(December 3, 1952)


Premier Zhou:
The details of India’s mediation efforts regarding the Korean issue, together with our responses, should be made public within the next few days; further delay would be inadvisable.
A news-style account could chronicle the substance of each reply, with particular emphasis on the most recent one. As for India’s latest lengthy communication, since its absurd proposal has already been adopted by the United Nations, it would seem unnecessary to respond further. Please consider whether the above approach is appropriate and make a final decision accordingly.
Mao Zedong
December 3rd


Chuan


Refers to the second issue of “Reports on Dual-Purpose Diplomatic Work,” compiled and published by the General Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (November 16–29, 1952). On the subject of the Korean armistice, this issue states: “Regarding the proposals put forward by India and Indonesia to resolve the issue of Korean prisoners of war, Vice Minister Zhang and Premier Zhou replied on November 24 and 29, respectively, pointing out that these suggestions were essentially identical in nature to the U.S. policy of ‘voluntary repatriation.’ Prior to our replies, both Indian officials were eager to ascertain our position; after receiving them, however, they immediately began to argue that their proposals differed from the U.S. stance. Nehru even resorted to evasive tactics, instructing Ambassador Javaharlal to convey to us that the Indian government would provide further clarification on the matter.”


[2] At its 399th plenary meeting on December 3, 1952, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, based on an Indian proposal, a resolution concerning the repatriation of prisoners of war from the Korean War.
On December 14, Zhou Enlai, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China, addressed a reply telegram to Pearson, President of the United Nations General Assembly, in which he stated that this unlawful resolution—centered on the issue of prisoner repatriation and adopted by the General Assembly pursuant to the Indian proposal—was entirely founded upon the so-called “principle of voluntary repatriation” or “non-compulsory repatriation,” which the U.S. side had persistently and unjustifiably insisted upon and which was widely recognized as contravening the Geneva Conventions and international law; in essence, it amounted to a principle that effectively forced the continued detention of prisoners of war.