795.00/5–1752: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Bowles) to the Department of State
4282. In conversation with Bajpai today he opened up question of Korea.
Bajpai stated great deal had been going on last two or three days and he would like give me full facts.…
- 1.
- On May 10 Madam Pandit cabled Nehru after talking to Chou En-Lai she was convinced Chinese Communists really wanted truce in Korea. She admitted possibility trickery but stated he emphasized so hard desire of Communist Government for some solution she personally inclined believe him.
- 2.
- Chou En-lai, however, stated his opinion Americans were anxious carry on war and if possible to expand it in hopes that this might split Communist China from Soviet Union.
- 3.
- Madam Pandit expressed strong opinion to Chou En-lai that Americans were fully anxious for peace, that they had no desire to [Page 207] attack anyone and that if both sides generally wanted truce it should be easy to establish it.
- 4.
- Chou En-lai stated his government could not accept return of only 70,000 prisoners but hinted compromise might be reached at 100,000.
- 5.
- Madam Pandit urged her government to do everything possible develop some compromise which might be acceptable both sides.
- 6.
- On Monday, May 12, after discussion with Bajpai Nehru sent cable to Madam Pandit stating in his opinion Chinese Government position on promises was wholly unsound; that it was wrong arbitrarily to condemn some prisoners to one side and others to other; hence that it was not actual number of prisoners returned that was important but the method by which the choices were made. Cable emphasized that Nehru is giving his views to her for background only and that GOI argument with Chou En-lai might only harden situation generally.
- 7.
- Nehru’s cable then suggested that perhaps all prisoners could be placed under neutral control, that Communists might be given opportunity to talk to them; and every method developed to see that completely friendly decision was made in each case. However, he urged Madam Pandit to propose this as coming from her and not from him because it otherwise might be assumed that he was simply forwarding suggestion from US Government. Nehru asked Madam Pandit to immediately reopen subject on her own initiative again Chou En-lai.
- 8.
- On Wednesday, May 14, cable arrived from Panikkar stating Madam Pandit was leaving Peking and that she agreed with him it would be mistake to reopen subject with Chou En-lai following Eden speech in House of Commons and President Truman’s speech of May 71 which in opinion of Chinese Government closed door to any agreement.
- 9.
- On May 15 Nehru cabled Panikkar … that he had received most reassuring message2 from Eden and that if Madam Pandit left Peking, Panikkar himself was instructed carry on discussions in line with Nehru’s previous cable.
Bajpai asked for my comments. I said I felt deeply appreciative of what GOI was trying to do and I thought their position was proper and reasonable. I again went over all facts on prisoners of war issue including missing 50,000 UN prisoners said to be captured by Communists. I told him that under no circumstances would we depart from moral position involving forced repatriation but it would be obvious to anyone we were not anxious maintain and feed potential Communist agitators in South Korean prison camps; that we had every reason to want return of every Communist soldier who wanted to go back; but that I was sure the method by which we might decide exactly who wanted to go back and who did not was certainly open to full discussion and suggestions. I happened to have President Truman’s May 7 statement with me and went over it carefully with Bajpai who agreed it [Page 208] closed no doors and offered absolutely no basis for Communist blowup.
I will discuss all this in detail again with Prime Minister Sunday night.…
- For text of Truman’s speech, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1952–1953, pp. 321–322; for Eden’s remarks of May 7, 1952, see Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 5th series, vol. 500, pp. 383–387.↩
- Presumably Nehru was referring to the letter from Eden described in footnote 2, p. 202.↩