§ 2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government—
- (1) Whether any member of the British Forces serving in Korea, who became a prisoner of war, was tried by the enemy for a "war crime" alleged to have been committed prior to capture.
- (2) If any such trials took place, what were the charges, how were the tribunals formed, what sentences, if any, were awarded, and whether the minutes or any other account of the proceedings were forwarded to the military, or any other, authority concerned.]
§ THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS)My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble and gallant Earl's Question is in the negative, in the sense that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, no member of the British Forces serving in Korea who became a prisoner of war was tried by the enemy before a properly constituted tribunal or other military court for "war crimes" alleged to have been committed prior to capture. I should, however, qualify this by saying that many members of the British Forces were, whilst prisoners of war and undergoing interrogation, accused of having committed certain acts called by their captors "war crimes" They were asked to confess to these "war crimes," and if they did not do so were incarcerated in punishment cells or subjected to other punishment. They were told that this was to give them the opportunity to reconsider their decision not to confess. Several British prisoners of war were told that they had been found guilty of certain "crimes" and arbitrarily sentenced to punishment, although no formal trial had taken place. The noble and gallant Earl will appreciate that these were not in fact trials for alleged crimes, but that the treatment to which Allied soldiers were subjected was a combination of threats and persecution to extort confessions for propaganda purposes.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Earl for his reply. We may assume that the Chinese and the North Koreans did not act in accordance with the Geneva Convention which they undertook in the summer of 1952 to observe. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps will be taken to ensure that our enemies do obey these orders, or follow out the usages laid down, or carry out the rules—those are three terms, I believe, which are used by lawyers. If an enemy can arbitrarily punish our troops, are we going to take no steps about it? Are we going to be content to allow them to do so?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISI have answered as well as I possibly can the Question which the noble and gallant Earl has put before the House. The question of the treatment of prisoners of war, as far as I see it, is quite another question.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYI suppose I must be content with the answer, but I thought it was very much the same question—the treatment of our men who fall into the hands of the enemy, and whom International Law does not seem able to protect.