Telegram from Secretary of State Dean Acheson to James Webb and H. Freeman Matthews
Images (2)
Document
| id |
id
183568228
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 2tablets
INCOMING TELEGRAM
Department of State
TELEGRAPH BRANCH
M-X
TOP SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION
287
Action
Control: 13813
Rec'd:
November 29, 1951
FE
FROM: Rome
8:30 a.m.
lufo
TO:
Secretary of State
SS
DECLASSIFIED
G
NO: SECTO 106, November 29, 1 p.m.
E.O. 12065, Sec. 3-402
EUR
DCR
State Dept. Guidelines, March 6, 1982
By
NIACT
HL NLT, Date 3-16-14
EYES ONLY WEBB AND MATTHEWS. s/s PASS DEFENSE.
Acheson, Lovett and Bradley discussed last night with Eden,
Lord de Lisle and Slessor problem raised TOSEC 63. Secy
outlined our present belief that in order secure armistice
in Korea we wld have to accept less than adequate inspection.
Since this wld increase danger to UN Forces, we wished offset
danger by issuing public statement pointing out any breach of
armistice wld create serious situation in which it wld be
impossible localize conflict. He pointed out that negots had
now (rpt now) reached point where Ridgway needed within few
days instructions on type of inspection he shld seek and
assurances re other sanctions which might be available for
protection of UN Forces. Said he knew this big question which
Eden cld not (rpt not) answer on spot but wanted give him
opportunity to review whole issue with US experts in Rome before
he reached decision this matter.
obrurou
Eden explored arious questions connection with armistice and
proposed statement. He was informed any statement wld have to
be public and that we had in mind US-UN statement, or one
by US supported by UK and not UN statement. Eden said he
thought issue boiled down to three distinct questions which had
to be answered:
(1) Instructions given Ridgway on inspection issue,
(2) Decision to make public statement, and
(3) Form of further action which might be taken.
Eden said it was important settle all three points now (rpt now)
and to get entire matter quite clear in our minds so there
cld be no (rpt no) later misunderstanding of what was agreed.
In connection with (2), he said he wld like to know just what
kind of statement we had in mind and hoped US wld work out
draft language.
Re (3),
TOP SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION
REPRODUCTION OF THIS
MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED
Relations
belongs_to