Speech to the Waverers

The very qualities that make some of his countrymen distrust Dean Acheson and his policies were just what were needed to make him a success at U.N. last week. He set out to convince the doubters, the neutralists, the holdbacks and the timid in the General Assembly on the Tightness of the U.S.--and U.N.--action in Korea. To diplomats nagged by the conviction that Americans are illogical, explosive, and unreasoningly bellicose, the U.S. Secretary of State spoke for nearly three hours from a lawyer's brief that was well prepared and delivered in aloof and detached fashion. Speaking to the 60-member Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly, Acheson marched meticulously from fact to fact. He recited, step by step, the story of U.S. and Korea from the days of the Cairo Declaration to the truce tents at Panmunjom, and was indeed able to prove that the U.S. had been patient--if not too patient--at every stage of the game.

Pretty Good Doctrine. The U.S., he said, did not want to keep its Korean and Chinese war prisoners. It polled them at the Reds' request and was dismayed to learn that 30% were afraid to go home. Now, said Acheson. the U.S. is stuck with the problem; it could not agree to send men home against their will to what may be death. Acheson recounted five separate unsuccessful attempts to persuade the Reds to let some neutral agency resurvey the prisoners' desires.

He cited 17 separate post-World War I treaties in which the Soviets had explicitly agreed that there should be no forced repatriation of prisoners. "Pretty good doctrine," Acheson murmured; why weren't they for it now? Then the U.S. Secretary of State formally called on the committee to uphold the U.N. negotiators at Panmunjom and to reaffirm their stand against forcible repatriation.

Only once did Acheson allow himself a lawyer's display of anger. As he told how the Reds refused to allow a neutral body to investigate their germ-warfare charges, he shook his finger and asked: "What do you think of people like that?" then muttered, almost to himself: "Unspeakable!"

Russia's Andrei Vishinsky, just a few feet away on Acheson's left, listened intently on the new plastic earphones that look like a hearing aid and scribbled endlessly, his face impassive. Once, he leaned over to the Ukrainian delegate, jutted out his chin and laughed.

Deep Yearning. Summed up Acheson: "I ... wish to underline the fact that the U.N. . . . opposed by Communists, operating from outside of Korea, has limited the conflict to Korea itself. There have been many difficulties and vast provocations, but ... it is the intention of the U.N. command to continue that limitation" and "achieve an honest armistice." But, he warned, "the Assembly must come to some conclusion as to whether the aggressor really wants an armistice . . . We all share a deep yearning for ... peace. But we must not and we cannot buy peace at the price of honor. If the resistance must go on, then we shall have to examine our positions . . ."

The audience burst into the loudest applause heard in the U.N. for several years. Acheson's speech apparently served to bring the waverers over to the U.S. side on the war-prisoner issue; it was not designed to do more at this point. Delegates rushed forward to congratulate Secretary Acheson. Australia's External Affairs Minister Richard Casey cried out: "One of the greatest speeches I ever listened to." The Netherlands' Daniel von Balluseck echoed: "Splendid!" Said Andrei Vishinsky: "No comment."

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