Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
519785295
label
Telegram from Warren Austin to Secretary of State Dean Acheson
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
519785295
contentType
document
title
Telegram from Warren Austin to Secretary of State Dean Acheson
citationUrl
collections
Korean War Files (Truman Administration)
Department of State Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
519785295
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
10
logicalDate
1951-07-10
month
7
year
1951
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
photo
mediaId
e710d5a425657169
ocrText
413
INCOMING TELEGRAM
Department of State
TELEGRAPH BRANCH
14
SLORET
Action
Control: 4647
UNA
Rec'd:
July 10, 1951
FROM: New York
11:02 a.m.
Info
SS
TO:
Secretary of State
G
NATIONAL
P
NO: 59, July 10, 10:34 a.m.
ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS
L
DECLASSIFIED
EUR
STATE LTR. 4-25-79
FE
PROTECT
NOTH-13
OLI
PRIORITY
BYATHL
NARS, Date 7-24-79
CIA
ARMY
Re Korea.
AIR
NAVY
At meeting here yesterday afternoon with Jebb (UK) and
IE
LaCoste (France) present, Jebb raised problem of Korea,
PA
asking what step would follow if armistice should be
DCR
arranged. Gross said we have been thinking UC might report
armistice to GA and ask GA to take note and approve. UC
thereafter might send copy of report to SC. He explained
that we prefer GA to be action body because (A) we think
it undesirable to put Korea back on SC agenda; (B) post--
armistice, UC reports, would over next few months undoubtedly
deal with economic, political, and other matters as well
as military, and GA more indicated for this task; (c)
in SC, USSR would probably have to raise Chinese rep
question since it holds that SC is illegally constituted
without Peking Govt; GA already has its seven-member
committee on Chinese rep, so point could be ruled out
of order in GA.
As for GA's simply noting and approving, Gross pointed out
intolerable military situation that would arise if armistice
agreement had to be signed in field ad referendum to UN
body.
Jebb emphatically disagreed with Gross thesis that GA was
indicated over SC and said he would recommend otherwise
at once to London. He said, (A) SC created UC and so UC
reported to it; (B) if UC did not, there would be widespread
accusation SC being destroyed and GA put in its place under
uniting for peace resolution; (c) he did not fear Chinese
rep matter in SC since as soon as USSR vetoed. case would
go, and properly, to GA.
Jebb suggested USSR position on this point be ascertained.
If it had no objection to SC receiving armistice agreement
report, he felt reasons for using SC overwhelming.
LaCoste declared he had no instructions but was sure his govt
would favor course which would build up SC authority.
MAM:BF
AUSTIN
REPRODUCTION OF THIS
MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED