GOODWILL TRIP TO THE EAST

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27036, 11 May 1953, Page 9

GOODWILL TRIP TO THE EAST

MR DULLES AND MR STASSEN

(Rec. 10.30 p-m.) „ „ WASHINGTON, Mav 9. The Secretary of State (Mr Dulles) and the Mutual Security Administrator (Mr Harold Stassen) will leave tonight for a 20-day tour of 12 nearEastern and South-Asian countries. The purpose of the trip is monstrate the United States fnendship for the 12 countries and to gather information that will help m drafting new policy towards that part of tne world. _ „ j The first stop for Mr Dulles and Mr Stassen will be Cairo. They will then visit Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, and Libya. ,

The United Nations delegates yesterday had asked the Communists for much more detailed information about their eight-point proposal for dealing with prisoners of war who refused to return to their homelands. In a 32-minute armistice session General Harrison, the chief Allied delegate, did not formally reject any of the Communist proposals for solving this issue which is the only problem holding up an armistice in Korea, but he told them that their proposal to put the prisoners in custody of five neutral nations instead of one as he had proposed “complicated the whole problem.”

General Harrison said the Communists’ latest proposal left many points to be answered. For instance, how would decisions be reached in the proposed five-nation neutral commission to control prisoners—on a majority vote or would there be a veto.

He asked the Communists if agreement on their plan would not mean “to defer the final solution of prisoners of war questions until some later date.” He also asked why it was necessary to turn over to a high-level political conference the disposition of prisoners refusing repatriation. Question of Command General Harrison asked General Nam 11 who was going to command the forces which the Communists had suggested should be supplied by each of the five neutrals to handle the prisoners. General Harrison’s questions continued: “How do you contemplate dividing the control of prisoner of war camps between the five nations? “Will each nation operate certain camps by itself or will each camp be operated jointly by representatives of all five nations? “If each camp is operated jointly by representatives of all the five nations how will command functions at the camp be carried out? How will standardisation of procedures between the five components be achieved? How do you consider these camps will adjudicate possible differences among troop components at the camp? “As for supply for prisoners, would each side send food and supplies for its prisoners in the custody of a neutral? How would they do it? Language Problem “What are your views as to the languages that should be used by the neutral nations repatriation commission and its subordinate agencies, particularly in their relations with the prisoners themselves? It appears to us that your proposal has complicated the whole problem by requiring the use of at least seven different languages on prisoner of war camps and in the military control force.” The talks were adjourned for a day at the request of the Communists. General Harrison told correspondents later: “We think that before we can give adequate consideration to the Communist proposal we must know the answers to our questions. The questions are asked solely for explanation. We have nothing fixed on this matter. I am just probing for the facts.” Observers at Panmunjon believe that there will be many weeks of discussions before any concrete plan begins to emerge from the meetings.