Matthews files, lot 53 D 413: Telegram
The Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commander in Chief Far East (Clark)
top
secret
priority
priority
Washington, May 11, 1953—5:20
p.m.
JCS 938626. From JCS for CINCUNC reur CX 62354.1
- 1.
- Plan of action and proposals contained in ur 62354 are approved subj to comments which follow. If changes dictated by these comments require addnal time on part UNC prior to presentation to Commies, you are authorized such time.
- 2.
- While we appreciate ur desire for bargaining latitude, we believe it preferable to include in ur initial proposal right of access to POWs. Thought here is that Harrison’s ltr to Commies of 17 Apr2 in which agreement to principle of access was clearly indicated will logically lead Commies to conclusion that UNC will in end agree to right of access. Thus, it is doubtful that any appreciable negotiating advantages will accrue from omitting this element from initial posn. Another factor is desire here to limit substantive changes in Commie proposal to those considered essential, to stand firm on these essential changes, and thereby improve our overall posture. However, this does not mean that UNC proposal shld be presented, at least initially, on “take it or leave it” basis. We believe that there are other elements in proposal which will provide sufficient negotiating latitude. UNC agreement to right of access shld be used as argument to obtain Commie agreement to essential elements our posn.
- 3.
- Fol specific changes shld be made in counter-proposal contained in
Part 3 of ur CX 62354:
- a.
- Re para 2. Add addnal sentence to effect: “Subordinate bodies of same composition as POW Custodial Commsn shall be stationed at those locations at which Commsn assumes custody those POWs who have not availed themselves of right repatriation.” For completeness and clarity.
- b.
- Substitute para 1 a of Part 4 for para 4 of Part 3.
- c.
- Substitute para 1 b of Part 4 for para 9 of Part 3.
- d.
- In para 12 delete clause “and be free to proceed to available destination of their choice.” Believe it may be difficult for Commies to agree to this provision. At same time, since non-repatriates will have assumed civilian status and will have reverted to custody of UNC, there will be no bar to their proceeding to available destination of their choice. Civilian status, in itself, implies this right. Accordingly, consider that inclusion of clause in question would raise unnecessary point of contention. Exclusion of clause would in no way imply that non-repatriates [Page 1007] were not free to proceed to available destination of their choice. Make same deletion in para 1 d of Part 4.
- e.
- Re para 13. Believe point made is desirable, however, as final posn UNC may accept jt RC teams with limitation on numbers involved.
- f.
- Re para 16. Change “Article 116” to read “Article 118.” DA 9385713 was in error in this regard.
- g.
- Delete para 21 and renumber succeeding paras accordingly. Believe para 20 sufficient for purposes this agreement. While ur reasons for inserting para 21 are appreciated, we are confronted with fact that Switzerland, and possibly Sweden, would wish to avoid implied identification as “UNC neutral.” In case of India, provision for logistical support as indicated in para 20 leaves only transportation and pay of psnl as major expenses. It is hoped these two items can be handled without raising question of reimbursement. If it shld turn out that reimbursement is nec, believe this can be handled later.
- h.
- Add paras 1 f and g of Part 4 to proposal in Part 3.
- 4.
- Re para 1 of Part 5. Concur that no specific provision is required. Principal concern is that no provision be included which could be construed as undercutting ultimate responsibility. Firm legal opinion will be forwarded ASAP.
- 5.
- Re para 2 of Part 5. Concur in desirability of progress reports by Commsn. Agree that submission to senior mil cdrs appears most practical; however, we have no objection to reports being presented to Mil Armis Commsn. Considered undesirable to submit reports to UN.