795.00/12–2451: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Secretary of State

top secret

2857. Embtel 2850, December 21.

[Page 1432]

Following is text of letter, dated December 21, addressed to me by Eden:

“We have now given consideration to the revised draft of the warning statement on Korea, amended as suggested by the US Govt. The passage quoted in para four of the memorandum enclosed in my letter of the twelfth December (Embtel 2709, December 12) wld, as we understand it, now run as follows:

‘We declare again our faith in the principles and purposes of the UN, our consciousness of our continuing responsibilities in Korea, and our determination in good faith to seek a settlement of the Korean problem. We affirm that if another act of aggression were to challenge again the principles of the UN we shld again be united and prompt to resist. Shld aggression be committed again in Korea, the consequences wld be so grave it wld, in all probability, not be possible to confine hostilities within the frontiers of Korea’.

I feel bound to add that I wld have preferred to retain unaltered the wording suggested in the memorandum enclosed in my letter of the twelfth December, but in view of the effort made by the US Govt to meet our point of view, my colleagues and I felt justified in accepting the amendment which you proposed.

Our agreement with the draft statement as now amended must, of course, remain subject to consultations in a wider circle, including the Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and South African Govts, to whom the US Govt have now given copies of the amended statement. I think, for instance, that there is much force in a suggestion which has been made to the effect that the warning shld relate not to ‘another act of aggression’ but to ‘a major breach of the armistice’, and I think this point cld appropriately be reconsidered in the course of consultation among the powers mentioned above.

We also attach great importance to having the UN associated with the proposed statement in an appropriate way, and I suggest that this also shld be for discussion among the above-mentioned govts”.

Gifford