to withdraw the Chilean item on strengthening democratic principles and thought support of this amendment might be helpful. Mrs. Roosevelt also hoped we might support the Chilean amendment since she believed it would help obtain necessary Chilean support on our human rights position in the Third Committee. Mr. Dreier¹ considered, moreover, that support of this amendment would strengthen our position with all the Latin American delegations. Mr. Bancroft recalled that the Department had not suggested that the United States should vote against the amendment but merely attempt to dissuade Santa Cruz from pressing it; if it came to a vote, we would vote for it. Mr. Popper suggested that the points raised in the discussion might be brought to the Department’s attention.

Mr. Dulles inquired whether the Chilean amendment differed from what the Secretary had said on Korean reconstruction in his speech. Mr. Bancroft thought that perhaps there was a difference in emphasis. Senator Cooper observed that Ambassador Austin’s speech in the Committee had carried the same thesis. The Secretary requested that the matter be taken up again with the Department, which should be informed that the Delegation saw no particular harm in this amendment.

Senator Lodge asked under what authority United Nations forces were proceeding to cross the 38th parallel. The Secretary replied that the resolution of June 27, which referred to the restoration of peace and security in Korea, provided the sanction. Senator Lodge observed that the adoption of this resolution would not hamper the military operation; he hoped that had been made clear to General MacArthur, since it was not clear to the public. Mr. Ross believed Ambassador Austin’s speech had helped to clarify this point.

Mr. Cohen thought it would be helpful for the Delegation to have some survey of the way other delegations interpreted the June 27 resolution for its own information and guidance. Mr. Ross stated that there was almost universal support for our position. Mr. Dreier said this was true of the Latin American states. Mr. Bancroft commented that there was also a general feeling that there should be expeditious Assembly action on Korea.

Senator Lodge asked whether there was any way under the Charter to find out who was guilty of starting the Korean war and to punish them as war criminals. Mr. Allison thought the item in Committee 6, dealing with the establishment of an international criminal courts might be helpful in this regard.

Senator Cooper wondered about the Indian reaction to crossing the 38th parallel. Mr. Ross thought India would probably go along. Mr. Bancroft explained that India believed we could cross the parallel for military purposes but that in the interest of peace also felt we should give North Korea a chance to lay down its arms; to date India was in agreement with the steps taken.

Ambassador Gross thought it unfortunate not to rush the Korean action through the Assembly and believed the Committee should meet three times daily until the resolution was adopted, unless there were major policy reasons against such action. The Secretary agreed action should be taken swiftly and asked how this might be ensured. Mr. Bancroft explained that some key states were not yet prepared to speak and had asked for the necessary time to complete preparation of their speeches. Mr. Dulles referred to the speed-up of meetings in Paris and thought it as important to end a war as to wind up an Assembly session. Mr. Bancroft cautioned that if we over-emphasized the necessity for speed, it might raise embarrassing questions as to whether we had authority to proceed as we were now doing. Mr. Dulles thought the Assembly should be geared to handle such matters expeditiously; he noted that Congress also wastes time, but believed that on questions of war and peace, it always acted promptly. In his opinion, a similar sense of responsibility should be developed in the Assembly. The Secretary agreed it was important to move fast. However, two things should be distinguished. On the military side, we did not need a resolution to proceed; the North Korean armies were disappearing. On the other hand, we would soon encounter the problem of what authority there is in the North and what happens in the future—this was the area in which prompt Assembly action was needed.

[Here follows the record of the discussion on the second agenda item: Human Rights in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania.]

1. John C. Dreier, Director of the Office of Regional American Affairs, adviser to the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. General Assembly.