795.00/6–3051: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative at the United Nations (Gross) to the Secretary of State
1750. Re authority of UC to negotiate cease-fire in Korea.
Following is text of memorandum prepared for SYG–UN by Feller (UN):
“In its res of 7 July 1950 the SC, after referring to its recommendation (of 27 June) that ‘members of the UN furnish such assistance to the ROK as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area’, took the following steps among others:
- (a)
- It recommended that all members providing military forces and other assistance ‘make such forces and other assistance available to a UC under the US’.
- (2)
- [sic] Requested the US to designate the commander of such forces.
- (3)
- Requested the US to provide the SC with reports as appropriate on the course of action taken under the UC.
The res of 7 July, therefore, constituted in effect a delegation by the SC to the US of the military responsibilities involved in repelling the armed attack. Since the res of 7 July neither the SC nor the GA have given the UC any directions with regard to the conduct of military operations (asterisk). Such steps as for example, conducting air and ground operations north of the 38 Parallel, have been undertaken by the UC on its own responsibility.
[Page 606]The question now arises whether the UC possesses the authority to negotiate and conclude a cease-fire, truce or armistice.
The SC res of 25 June 1950 called for ‘the immediate cessation of hostilities’. This call was repeated in the res of 27 June. It is still in effect since it has not been modified or withdrawn by any action of the council.
The conclusion of arrangements for the suspension of hostilities has been generally considered by belligerents to be within the authority of military commanders. For example, the armistice of 11 November 1918 in the First World War was entered into by Marshal Foch, representing the Allies, and by the German commanders on the other side. In the Second World War the instruments of surrender which constituted the suspension of hostilities were entered into by the military commanders of the Allied Powers and of Germany.
(Asterisk) The only further direction given to the UC was the request in SC res of 31 July 1950 to undertake responsibility regarding relief for the civilian population of Korea. (End asterisk).
The UC, having been delegated the responsibility of military operations, is authorized, in accordance with customary practice, to enter into agreements for the suspension of these hostilities either by way of a cease-fire, truce or armistice. In making any such agreement the UC would, in effect, be implementing the resolutions of 25 June and 27 June. Under the res of 7 July the UC would, of course, be required to report any agreements to the SC, which could discuss and take action on them if it so decided. It should be noted that the authority of the UC would extend no further than the suspending of hostilities, including appropriate arrangements to insure against their renewal. It would not appear to have authority to enter into any agreements which would involve political arrangements regarding the future of Korea in the absence of further action by either the SC or the GA.
It is also desirable to clarify the legal position of the representatives of the 16 participating govts which have met from time to time in Washington. Under the res of 7 July the SC had recommended that all members providing military forces in Korea, make these forces available to the UC. The reps of these members are, therefore, assisting the UC in the discharge of its responsibilities under the res of 7 July. This group of reps cannot be considered as an organ of the UN, since the responsibility was delegated to the UC and not the collectivity of member states furnishing military assistance. The group may be appropriately characterized as a consultative body to the UC.”