Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 82: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
C–59310. For info, CINCUNC Adv HNC 554.
“Report of meeting of sub-committee on item nbr 4. Convened 1100.
“1.
“a. UNC opened in following vein: Communists yesterday proposed a list of principles to be considered as a basis for developing an agreement on item nbr 4. Proposal has been noted and response will be made at the appropriate time; that is, when a suitable atmosphere has been created for substantive discussion of item nbr 4 by agreement on two essential preliminary steps. First, the exchange on the POW data which must be the basis for discussion of release and exchange. Second, immediate visits to POW camps by ICRC representatives in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Until such time as these two basic simple and humane requirements have been met, discussion of the Communists proposal is inappropriate. The basis of exchange, place of exchange and similar details cannot be discussed until POW data upon which such discussion must be based is available to both sides. Both sides must resume discussion of things in proper order and reach agreement on exchange of data and ICRC visits.
“b. UNC will not discuss substantive matters on item nbr 4 until [Page 1328] data necessary to an intelligent discussion is available. This data should have been available months ago. It is incredible that the other side states that it has the data but refuses to provide it. The people of the world will recognize that the responsibility for the failure of the conference to make progress lies solely in Communist obstinate refusal to disclose essential POW data. These people will ask themselves why the Communists ask the UNC to agree blindly to their demands as the price for handing over data which should have been provided regularly since 13 July 1950.
“c. Moreover, custom and usage which civilized society has come to regard as obligatory form the most important part of international law. Visits to PW camps by a neutral benevolent agency, particularly the ICRC are sanctioned by custom and usage. The Hague conventions gave formal expression to this practice of civilized nations. In World War I and II both belligerents exchanged information on POWs and permitted visits to POW camps by ICRC to interview POW, and distribute food, medicine and clothing. The right of ICRC visits was reaffirmed by the Geneva Conventions of 1929 and 1949. Although North Korea is not a signatory to either, Pak Hen Nen, its Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 13 July 1950 informed the Secretary General of the UN that NK would abide by the convention. Further evidence of Communist recognition of the status of the ICRC in POW matters is found in POW reports made to Geneva on 15 Aug and 12 Sep.
“d. Custom and usage and the aforementioned conventions establish certain basic requirements:
- “(1) Visits to POW camps by ICRC personnel.
- “(2) Interview of POW by ICRC.
- “(3) Distribution to POW of food, medicine and clothing by ICRC.
“e. The UNC has agreed to observe the Geneva Convention and has complied therewith. North Korea has agreed to observe it but has failed completely to do so. The convention imposes a legal as well as a moral obligation. The UNC insists upon the visit to POW camps by ICRC delegates. Only when the Communists have complied with UNC requests for exchange of data and ICRC visits to POW camps can the discussion of release and exchange of POW make progress.
“2. General Lee replied as follows:
“a. The UNC did not answer the question asked yesterday. The UNC expressed no opinion on the Communists proposal of releasing all POW. So long as this question is unsettled why is POW data necessary? The central question is the release of POW. The conference is not to arrange visits to prison camps but to arrange the release of POW in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
“b. UNC verified that Communists were discussing 1949 convention.
[Page 1329]“c. Lee continued: Prisoners should be released when hostilities are over, not retained as slaves. UNC boasts of humanitarianism but would retain POW. Those who represent the new epoch insist on their release.
“d. UNC destroyed peaceful towns of Korea; no one believes in its humanitarianism. UNC refuses to discuss basic principles. The responsibility for delaying the conference inevitably falls on the UNC. Does UNC delegation represent the military authorities or the Red Cross Society, what data is necessary for determining the principle of releasing all the POWs of both sides? Is the armistice impossible unless the Red Cross visits the POW camps? Why does the UNC refuse to discuss the basic principle of releasing POW?
“e. Col Tsai made a statement generally as follows. When the UNC objects to the Communist proposal it is not qualified to quote the Geneva Convention. This committee is supposed to negotiate arrangements relating to POW. What reasonable proposal has UNC put forth? It puts the cart before the horse. It avoids discussion of the real issues of agenda item 4. The UNC raises specific requirements not related to that item and states that it will not discuss the substantive question until these requirements are met. The sub-committee is constituted on an equal basis. Neither side can force the other. If the UNC does not intend to suspend the conference, it should cease unreasonable statements and use logic and reason. The UNC mentions item 4 occasionally. However it does not want to settle these things immediately. It wants to appear civilized and humanitarian. This pose is easily exposed. The Communist proposal to release all prisoners is a touchstone by which humanitarianism can be tested. The UNC would retain POW after the armistice. Where is its humanity, KGI refuses to discuss release of all POWs. Where is its concern? UNC humanitarianism, civilization and concern are false. Communist proposal is fair, equitable and clear. It seeks an early solution of agenda item 4. It is a stand born of genuine concern for POWs, of true humanitarianism. UNC has no reason to refuse to discuss this proposal.
“General Lee took it up as follows: UNC refuses to answer Communists questions or to respond to their proposal. Is that an attitude for settling item 4 or for delaying the conference? The UNC presented its 2 requests. Does it mean that the UNC cannot discuss item 4 unless the requests are accepted? Does it mean that UNC wants to suspend the conference now?
“3. UNC replied: Communists continually misquote item 4. It reads ‘arrangements relating to POW’. The question of release and exchange is only one of these arrangements. The UNC does not intend or desire to suspend the conference. It does intend and desire to have it proceed [Page 1330] in a logical, orderly fashion. It has proposed 2 simple and essential procedural steps as a preliminary to further discussions. These 2 simple logical and humane steps are supported by all peoples everywhere, but the Communists refuse to accept them.
“4. General Lee reiterated that the important question was release of all POW: That UNC refused to respond to the proposal. UNC insists unilaterally upon details unrelated to main question. If UNC does not abandon this attitude no progress can be made.
“5. Meeting recessed at 1355 to resume at 1500 hours. Sgd Joy”.