795.00/1–1051: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
Delga 503. From Gross. Re Korea. At 3:45 p. m., January 10, Jebb called to say there was considerable excitement last night when he received word that London had instructed UK Embassy Washington to make new approach along lines of paragraph 5 of statement of principles. Jebb said the instruction from London to British Embassy crossed Pearson’s message transmitting revised set of principles. Jebb has now received telegram from London saying that they were extremely interested in this revised statement of principles. (Delga 498)1 Jebb was instructed to get our official reaction and report it as soon as possible. He was also instructed to get in touch with Franks and concert with him.
I told Jebb that the Department had considered the paper, as revised by Pearson, and that we would not oppose it. However, our position was subject to two factors: (1) Timing—to which we attached considerable importance. This meant timing both with respect to promptness of presentation, and a short reasonable interval after adoption to give Peiping opportunity to reply; (2) We would attach importance to what would follow. We ourselves would assume that if this step failed, we would then be in a position to go ahead on the next step. Furthermore, that we attached importance to GOI agreement to this intermediate step as apparently Pearson also does.
I told Jebb that our military people were concerned about the wording in paragraph 2 relating to “lull in hostilities.” I said we would interpret this to mean a lull in hostilities pending the working-out of the details of a cease-fire arrangement. Jebb agreed to this interpretation.
[Page 54]Jebb said he understood from London that Pearson was going to send Hume Wrong2 to the Department to say they thought it would be easier for GOI to accept statement of principles if at the end of paragraph 5 the following words were added: “in conformity with existing international obligations and the provisions of the UN Charter”. That, Jebb said, was an indirect way of writing in the reference to the Cairo Declaration.
I told Jebb that this implied reference to Cairo Declaration and since this was outside the scope of my present instruction, I would at once transmit information to Department.
At 5:30 p. m. following a second telecon with Hickerson, Jebb called to say Franks was unable to see Secretary because latter had left Department, but was planning to see Matthews in order to obtain Department’s official reply to last night’s démarche from London. I took the opportunity to advise Jebb of Department’s reaction to language quoted above as a suggested ending of paragraph 5. I told Jebb Department’s position was that we did not like the language, but that if it was necessary to put it in in order to get GOI agreement to statement of principles, we would not oppose it, pointing out also that statement of principles was not our draft. [Gross.]