Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 5: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
C–58450. HNC–504. For info, CINCUNC Adv HNC 504.
“Further to my HNC 503. Conference reconvened at 1500.
“1.
[Page 1215]“a. Nam Il made a statement along following lines. The rept objective of UNC stand on military facilities is to deprive one side forever of the right to defend itself while talking about the security forces of both sides. UNC wanton bombardment of peaceful towns has resulted in such serious consequences that Communist side must increase AA facilities including construction and improvement of airfields. This is security necessity—an inalienable right of the Korean people. No interference can be tolerated. UNC should understand this so that progress can be made in the conference.
“b. Nam Il went on to make a preliminary response to UNC closing statement of morning session as follows:
“The general principles and concrete measures suggested by the UNC are basically contradictory to each other. UNC asserts its principles are designed to enhance stability of armistice and increase prospects for peace. Why does it want to retain armed forces in the rear of the other side after demarcation line determined and thus place armistice in state of instability? UNC says its principles are military and non-political. Why does it insist upon free access to all Korea? This is a flagrant interference in internal affairs of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and cannot be tolerated. To insure against resumption of hostilities foreign forces must be withdrawn and peaceful settlement speedily achieved. UNC has no ground for saying other side is against limiting forces. UNC insist neither side introduce reinforcing armed units and personnel. Why then does it contend that so-called necessary replacements be admitted if it is sincere towards a speedy settlement of the Korea question? Why replacements after fighting is stopped? Not only should foreign troops not be increased, they should be reduced; not allowed to enter Korea any longer. If UNC favors restrictions against lifting the level of material and equipment why should it seek replacements?
“c. The scope of authority of the armistice commission should coincide with the specific content of armistice terms. For instance, it should control the demilitarized zone. Yet UNC, disregarding whatever armistice terms may be agreed to by both sides, demands free access to all Korea to conduct inspections. Why? I request an answer and reserve the right to make further comment following detailed study of UNC proposal.
“2.
“a. UNC replied in following manner. With respect to inspection … free access by joint observation teams is necessary for an effective armistice. They will observe military matters only. Their function is in no sense political.
“b. With respect to replacements .… UNC does not ‘ask permission’ [Page 1216] to exchange personnel on man for man basis. It merely informs the other side that it will from time to time remove certain units and individuals replacing them at its own discretion. This procedure will result in no increase in the level of forces in Korea. As guards are changed from time to time so it will change units and individuals. It has no intention of removing the guard.
“c. With respect to islands … during discussion of agenda item 2 other side refused to agree to reasonable adjustments in line of contact on grounds that it would not relinquish territory it held. It refused to make any adjustment elsewhere for withdrawal of UN Forces from the islands. It stated the islands were of little consequence. The main and incontestable argument used by the other side was that it physically occupied certain areas and would not give them up under any circumstances. The UNC agreed to the reasoning of the other side and to the principle that what it held it kept. Now the other side reverses itself. It wants the UNC forces to withdraw from territory under its control without adjustment elsewhere. The other side excluded islands from discussion under item 2. The UNC will hold these islands unless there is suitable adjustment elsewhere.
3. Nam Il replied that that he thought the 2 item was closed, the demarcation line and demilitarized zone established. Did the UNC want to reopen item 2?
“4. UNC replied that it had no desire to reopen item 2—that it had referred to the arguments used there merely to show why it was holding the islands.
“5. Nam Il replied that it was not right for either side to have forces in the rear of the other. UNC insistence in this point means it doesn’t want an armistice. His side simply cannot agree to this. Its attitude is absolutely firm.
“6. UNC replied that the demarcation line and the demilitarized zone are on the mainland. They do not, nor were they intended to include islands. The other side excluded islands from item 2 and the UNC will hold them unless suitable adjustments are made elsewhere.
“7. Nam Il made a statement in general as follows: The true purpose of the exchange of troops on a man for man basis is to continue during the armistice the introduction of troops from abroad. The true purpose of limitation of airfield reconstruction is to prevent Korean people from strengthening defensive facilities which are necessary during an armistice. The true purpose of free access is to interfere directly in the internal affairs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The demand to retain coastal islands constitutes a direct threat to the security of the other side and renders the resumption of hostilities a possibility. Such proposals and demands are unacceptable. [Page 1217] The UNC has no reason to insist on such demands unless it wants to delay the negotiations. Both sides should agree in principle on the points in the two proposals which they have already accepted and jointly work out the details while the plenary session goes on to item 4.
“8. Nam Il then proposed a recess until 1100 tomorrow. The UNC suggested that the other side make a careful study of the last paragraph of its morning statement. Recessed 1612. Joy”.