320.2/3–551: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations
762. Urtel 1226, March 5. Re ur conversation with Padilla Nervo and Grafstrom you may convey to him fol as representing present US views re peaceful settlement in Korea while making clear this does not necessarily represent formal US Govt position.
(1) US of course desires an end to hostilities in Korea in accordance with UN principles. For its part, US believes any cease-fire must be based on technical conditions outlined original Cease-Fire Comite and set forth its report Jan 3. US sees grave dangers in a provisional suspension of hostilities which does not comply with these conditions and which might not lead to permanent cease-fire on such conditions. If any indication is given GOC that Chi Commie authorities are interested in a permanent cease-fire, US Govt wld be glad to take matter under consideration.
(2) If cease-fire along above lines is put into effect there shld be discussion in appropriate forum of arrangements for settlement of [Page 210] Korean question in accordance with UN principles. US wld not oppose participation by Peiping.
(3) If asked about discussion of other FE questions, you shld indicate US always prepared discuss any outstanding questions with interested parties. US prepared, therefore, participate in discussions FE questions after cease-fire in effect. We may indeed wish ourselves suggest number of items for discussion. In agreeing such discussions, US in no way commits itself as to substance of any item to be discussed. US will not oppose participation by Peiping and Sov Union on questions in which they have an interest, but US cannot agree to any artificial formula for determining who is to participate in mtg, and will consider that any govt with legitimate interest in a question shld be allowed participate in discussion that question.
You shld also point out to GOC that US position as outlined above has in past been misinterpreted to mean US prepared make concessions re certain questions, notably Formosa and Chi representation, in exchange for peaceful settlement in Korea. This is false picture of US position which shld not be perpetuated or relied upon. US has stated in past that it considers that settlement of Korea question must be on its own merits and in accordance with UN principles and is in no way related to or dependent upon particular solution any other FE question. We have also stated clearly that US opposes any concession which amounts to submitting to blackmail or rewarding aggressor. In any discussions of other FE problems, US will take a position on intrinsic merits of particular question in light of all circumstances, but in no sense can there be any “deal” in exchange for a Korean settlement.
(4) If questioned as to US attitude re “Five Principles” approved Political Comite Jan 13 you shld indicate that you have no instructions and will have to refer matter to Dept.
(5) We see no reason to view delay in Peiping reply GOC other than as stalling or delaying tactic while preparations pushed for new major military offensive which may be launched at any time and see no political significance in Peiping failure to reply.
(6) FYI Dept does not object occasional informal and off-record talks with members of GOC but does not wish to have mtgs between USUN and GOC.
Public comment and speculation re such mtgs wld be disadvantageous both to GOC and to US.