803. Letter from Johnson to McConaughy1
I have received your letter of April 17 with regard to the next steps concerning the missing POWs.
I should have, perhaps, earlier expressed my thoughts on handling this. I have been thinking that the most useful, and also effective from the standpoint of public relations, procedure would be that of what might be termed a “whipsawing” operation somewhat in the past pattern. That is, take it up alternately in Panmunjon and Geneva along the pattern of our first exercise. That is, Panmunjon had not got any place on it, so I took it up in Geneva. Then Panmunjon took it up again and received some very small although entirely unsatisfactory results in that the other side did accept the lists and did make some small pretence of an additional accounting. I then, again took it up at Geneva, and it would now seem to me that it would be well for Panmunjon again to take it up before I make another move in Geneva on it. I am sorry that it has not been taken up again before now in Panmunjon. If and when they get no place at Panmunjon, I will again hit Wang with it in detail. In the meantime I will continue to take advantage of all [Typeset Page 1359] suitable opportunities to mention it as a still outstanding item of business. Perhaps it would be well for me to at least touch on it again at the May meeting.
I do not see any particular advantage in attempting to exhaust by individual presentations what might be termed the well-documented individual cases. They having accepted the list of names, we are always in position accurately to tell inquirers that the individual case in which they are interested has specifically been brought to the attention of the other side. You will note that the cases I have thus far used and I believe to be by far the strongest from the standpoint of such a presentation are those in which [Facsimile Page 2] Peiping had itself admitted they were at one time being held. I am under the impression that I have already used the best cases in this category, although there may be a few more. Not having the lists here I am not sure, but Dave who did all the research for me on this will undoubtedly be able to recall. In any event I will look into it on my next trip. If my belief is correct, I am now or soon will be at the point of citing cases in which the evidence is primarily unilateral from our side. While, I do not, of course, question the validity of such evidence and its usefulness in other contexts it seems to me that for Geneva purposes it is much better that I continue to make my stand on those cases where Peiping itself had acknowledged the man was being held. I have left him now with the impression that I may well still have a large number of such cases in my pocket. If I pull out any considerable number of other types of cases he will undoubtedly heave a sigh of relief that I do not have him on as bad a spot as he is with those I first cited. Therefore, I would propose that the next time I take the matter up in detail I cite any additional cases I may have in the first category, or if necessary refer back to those previously cited rather than taper off on what may be weaker cases from a Geneva standpoint.
I cannot think of anything that would be better calculated to give them the impression our sole purpose is to make a propaganda play out of this issue rather than a serious quest for information than the draft statement submitted by the UNC. While I well realize the difference in tone between the Panmunjon and Geneva meetings I should think that it would be worthwhile for the UNC to at least try a somewhat different approach on this subject. It probably will not produce any more results, but it certainly stands a better chance of doing so than the approach in the draft. Also, it seems better to me from the standpoint of the 16 and public relations when the record is published. I also thoroughly agree that any such statement must take account of the Communist “accounting” calling attention to its falsifications and inadequacies rather than simply ignoring it. I should think that this would be much more effective than building the case almost entirely around the fact that some prisoners were taken to Mainland China as in the draft, the apparent presumption being that we think that the PRC is holding all or most of [Typeset Page 1360] those on our present list. Our primary interest is not whether prisoners were taken to China, but in information about them. From my examination of the present cases [Facsimile Page 3] I would doubt that many of them involve their ever having been taken to China. While they may be holding back some information, my feeling is that in fact they probably just do not have the records, particularly in the cases of those who fell into the hands of the North Koreans. This does not mean that we should not keep pressing them, but I am not sanguine we will ever achieve any substantial results.
I also do not see the point in the draft of laboring the point on PRC belligerency and “volunteers” in Korea. They seem largely to have dropped this fiction and I do not think we should seem to be going out of our way to labor the point.
I would, therefore, suggest a complete rewriting of the draft and believe that Dave Osborn should be able to do so. He thoroughly knows the subject, knows my ideas on it, and I would be content with anything he produces.
I assume the UNC has now been informed of what I have last done at Geneva on the subject. I should think it would be well to arrange to keep it informed on a current basis and ask that they do the same. Because of the GA resolution I should also think it well to keep the record clear on keeping Hammarskjold informed.
I will, of course, be very glad to discuss the subject when I am in Washington. My present plan is to spend the week beginning May 20 in the Department and I hope to be able to finish everything in that week. It will be a busy time and I hope that between you and EE you can schedule it in the most efficient way. I leave myself entirely in your hands so feel free to arrange anything you think useful. I hope that the Secretary, Walter and Herman will be there at some time during that week.
I am leaving here May 8 for the Vienna EE Chiefs of Mission meeting which begins May 10. (There are no planes on May 9, the national holiday here, and also for various reasons I would prefer to be out of town on that day.) I plan to leave Vienna the morning of May 13 and arrive in Geneva the same afternoon. I then plan to leave Geneva the evening of May 15 for New York, and if my car is ready drive down to Washington May 16. If you want to get in touch with me while I am in Vienna you can, of course, do so through the Embassy there.
[Facsimile Page 4]Pat is leaving here directly May 10 and will arrive in Washington May 12.
Regards to all and looking forward to seeing you soon for a real good chat, I remain
Sincerely yours,
- Source: Department of State, Geneva Talks Files, Lot 72D415. Secret; Official–Informal. Johnson signed the original “Alex.”↩