University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Foreign Relations of the United States

Page View

United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1952-1954. Korea (in two parts)
(1952-1954)

III. July 16-October 8, 1952: deadlock acknowledged, recess at Panmunjom,   pp. 409-557 PDF (57.5 MB)


Page 556


FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1952-1954, VOLUME XV
nations. The above-mentioned proposal of ours is in accordance with
the Geneva Convention and the provisions of the Armistice Agree-
ment. Moreover it has adopted your views regarding the delivery of all
war prisoners to the demilitarized zone to be exchanged. It is indeed -
the most reasonable solution of the question of repatriation of war pris-
oners which is the only question yet to be settled in the Korean Armi-
stice Agreement. Your side should agree without delay to this proposal
so as to satisfy the peaceful wishes of the world people including the
American people, for a speedy termination of the Korea war."
   3. UNC:
   "We -have listened carefully to your statement. It is our understand-
ing that you have clearly and definitely rejected all of our proposals. It
is also our understanding that you still insist on your proposal of 18
July which would require our side to repatriate all of the Chinese and
North Korean prisoners of war in our custody regardless of the fact
that we would have to force them at bayonet point. Is our understand-
ing correct?"
   4. Communists:
   "Your 28 September proposals do not present any new content for
 the solution of the question of repatriation or retention of war prison-
 ers. They are devoid of any reason and constitute no new approach to
 a genuine solution of the question of repatriation of war prisoners. As
a
 matter of fact, proposals similar to these had been submitted by your
 side as early as in February of this year and had [been] rejected by our
 side promptly. Therefore, your 28 September proposals are merely a
 new display of the old stuff which has been rejected long ago. To repa-
 triate all prisoners of war after the cessation of hostilities is a stipulation
 in the Geneva Convention and is also an explict stipulation in the draft
 armistice agreement agreed upon by both sides. What is worth pointing
 out in particular is the fact that in the agreed paragraph 51 of the draft
 armistice agreement, the definition of repatriation submitted by you
 yourselves also explicitly stipulates that repatriation is the act of deliv-
 ery of a prisoner of war from one side to the other side. The obligation
 to repatriate all prisoners of war as stipulated in the Geneva Conven-
 tion and the agreement reached by both sides must be fulfilled. Every
 pretext or trick on your part in an attempt to evade or reject this obli-
 gation is untenable and will be futile. The proposal submitted by our
 side today is in accord with the provisions pertaining to the repatriation
 of war prisoners of the Geneva Convention and the draft armistice
 agreement. It has, moreover, adopted your views regarding the deliv-
 ery of all war prisoners to the demilitarized zone to be exchanged. It
 provides a fair and reasonable, practical, and concrete method of fulfill-
 ing by both sides of the obligation stipulated in the above mentioned
 convention and stipulations. In accordance with the method the ques-
 tion of repatriation of war prisoners can be settled immediately, and an
556


Go up to Top of Page