Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 88: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, Far East (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
C–59384. For info CINCUNC Adv msg HNC 561.
“Further to HNC 560.1
“1. Reconvened 1500 hours. UNC continued with refutation Lee’s morning statement. Included were the following points:
- “a. The Foreign Minister stated on 13 July 1950 that, ‘The People’s Army of the DPR of K strictly observes the principles of the Geneva Convention concerning the prisoners of war.’
- “b. Use of the word ‘strictly’ in the
statement of the Foreign Minister leaves no room for equivocation.
Observance involves, among other things, notification to Geneva of
all prisoners captured. Communists started to observe this specific
principle, submitting 2 lists of prisoners, 1 list in August 1950
and 1 in September 1950. Then they stopped. Yesterday, in
justification of failure to observe all the principles of the Geneva
Convention, Lee state that the announcement by the Foreign Minister
did not say that Communists would observe the Geneva Convention ‘in toto.’ Today Lee states Communists are not
legally obliged to observe it. Do we understand that they now
publicly renounce the pledge of the Foreign Minister to observe
[Page 1338]
strictly the principles
of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of
war? If they do not observe convention in
toto, which provisions do they observe and which not? To
this end UNC asks 4 questions to
which we would like answers tomorrow:
- “Question 1: Do you observe article 23 of the convention, which provides for the furnishing of information regarding the geographical location of prisoner of war camps?
- “Question 2: Do you observe articles 25 through 32, which provide for the physical welfare of prisoners of war?
- “Question 3: Do you observe articles 122 and 123, which provide for the prompt reporting of the name and identification of every prisoner of war?
- “Question 4: Do you observe article 125, which provides for the granting of all necessary facilities for visits to prisoners of war by relief societies and specifically recognizes the unique and special position of the International Committee of the Red Cross in this regard?
- “c. Communists said this morning that neither delegation would make demands which the other party cannot accept. What have Communists done? They have said in effect, ‘agree to 5 point proposal and they will turn over the list of the prisoners of war they propose to release.’ If complete refusal to give UNC this data unless and until it blindly accepts Communist proposals is not an ultimatum, it is difficult to perceive the difference yet Communists label this stand ‘fair and reasonable’ and say that because UNC refuses to accept, it refuses to negotiate. For its part UNC has made 2 proposals, both of which are necessary steps to orderly discussion of agenda item 4. Communists call the ‘unreasonable proposals.’ Exactly what is unreasonable about insisting on getting POW data?
“2. General Lee replied as follows:
- “a. We are now supposed to discuss matters contained in the agenda item 4. UNC should not have turned this meeting into a lecture room on international law. This meeting was not called for that purpose.
- “b. UNC misquoted and distorted the statement made by Foreign Minister, Comrade Pak. I quote ‘To Mr. Trygve Lie, Secretary General, United Nations Organization: In response to your telegram date 12 July I have the honor of informing you that the Peoples Army of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea firmly adheres to the principles of the Geneva Convention relating to prisoners of war. Signed, Foreign Minister Pak, 13 July 1950.’ Let us make a study of this text. Where is found in this statement that we would abide by all the provisions of the Geneva Convention? All that is contained in this statement is that he was willing to abide by all the good spirits embodied in the Geneva Convention. This is the statement that he sent to the General Assembly of the UN and to the people of the world. Based on this statement Communists have treated POW well and will release all POW after cessation of hostilities. In fighting they have captured many prisoners. They respected their lives. They treated them well. They have released them during the fighting at the front line. They have made broadcasts of their welfare and well being. They have had them write personal letters and [Page 1339] messages to their homes. They have expressed a desire to release all POW after the cessation of hostilities. Do these facts not show that they have abided by the best spirits embodied in the Geneva Convention? They have gone further than the provisions in the Geneva Convention in dealing with POW. This is a proper measure that they have taken based upon the established principle of internationalism which is far superior, in practice, to UNC so called humanitarianism. It is a measure only civilized men can carry out. UNC is requested not to misquote the statement of the Foreign Minister in the future.
- “c. UNC states that it abides by the Geneva Convention. If so, will it fulfill the provisions of article 118 to release the POW after the armistice?
“3. UNC asked again for answer to question, ‘in what way is our request for prisoner of war data unreasonable?’
“4. a. General Lee replied as follows: ‘In relation to the lists of names of prisoners of war and the Red Cross visits to the POW camps, Communists are prepared to exchange the lists of all the names of all the prisoners of war. However, the principle of prompt release and repatriation of all prisoners of war must be determined first. If such a basic principle has not been determined where is the necessity of exchanging the lists of names of all POW? What is the more important and basic question of the 4th item of the agenda? What is more closely related to the interests of the POW, permitting their release, or ICRC visits to POW camps? Communists stand is that POW should be immediately released and repatriated after the armistice. UNC stand seems to be to retain part of the POW after the armistice. The POW and the peoples of the world will judge which sides stand is more reasonable, more humane and more in accordance with spirit of the Geneva Convention. As a signatory of the Convention the UNC is unwilling to observe the basic principle? The immediate release and repatriation of all POW after the cessation of all active hostilities. By what right does UNC quote its Geneva Convention? Communists propose that this conference quickly agree on the principle of releasing and repatriating all the prisoners of war after the armistice.
“b. Lee then made a plea for a less formal procedure, more direct discussion.
“5. In the course of subsequent discussion he gave a direct answer on the ICRC. ‘As for the visits to the camps by the Red Cross people, that is out of the question because it is not specified and stipulated in agenda item 4’. While he indicated weakening on exchange of POW data he spoke of negotiatory procedure in connection with this item.
“6. Comment: Program for tomorrow remains unchanged, except that if Communist offer to exchange POW information now in return [Page 1340] for our removing ICRC issue as a bar to substantive discussion, we shall accept. However will make it clear that ICRC issue will be raised later during subsequent substantive discussion. Signed Joy.”
- Supra.↩