Evening star., 1953-05-24
ruce
Continued From First Page.)

VIC
Continued From First Page)
sisted on by this country. It con-
tains a provision that force
shah not be used against the
prisoners of war to prevent or
effect their return to their home
lands"
There are two principal diff
ferences, however, between this
general assembly resolution and
our May 13 proposal at Panmun-
jom. They are:
/. The resolution would give a
say on disposition of prisoners
resisting repatriation to a polit-
ical conference following an
armiStice. This is not provided
for in our proposal.
2. The resolution would turn
over to the temporary custody
of a neutral commission all pris-
oners. Our May 13 proposal
would limit this to Chinese pris-
oners unwilling to go home, re-
patriating first all those wanting
to go home and freeing immed-
lately in South Korea prisoners
from North Korea resisting re-
patriation.
The General Assembly resolu-
tion provides that 80 days after
an armiStice. the dispositions of
any prisoners who have not been
repatriated should be referred to
the political conference. If it
should not be able to settle the
matter within another 30 days,
responsibility for the remaining
unwilling prisoners shall be
transferred to the United Ma
tions." The U. NJ, under terms
of the resolution, would not force
them to go back home against
their will. But it still would face
a decision on what to do with
them, or when to free them.
U. S. Position Outlined.
The United States so far has
insisted on a final settlement of
the problem in the armistice ne
gotiationS. Our position has been
that all Chinese prisoners un-
willing to go home should be "re-
leased to civilian status" after
so days in custody of a five-na-
tion neutral commission.
The latest Communist pro-
posal of May 7, like the General
Assembly resolution, called for
turning the prisoner issue over
to a political conference. But,
unlike that resolution, it set no
cutoff date for conference con-
sideration.
One thing seems certain. The
United States will not submit or
agree to any proposal that would
leave the fate of prisoners un-
willing to return to Communist
rule up in the air indefinitely
Any arrangement offering resist
ing prisoners no alternative to
repatriation other than indef-
mite captivity would be ruled
out as a form of coercion.
Proposals Compared.
Here are some other points de-
veloped by comparison of the
May 13 U. N. command proposal,
the December General Assembly
resolution and the Communist
May Z proposal:
All three provide for a neutral
commission to take charge for a
specified period of prisoners re-
slsting repatriation. The Gen.
eral Assembly resolution named
Sweden, Switzerland. Poland and
CzechoSlovakia. The Commu-
mist proposal added India as a
fifth member, and the U. N. COM
mand agreed to that.
Under the General Assembly
resolution, all prisoners of war
would be turned over to the
neutral commission for classi-
f1catlon. Then they would be
free to return to their home
lands forthwith. Communist rep
reSentativeS would be permitted
to try to persuade unwilling
prisoners to go home.
Differences Described.
Some important differences
from this procedures are con-
tained in the May 13 U. N.
Command proposal. It calls for:
Cd Repatriating within two
months all those wanting to go
home; ~ Freeing in South
Korea on the date the armistice
becomes effective all prisoners
of North Korean nationality who
do not want to return home, and
(3) turning over to the neutral
commission in South Korea only
Chinese prisoners resisting re-
patriation.
This is one point on which the
United States might compro-
mise by agreeing that the neu-
tral commission take temporary
custody of North Korean as we'll
as Chinese prisoners unwilling to
return home. But our side isn't
talking until tomorrow.
Allied Negotiotors Ready
To Return to Ponmuniom