Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 99: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
C–59530. HNC–577. For info, CINCUNC Adv msg HNC 577.
“1. Meeting on sub-delegates this date on item Nbr 3 opened with UNC focusing attention to fact delegations were in disagreement on [Page 1348] (1) islands, (2) development of airfields, (3) aerial observation, (4) a single supervising authority for the armistice, (5) replenishment and replacement, (6) making the effective date of the armistice co-incident with the readiness to operate of the inspecting organization.
“2. Hsieh replied defending his 14 Dec proposal. He atkd replacement and replenishment. Hsieh insisted relation of neutral organ to MAC be one of reporting only. He opposed restriction on military facilities, saying his side had shown consistent, firm attitude against this point from beginning of negotiations. Hsieh called on UNC not to harbor suspicions of motives of his side, saying his side desired thorough peace. Hsieh took position whether his side did or did not rehabilitate its military facilities was strictly the business of his side. Hsieh stated UNC could be sure its attempt to restrict his side thus was categorically and absolutely rejected. As to aerial observation, Hsieh said this was merely a method of observation, and was not needed in connection with observing ports of entry. Hsieh said question of effective date was technical; pointed out that at the time of the signing of armistice it could be determined whether neutral organ was ready to go. He said this point could be solved by agreement at the time of signing. As to islands, Hsieh said they deserved no more discussion. He said:
- “(1) Both sides are on equal footing in negotiations, no victor, no vanquished; and that armistice negotiations should be clearly separated from political conference later,
- “(2) Charged UNC sought to gain fruits-of-political conference while delaying convening political conference. This statement apparently refers to airfields.
“3. UNC charged Hsieh not trying to negotiate, simply insisting on his view. Hsieh said his views were fair and reasonable. UNC repeated charge. Hsieh said UNC had no reasons to oppose his principles (1) and (2) above. UNC stated Hsieh either did not want to negotiate or did not have authority to do so. Hsieh asked what UNC proposed as a solution. UNC stated it refused to negotiate between illogic and logic, unreasonableness and reasonableness. UNC denied opposition to peace conference. UNC asked if addition of words, ‘this restriction means that there shall be no introduction of reinforcing military forces, equipment, and material’ to UNC principle 5 would render it acceptable to Hsieh. Hsieh asked if this meant unlimited rotation and replenishment. UNC replied yes, within [garbled group] restriction. Hsieh replied rotation and replenishment meant increase in strength.
“4. UNC asked, on hypothetical basis, if UNC offered islands formerly controlled by North Korea what Communists had to offer in [Page 1349] return. Hsieh replied UNC must withdraw from all islands in his rear. UNC charged Hsieh would not negotiate. Hsieh indicated his side might accept UNC principle 7, if UNC had no intent to deliberately delay effective date of armistice, Hsieh said his principles 5 and 6 were a compromise solution. He said there were two main points of disagreement.
- “(1) Rotation and replenishment (which he opposed) and
- “(2) Restriction on rehabilitation of facilities and aerial observation (which he said was totally inappropriate to an armistice conference.)
“Hsieh said it was UNC turn to make a move. UNC stated replacement and replenishment was not a UNC negotiation position but a firm intent, and that question of restrictions had been covered yesterday. Hsieh complained of UNC attitude.
“5. Recessed 1530. Tomorrow will continue to press for acceptance of UNC principles. Sgd Joy”.