Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 73: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
C–59221. For info, CINCUNC Adv HNC 548.
“1. Report of morning meeting of sub-committee on item 4. Convened 1100. UNC opened inquiring if Communists are prepared to exchange POW data and to invite ICRC representatives to visit POW camps.
“2. Lee replied in following vein. At present the important question is not the exchange of data or the visit of POW camps by the Red Cross. It is the immediate release of POWs. We are ready to [Page 1323] release them within one month after the signing of the armistice. The UNC should reply to the proposal regarding the release of all POWs.
“3. a. UNC replied in following vein. Communists failure to correctly state item 4 of the agenda may account for their assertion that their single principle would constitute a complete solution of item 4. Item 4 is correctly stated arrangements relating to prisoners of war. This refers to all necessary arrangements not merely to a basis for exchanging POWs. Two of these matters are exchange of data on POWs and visitation of POW camps by ICRC representatives.
“b. At plenary session 27 Nov UNC requested POW data be prepared for presentation at the proper time. The proper time was yesterday. When UNC delegation asked for information yesterday it was informed that Communists had prepared the data but that it would not exchange it at the present time. Do Communists still refuse to divulge this information? What is their purpose? On what grounds do they deny to POWs this elementary right under the Geneva Convention?
“c. This is not a new issue. UNC has scrupulously complied with provisions of Geneva Convention on reporting of POWs. Communists therefore know number, identity and nationality of POWs and locations of camps in which they are interned.
“d. On the other hand Communists have not complied with Convention. On 13 July 1950 Communists assured the Secretary General of the UN that they would abide by the principles of the Geneva Convention. On 15 August 1950 they reported names and locations of 50 POWs; on 12 Sept an additional 60. That was the sum total; 110 out of the many. No further information reported to Geneva. Thus UNC delegation has no accurate information on POW through normal channels. Why? What is the purpose in withholding this information? On what grounds is justified this action in violation of an international convention which Communists undertook to observe?
“e. Both sides can appraise problem of release and exchange of POWs only if up to date data on the subject is available. UNC is prepared to exchange data on POWs. Communists have prepared data. Why wait longer to exchange it? It is formally proposed that both sides exchange at once the basic data on POWs without which no intelligent discussion of agenda item 4 can be conducted.
“4. Lee replied as follows: The basic and central question in connection with item 4 is to reach an agreement on releasing all POWs held by both sides. Without a solution of this there can be little progress in discussion of other questions. We must first decide the [Page 1324] basic question, then exchange the necessary data. Then, too, we can agree on releasing ill persons first and on an organization for supervising the exchange. But these questions can be solved only by solving the basic problem of releasing all POWs. UNC dodges showing its attitude toward this fair principle. As for Geneva Convention, it is observed; POWs are treated better than Convention requires. But UNC does not recognize that part of Geneva Convention which says once the acts of hostility cease, both sides must without delay release all POW. Why does UNC oppose this provision? Does UNC agree to Communist proposed principle or not? When UNC says fair and equitable exchange does it mean a one-for-one exchange? Does UNC mean it is unfair to release all POWs held by both sides? What does UNC mean when it refers to increasing the military advantage of one side by releasing all POWs.
“5. a. UNC replied. The two sides remain belligerents during the armistice. Communists themselves assert this in connection with agenda item 3 where they refuse to allow UNC personnel behind their lines on ground that they are belligerents. The people of the world will be gratified by Communists statement that they are observing the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs. But that Convention requires exchange of POW data through ICRC. Communists have refused to comply therewith. Why? On what grounds do Communists deny to POWs this elementary right under Geneva Convention? On what grounds is this action in violation of an international convention justified?
“b. The UNC agrees with the view of the other side that there is a natural order in the discussion of any subject. Respecting item 4, the exchange of data on POWs and the initiation of arrangements for visitation of POW camps by ICRC representatives are first steps. The first is a necessary preliminary to any intelligent discussion of item 4. The other is a fundamental right of all POWs under the international Bill of Rights for such persons, the Geneva Convention. It is a right too long withheld. Its early return is sanctioned by the humanitarian aspirations of all peoples everywhere. The preliminary matters of exchange of POW data and ICRC visitation must be settled prior to any discussion of details of manner of exchange. Discussion of such matters will logically follow agreement to simple requests of UNC.
“c. Communists state that they observe Geneva Convention in treatment of POWs. These are words. Their persistent refusal to admit ICRC representatives renders them incredible. Certainly the Communists are not observing Articles 79 and 88 of the Convention.
“d. If Communists are in fact observing the Convention why do they object to ICRC visitation? UNC considers that this matter and [Page 1325] the matter of exchange of POW data must be settled prior to discussion of details of release and exchange. What is Communist answer to formal UNC proposal that both sides exchange POW data now and that Communists allow ICRC visitation?
“6. General Lee replied as follows: UNC misconstrues his statements. Communists do not refuse to exchange POW data. They are not only prepared with the data for the release of POWs but for the actual release of all POW within 30 days from the signing of the armistice. What is important; to exchange data or to release POWs? What is urgent; to dispatch Red Cross representatives or to release POW? Under pretext of continued state of war UNC seeks to prevent release of POWs who are anxious to go home. Neither side has the right to refuse release of POW after armistice is signed. If that is humanitarianism the peoples of the world will oppose it and the POWs will curse it. If humanitarianism is only to exchange data on POWs and to permit Red Cross visits to their camps Communists cannot agree with it. Communists do not want to retain POWs but to release them all. UNC misconstruction of Communist statements will serve no purpose. When did Communists oppose exchange of data?
“7. UNC replied. There is no misconstruction of statements. UNC has proposed two necessary preliminary steps, both of which will be supported by all fair minded people. The Communists have refused to agree to both, to the exchange of POW data and to ICRC visitation. Is this not correct?
“8. General Lee replied. UNC so called fair proposal is a proposal to retain POWs after an armistice. UNC must give a direct and clear answer as to its attitude on this principle.
“9. Recessed at 1312 hours to reconvene at 1500 hours.
“10. Report of afternoon session will follow. Signed Joy.”