The Principle Involved

Sir Winston Churchill said flatly that no "difference of principle" remains to be settled in the truce talks at Panmunjom, and implied that the U.S. is haggling over technicalities. India's Nehru publicly announced that the Communist eight-point proposal (TIME, May 18) is better than the U.N. Command's. A good part of the European and Asiatic world seemed to share these views.

Last week, belatedly making up for an inept job of explaining its case to the world, the U.S. State Department issued a statement showing just what the U.S. considers the issue of principle to be. "Members of the free world," said State, "have affirmed that there can be no force used to compel the unwilling prisoners to return to the Communists . . ." Sir Winston Churchill agrees with this principle, but he insists that the Chinese have also recognized it by agreeing to turn over unwilling prisoners to neutral custody. If, while under neutral custody, the Communists cannot "eliminate their apprehensions" about returning to their homeland, the fate of these prisoners would be turned over to a political conference.

What then? The U.S. has learned that Communists must be pinned down on details. Endless custody of prisoners without prospect of liberation, said State, would be a form of coercion; therefore, the U.S. "cannot . . . create a situation where such persons are offered no alternative to repatriation other than indefinite captivity or custody." Those who like might call this haggling; the U.S. thought it was the heart of the matter.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.