320/11–2652: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Department of State
priority
Delga 273. Limited distribution. From Gross. Re Korea. On evening of November 25 I talked at some length with Menon, whom I found very discouraged by reason of fact we were insisting on changes in para 17, in face of Vishinsky’s attack on Indian res. Menon also told me he had received word ChiComs had informed GOI that Indian res was not acceptable. Menon was therefore seriously thinking of withdrawing his res. I urged him in strongest terms not to do so, saying it wld be particularly disastrous in view of our agreement earlier in evening, in group of 21,1 to give priority to Indian res. Menon seemed to be impressed.
Later, I talked to Selwyn Lloyd and pressed him very hard to talk with Menon as soon as possible for purpose of urging him to accept essential changes in para 17. I told Lloyd it had been my understanding at morning meeting between Secy and Eden that either Eden or Lloyd would talk with Menon during day. Lloyd said he did not think it was “wise” for him to talk with Menon for another day or so, but if I insisted he wld do so. I said I thought it was important and Lloyd then agreed to talk with Menon.
Shortly after midnight Lloyd called me at home to report on his conversation with Menon. Lloyd read to me following text which he said he “thought” Menon agreed to:
“If at the end of a further 30 days there are any prisoners of war whose return to their homelands has not been effected under the above procedures or whose future has not been provided for by the political conference, the responsibility for their care and maintenance until the end of their detention and for their subsequent disposition shall be transferred to the UN, which in all matters relating to them shall act in accordance with international law.” Lloyd also read to me the following suggested alternative text:
[Page 690]“If at the end of a further 30 days there are any prisoners of war whose return to their homelands has not been effected under the above procedures, or whose future has not been provided for by the political conference, responsibility for them shall be transferred to the UN, which in all matters relating to them shall act in accordance with international law”. I told Lloyd I did not think this would be acceptable. I raised following points concerning first version quoted above:
- (1)
- It wld be necessary under this form of words to have it clearly understood that Assembly wld adopt a subsequent res, designating the UN agency which wld have authority to care for and dispose of non-repatriated prisoners of war. Lloyd expressed agreement with this and said he was sure Menon wld understand, but that we shld not move ahead at once with a follow-up res. I told Lloyd this wld have to be done by the Assembly in time to take on the responsibility.
- (2)
- I felt the phrase “until the end of their detention” must come out. Lloyd said he thought he cld persuade Menon to delete these words.
- (3)
- I inquired as to the significance of the last clause “which in all matters relating to them shall act in accordance with international law”. These words seemed to me to be undesirable, since, if they meant anything they implied that when and if this question came back to UN, whole subject of non-forcible repatriation cld be re-opened on basis of arguments thrashed over during past few weeks. Lloyd explained that Menon attached great importance to these words, which for some reason, which Lloyd conceded was obscure, the language gave Menon “an excuse” to accept modifications in para 17.
I told Lloyd I cld not make any commitment whatever but wld talk to Secy Wednesday morning and wld call Lloyd before 10 a.m. Lloyd urged me do so because Jamali2 had asked to see him at 10 to discuss amendments which Jamali had in mind tabling.
Wednesday morning I reported all of foregoing to Secy who authorized me to tell Lloyd we wld, if necessary to maintain Menon’s support for his own res, accept first alternative formulation quoted above, subject, however, to deletion of phrase “until the end of their detention” and of last clause reading “which in all matters relating to them shall act in accordance with international law”. However, Secy authorized me to accept text as it stood, if I considered it essential in order to avoid breaking with Menon.
I spoke with Lloyd, who agreed to see Menon as soon as possible and urge him to delete phrase relating to detention. Re deletion of last clause, Lloyd thought Menon wld find this impossible because of importance he attached to having “an umbrella” under which he cld justify his acceptance of the changes. I then suggested to Lloyd that he urge Menon to agree to insertion in the clause, following the words “in accordance with”, the clause “the principles of this resolution and”. [Page 691] Lloyd accepted this suggestion and said he wld do his best with Menon.
I urged Lloyd to attempt to persuade Menon to circulate his revised para 17 as soon as possible today. Lloyd said he wld try to do so but that Menon had told him he felt he had to cable to New Delhi, although Lloyd personally doubted that Menon in fact had to do so. Nevertheless, Lloyd wld urge Menon to accept these changes in para 17 and to cable his revision during course of day.