Lot 55D128: Black Book, Tab 152: Telegram
The Commander in Chief, United Nations Command (Ridgway) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
251320Z. For info, CINCUNC Adv HNC 648.
“Report of meeting sub committee on item 4. Convened 1100.
“Lee opened with a rambling statement which included the following points:
- “a. The source of the figure, 44,000 which is the number missing for the UNC POW list will be given soon.
- “b. Release all POW as soon as the armistice is signed.
- “c. UNC cannot continue to detain 16,000 POW’s under pretext their birth place is in South Korea, nor on the basis of their political beliefs. Neither can UNC retain them on basis of humanitarianism nor adherence to Geneva convention.
- “d. The 30 days expire very soon so a speedy agreement is necessary. UNC should agree to Communist principle.
“UNC replied in the following vein:
“While UNC is anxious to reach an agreement, Communists wasted 8 days denying the UNC information necessary to make a start on the problem, information which should have been provided during hostilities. The information now furnished is far from complete. The problem is still to find what is meant by “all” in the Communist proposal. UNC is not satisfied that all POWs held by Communists are listed. With reference to the 16,000, both Lee and Tsai have advanced the thesis that the place of a person’s birth is of no importance in determining his status. With this UNC concurs. Lee said Tsai also said that a person’s race or color are of no importance in determining his status. With this UNC concurs. But they say that the question of status is a question of whether the individual belonged to the People’s Army or the Army of the Republic of Korea? This, of course, is nonsense with respect to the nationals of the ROK now held by UNC. The only criterion for determining the status of these persons is whether they were or were not residents of the Republic of Korea on 25 June 1950. If they were, they are of no concern whatsoever to the Communists. They are nationals of the ROK. They will not be included in any exchange of POWs.
“Communists may for safety have taken some UNC POW outside of North Korea. Information to this effect comes from several sources. [Page 1445] POWs from the Communist forces have indicated that they have seen or heard of fairly large numbers of UNC POWs in China. Perhaps they are back in Korea; if not they should be reported as being interned in China. Can Communists furnish a supplementary list of POWs who have just returned from China or who have been interned in China?
“In summarizing, UNC has furnished full information of POWs. Through Geneva Communists have been given full POW information, even of the nationals of the ROK who might at any time have been identified with Communist forces. Thus, Communists can assess the whole problem of release and exchange of prisoners of war. UNC is still lacking vital information on upwards of 50,000 men who have been in Communist hands as POWs. UNC asks for a factual accounting for these people.
“General Lee replied as follows:
“About the 16,000 POWs. In this conference no political questions should be discussed. Accordingly, it is not possible to discuss the nationalities or birthplaces. The key to the solution of the issue is “which army one belongs to.” Political and administrative questions should not be discussed. To do so will only make the conference more complicated. The question of the 16,000 POWs is very clear. Again today UNC talked about the ratio of the missing prisoners of war. It is not possible to capture equal numbers of prisoners of war on each side. A full explanation has been given as to why the figure of the POW detained by Communists is smaller. It is because they release many POW at the front. This is policy. As to the question of having POWs in China for their security, I will now give you a clear explanation. During the hostilities we never transported any prisoners of war abroad and we have no prisoners of war abroad.”
“Recessed 1222 to reconvene at 1330. Sgd Joy”.