Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Korea and China, Volume VII, Part 1

795.00/6–251

The British Embassy to the Department of State ¹

secret

[undated.]

Following is text of telegram received by British Embassy from London delivered to Mr. Rusk, June 2, 1951:

I agree generally with the document on armistice arrangements,² subject to reservations on (1) the opening paragraphs dealing with prior Communist acceptance of basic terms of settlement and (2) membership of the proposed armistice committee.

2. If it is intended to include in any document to be handed to the Chinese the two conditions mentioned in paragraph 1A of your telegram No. 1656, this would greatly reduce the chances of Communist acceptance and would not be favorably received either here or in any other countries. Even if this is intended only as a statement of UN requirements, it would be open to objection, since it implies that we would not be prepared to enter into any armistice unless we knew the Chinese would accept all our terms before any discussions began. The better course would seem to be the issue in the first place of a declaration of basic aims as suggested in my telegram under reference. If the Chinese made a favorable response, detailed armistice proposals, excluding paragraph 1A of your telegram No. 1656, could be communicated to them.

3. It is also important that provision be made for Chinese and North Korean participation in the armistice committee on the basis suggested in my telegram No. 2282. Without this there would be little chance of Chinese acceptance. I hope that the State Department would agree with this principle and would amend paragraph 1D to make this clear. In consequence the military observers referred to in paragraph 2A and B, with such armed guards as might be necessary, would be drawn from both sides.

4. My other comments on the document are:

(a) Paragraph 1B reference to the armistice being confined to Korea was included in the original American draft of last December. We objected to it then (my telegram No. 2331 to New York) and were informed that its inclusion was due to a misunderstanding, New York telegram No. 2055). Need this be included now?

(b) Paragraph 1D. The appointment both of a peace commission and an armistice committee seems unnecessarily cumbersome. Surely one committee, not necessarily under UN auspices, would be enough?

1. The source text is a typed copy of the original which has not been found in the Department of State files. References in this document to numbered communications are to British messages which are not printed here.
2. See the enclosure to the letter from Lovett to Acheson, dated March 31, p. 285.