Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1953-04-12
Article 100

Characteristically, the Commu-
nists were trying to take credit for
the prisoner exchange deal. And
insofar as the exchange would
have been impossible without their
agreement, the Red claim was JUS
titled.
Actually, however, the effort to
get ailing prisoners back among
their own people was an American
project Of long standing. On jan
uary "a, 1952-six months after the
Korean truce talks began and
nearly IS months before the pris-
oner swap was agreed to in princi-
pie by the Communicative ADJ
miral C. Turner Joy suggested
such an exchange at Panmunjom.
He urged that exchange Of seri-
ously sick and wounded prisoners
take place Immediately in the in
terest of welfare of the men" The
Communist negotiators turned him
down cold.
Thirteen months later, on Feb
ruary %, 1858, Gen. Mark Clark
again urged such an exchange.
Last month the Reds replied en-
couragingly. Apparently the Com
muniSt time table called for affirm
alive action at that moment.
Also, though the Panmunjom
truce talks had been held up for
half a year on the issue OF volun-
tary versus forcible return of pris-
oners. the Reds saw an out for a
conciliatory move in Article 1O9
of the 1949 Geneva Convention on
Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Neither the North Koreans nor the
Chinese subscribe to this pact, but
AS Antonio Said-"the devil can
cite Scripture for his purpose"
The Text
The issue of forcible repatriation
could be skirted for the time being
by recourse to the Geneva Conven-
ton. Here is the text Of Article
1909:
Subject to the provisions Of the third
poroeroph Of this article. poTties to the
conflict ore bound to send book to their
own country regardless Of number or ronk,
seriously wounded and seriously sick prs-
oners Of wur, otter having cored for them
until they ore fit to trovel, in occord-
once with the first Paragraph OF the fol-
lowing article.
Throughout the durotion Of hostilities,
porties to the conflict sholl endeovor,
with the cooperation Of the neutral pow
ers concerned, to make arrangements for
the accommodation in neutrol countries
Of the sick and wounded prisoners Of war
referred TO in the second Paragraph OF
the following article. They may, in 0d-
dition, conclude agreements with view
to the direct repatriation or internment
in neutral country Of obIebodied prls-
oners Of war who hove undergone long
period Of captivity.
No sick or injured prisoner OF wor
who is eligible for repatriation under the
first paragraph Of this article may be
repotrioted oaonst his will during hos
tiIities.
The following article" referred
to in Article 100 defines who shall
be returned direct to the homeland
and who shall be taken care OF in
q neutral country. But the ques-
ton of "who" was not so import
ant to the Communists, nor was
the part about a neutral country.
What was important was the final
paragraph in Article 100. 1t gave
the Communists the perfect out to
start abandoning their adamant
stand for forcible repatriation
without making a sudden, face
losing change.
Chou's Turnobout
This became doubly evident
when the Red Chinese Foreign
Minister. Chou En-lai, said on
March 80 that he had a suggestion
on which a resumption Of Korean
armiStice talks might be based.
His plan called for a cease-f1re, to
be followed by immediate repatria-
ton of all prisoners Of war who
insist on being returned home.
Our fixed position is for a cease
fire, with q prisoner exchange pro-
tecting all POWs who would resist
repatriation. The difference be-
tween Chou's idea and that Of the
West, apparently, was one Of Sc
manticS.
It seemed certain that Chou had
Moscow's approval before he made
his offer, Just as the North Korean
and Chinese commanders must