Truce Talks (Hansard, 15 October 1952)

§ 31. Mr. Swingler
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Korean truce talks.

§ 34. Mr. Edward Davies
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of the Korean truce negotiations; and what are the outstanding difficulties on reaching a settlement.

§ 43. Mr. Hamilton
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions the Government have recently engaged in to speed up an armistice in Korea; and what proposals have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government towards that end.

§ Mr. Eden
Since the Under-Secretary's statement on 30th July the United Nations Command have made continued efforts to reach an armistice agreement. After consultation between Her Majesty's Government and the United States, Commonwealth and other Governments concerned, the United Nations Command put forward on 28th September three new proposals for a solution of the prisoners-of-war difficulty. These have been fully reported in the Press, and I need only mention briefly the main point in each.
Under the first proposal, both sides would agree that the obligation to exchange and repatriate prisoners-of-war would be fulfilled by each side delivering all prisoners held to an agreed place in the demilitarised zone. Individual prisoners would have the right to return to the side on which they were detained, if they so wished.
Under the second proposal, all prisoners willing to be repatriated would be exchanged at once and the remainder would be sent in small groups to the demilitarised zone. There they would be freed from military control and after being interviewed by mutually agreed neutral representatives would be free to go to the side of their choice.
Under the third proposal, on being released in the neutral zone, the men would be free to go north or south without any interviewing or screening of any kind, by neutral or other representatives.
The United Nations proposed in addition that any one of these three procedures could, if desired, be supervised by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or by joint Red Cross teams, or by military observers from both sides.
I think the House will agree that we have here a fair and generous offer, 190 which the Communists could accept with dignity and confidence.
After a 10-day recess proposed by the United Nations Command to allow time for full consideration, the Communists on 8th October rejected the United Nations Command's proposals and went on to state once again their insistence on the principle of total repatriation of prisoners-of-war on both sides. The United Nations Command, therefore, proposed a recess of the plenary meetings. Liaison officers remain in contact, and plenary meetings can be renewed at once if the other side wishes to discuss our proposals further or has any new proposals of its own to offer. The armistice negotiations thus stand suspended; but they have not been broken off.

§ Mr. Hamilton
Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that, in the event of the Communists maintaining their silence, alternative proposals will be sought after by our own Government? Can we be further assured that our own Government will not lag behind the United States of America, waiting for them to move to put alternative proposals before the truce negotiators?

§ Mr. Eden
It would be quite unjust to suggest—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to make the imputation—that the Government have lagged behind anybody in this business. We discussed these proposals with the United States Government at considerable length before they were put forward. They are joint United Nations Command proposals. I really think they are as clear and reasonable proposals as the human mind can devise, and I hope they will be accepted.

§ Mr. Davies
Has not the programme unfortunately got beyond the stage of the prisoners-of-war problem, and are there not political implications involving recognition of the Peking Government? Is it the view of our Government that once a Korean armistice has been achieved, we shall recognise the Peking Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied in his own mind that the political implications of this situation, as far as the United States discussions are concerned, in relation to this country and the countries of Western Europe and America, are being properly represented and heard?

§ Mr. Eden
I really do not think that recognition of the Peking Government has arisen in these discussions. In point of fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we do recognise the Peking Government. The difficulty is that they do not recognise us very much.