Memorandum, State Department Summary of Telegrams

our (NAVAL AIDE. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE E.O. Guidelines, 9-9-85 6, 12005, Sec. March 3-002 1982 WASHINGTON January 4, 1952 State By Dept. DCB NLT, Date TOP SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION SUMMARY OF TELEGRAMS KOREA We have informed Ambassador Bruce in Paris that alternative language proposed by the French for in- clusion in the warning statement to be made in connection with a Korean armistice can not be accepted by this Government. The most recent French proposal, to broaden the statement so as to apply it, by indirection, to threat of aggression elsewhere, was telephoned to us yesterday. It is our position that the statement must be restricted to Korea where action was clearly authorized by the UN and that threats of aggression elsewhere must be faced by the UN if and when they occur. We point out that a number of countries who have agreed to the statement would completely refuse to accept the sentence proposed by the French. Our Ambassador is to indicate in the strongest terms that France, alone of the principal countries with forces in Korea, has not agreed and is holding up the program. The final sentence of the statement can not now be changed in view of the wide measure of agreement of other countries. The Joint Chiefs of Staff would resist any watering down of this sentence to which they attach funda- mental importance from the standpoint of the security of the UN troops. The armistice negotiations will probably remain on dead center until we get an agreement on this statement and we feel that it is indispensable that the French agree at once. (We have just been informed that Mr. Shuman, in reply to Secretary Acheson's personal message of January 2, has agreed to the text approved by the other interested countries.) HUNGARY Our special representative investigating the facts con- cerning the recent imprisonment of US flyers by Hungary has reported from Munich that his investigation thus far justifies the hypothesis that the US has a strong case for action against Hungary and the Soviets individually and jointly for conspiracy and against each as aiding and abetting the other in denial of justice, violation of international law and the Human Rights article of the peace treaty. In preparing our case for possible presentation to the International Court of Justice, our representa- tive sees no issue of law or fact which we should avoid. He believes every justification and defense so far asserted by the Hungarians and Soviets are TOP SECRET SECURITY INFORMA. TION