Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75848949",
    "label": "Synopsis D, Korea - Diplomatic-Political Developments, September-December 1950",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848949"
}

{
    "id": "75848949",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848949",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Synopsis D, Korea - Diplomatic-Political Developments, September-December 1950",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848949",
    "collections": [
        "Dean Acheson Papers",
        "Princeton Seminars Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722151-05-01.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722151-05-01.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722151-05-01.jpg",
    "imageCount": 16,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75848949",
    "naId": 75848949,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "logicalDate": "1953-01-01",
            "year": 1953
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 7,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/653115/1722151-05-07.jpg",
    "mediaId": "040ba268f4fbb8a0",
    "ocrText": "S. TRUBLIT\nAND\nRECORDS\nU.S.\nSERVICE',\n(Synopsis D, page 7)\nDGA Denies\nOn the 22nd DGA denied that agreement had been reached among the\nAgreement\nWestern nations for a \"buffer zone\" on the south bank of the Yalu,\nbut rumors persisted that such a plan would be offered to the\nChinese Communist delegation when it arrived at Lake Success.\nThe British Foreign Office announced on the 23rd that the British\ngovernment had sent a message to the Chinese Communist authorities\na day earlier, assuring the Peiping government that UN forces in\nKorea had no design on China or Chinese interests. The announce-\nment said that the action had been taken unilaterally, although\nthe US and other friendly nations had been informed that the note\nwas being sent.\nDebate in the\nThe nine-member Chinese Communist delegation arrived in New York on\nSecurity\nthe 24th and appeared before the Security Council for the first\nCouncil\ntime on the 27th. An agenda dispute caused a postponement of the\ndebate on Korea until the 28th. Austin opened the debate with a\nstatement based on MacArthur's communiqué of the 28th (see Synopsis c)\nwhich referred to \"an entirely new war.\" Austin said, in part:\n\"Last week the forces of the UN opened a general attack designed\nto finish their assigned task of repulsing aggression and restoring\ninternational peace and security in the area. This attack has now\nbeen repulsed in circumstances which make it clear that Chinese\nCommunist armed forces totaling more than 200,000 men are now\nengaged in North Korea. They are supported by heavy reinforcements\nmoving forward from behind the international boundary. It now\nappears doubtful that the war in Korea can be quickly concluded.\nIt also appears clear beyond any doubt that what all the free world\nhoped was an intervention for a limited purpose is in fact aggression,\noutright and naked. The consequences of these facts must be faced\nsquarely by the people of the world, and more particularly by this\nCouncil.\nAfter repeating the assurances that neither the US nor the UN had\nany designs against any part of China, Austin then put to the\nChinese Communist representative a series of questions, in which\nhe raised among others the following points: (1) whether the\nCommunist intervention in Korea was \"really in the interest of the\nChinese people, as has been proclaimed,\" or whether it was on\n\"behalf\" of the Soviet Union; (2) whether it was still maintained\nthat the Chinese forces in Korea are \"composed entirely of\nvolunteers, and if so, how could be explained \"the 'voluntary\nmanner in which their supplies have been organized, dispatched\nacross the frontier, and distributed\"; (3) why had the Chinese\nCommunists ignored and set aside the \"reiterated statements\" by\nthe UN and by the US that \"there were no designs on Chinese terri-\ntory or legitimate interests\"; (4) whether the Peiping authorities\nwill respond to the central paragraph of the draft resolution\nbefore the Council, i.e., \"to refrain from assisting or encouraging\nthe North Korean authorities, to prevent their nationals or individ-\nuals or units of their armed forces from giving assistance to North\nKorean forces and to cause the immediate withdrawal of any such\nnationals, individuals, or units which might presently be in\nKorea\"; and (5) will there be peace or war in the Far East?\""
}