Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 172: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
C–60453. For info, CINCUNC Adv msg HNC 683.
“Rpt for morning session 30 Dec 51 sub-committee on agenda item nbr 3.
“UN amplified answers to questions Hsieh asked previous afternoon. Stated “no reenforcing” was a limiting term, permits normal resupply and replacement but no increase, does not include replacement of articles damaged during period of hostilities. UNC explained that nbr of non-combatant nations invited is immaterial but that nbr of individuals invited by ea side on supervisory organization and observation teams will be the same. Hsieh asked, regarding principle 4, what is meant by ‘action at a political level’. UNC explained that wording was more expressive than Communist wording of proposal and does not change meaning of sentence. Communist commented on UNC revised proposal. Stated UNC had expressed agreement to holding of a political conference of a higher level during discussions on agenda item nbr 2. Asked that wording of first sentence of principle 4 not be changed if UNC new version had no intention of changing meaning. Hsieh accused UNC of intent to continue to introduce all types of weapons while Communists insist on no introduction of any weapons. Stated Communists “principle of no introduction [“] necessary for effective armistice. Hsieh claimed there should be no increase of mil forces in Korea and no replenishment. Insisted that last para of UNC principle 4, regarding aflds, was stumbling block, and a demand that absolutely cannot be accepted. Explained measure Commies had taken to dispel UNC fear of growing Communist air power. First: Enemy agreement on no introduction of combat acft. Second: Provision for inspection of violations by neutral teams in rear. Hsieh claimed Communists sincere, desired stable and effective armistice. Admitted that UNC proposal is a step forward but stated that differences still exist. Asked for UNC opinion for reaching settlement on these differences. UNC suggested that Communists study UNC proposal and amplifying statements, claimed enemy had offered nothing toward solution of remaining differences. Hsieh stated he had [Page 1469] pointed out differences. Agreed that no difference exists on fourth principle if UNC agrees to adopt Commie wording of 24 Dec. Insisted that Communist stand on interference in internal affairs is unshakeable. Advised UNC to reconsider if solution is to be reached on remaining issues. UNC stated that its proposal very clear and next effort up to Communists. UNC suggested recess until 1100 31 Dec unless they had anything to offer. Hsieh stated that differences still exist in fourth principle and that two para of principle is absolutely unacceptable. Communists agreed to recess until 1100, 31 Dec. Sgd Joy.”