Telegram from Walter Gifford to Secretary of State Dean Acheson

29 NCT(ROREA/SD) 563 INCOMING TELEGRAM Department of State TELEGRAPH BRANCH D-X TOP SECRET SECURITY INFORMA 595 Action Control: 10919 Rec'd: December 24, 1951 FE FROM: London 12:24 P.T. Into TO: Secretary of State DECLASSIFIED SS 0 NO: 2857, December 24 Noon Authority FRUS 1951 VOL. VII EUR 1431-1432 UNA DCR By DOB NLT Date 3-5-89 EMSTEL 2850, December 21 Following is text of letter, dated December 21, addressed to me by Eden: (Begin text) "We have now (rpt 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 runs as follows: 'We declare again our faith in the principles and purposes of the UN, our consciousness of our continuing responsibilaties in Korea, and our determination in good faith to seek a settle- ment of the Korean problem. We affirm that if another act of aggression were to challenge again the principles of the UN The shid again be united and prompt to resist. Shid aggression be committed again in Korea, the consequences wild be 30 grave it wid, in all probability, not be possible to confine hosti- lities within the frontiers of Korea'. I feel bound to add that I wld have preferred to retain un- altered 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 pro- posed. 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 (ppt 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 (rpt not) to "another act of aggression" but to "a major breach of the armistice", and I think this point old appropriately be reconsidered in the course of consultation among the powers mentioned above. We also TOP SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION REPRODUCTION OF TH MESSAGE IS PROHIBITI