795.00/5–2153: Telegram
The Political Adviser for the Armistice Negotiations (Murphy) to the Department of State
priority
3645. No distribution. For Alexis Johnson from Murphy. Your telegram 2707.1
Background information extremely helpful. Replying your request comment on how requirement unanimous or majority of four decison on substantive matters in commission would work in practice. As you know, while paragraph 24 UNC 13 May proposal was drafted in Tokyo, idea originated in Washington. It provides that custodial commission and subordinate bodies shall operate on basis of unanimity except in procedural matters; on latter by majority vote. I should add for your information that staff officers who drafted paragraph 24 are imbued with profound distrust India. These officers are persuaded that India, Poland, and Czechoslovakia will vote as bloc and that if rule of [Page 1070] simple majority were adopted as proposed by Communists operation commission would effectively result in forced repatriation.
In preparation UNC proposal obvious arguments were advanced that invariably Communists insist on rule of unanimity in international dealing except in rare instance such as present where it would work to their advantage as they hope control majority. However, apart from difficulty that five-power commission would be more cumbersome in its operation than a one-power or two-power body, I believe that military objection to majority could not be sustained if majority of four rule were adopted.
In my discussions with competent officers here I gather that requirement for unanimous decision would be most important on substantive decisions by commission relating to regulations insuring that no force or threat of force shall be used against POW’s and no violence to their persons or affront to their dignity (paragraph 3 UNC proposal); in exercise commission’s delicate responsibility provide each side opportunity to verify or ascertain attitude towards repatriation of its captured personnel, and manner in which representatives are afforded access to captured personnel, and way in which explanation regarding return to homelands is given (paragraph 8 UNC proposal). If commission approves rules which substantively give Communists open sesame to high pressure brain washing POW’s, latter will no doubt in time demonstrate that most are eager for repatriation with same zest defendants confess at Moscow trials. If that happens, UNC would later be accused of fraud and misrepresenting desires POW’s these many months.
It was assumption in drafting UNC proposal that Swiss and Swedish votes under unanimous rule would prevent railroading POW’s who honestly do not desire repatriation and that Communists would be in most awkward situation in view long record insistence on that principle internationally. I am surprised especially that Commonwealth should object on that score as Tokyo Commonwealth representatives did not seem to find unanimous rule objectionable whereas their views on political conference and North Koreans did not harmonize with 13 May UNC proposal.
On balance, I believe that if we are to obtain an armistice it would be better to adhere as closely as possible to Indian GA resolution but I urge Department be as firm as it can on cut-off date if principle of political conference is accepted as I think it should be. The thought outlined in your item 5 that we might accept open-ended alternative contained last sentence Indian resolution is open to attack on ground it abandons resistance to nonforcible repatriation.