On April 26, 1953, after the Korean armistice negotiations resumed, Nam Il, the chief representative of North Korea and China, proposed six plans to solve the problem of all prisoners of war.

On April 26, 1953, after the Korean armistice negotiations resumed, the chief representative of North Korea and China Nam Il proposed 6 plans to solve the problem of all prisoners of war (the first plan determined by North Korea and China).

The plan advocates:

1. Within two months after the armistice takes effect, all prisoners of war who insist on repatriation should be repatriated in batches without obstruction and sent to the party to which the prisoners of war belong;

2. The directly repatriated prisoners of war should be repatriated in one batch after the repatriation is completed. Within this month, the remaining prisoners of war who are not directly repatriated will be sent to a neutral country decided upon by both parties through negotiation, and will be received and supervised at a location designated by the neutral country's authorities; Send people to the neutral country to explain to the prisoners of war, eliminate their concerns, and inform them of their right to repatriate;

4. After the explanation, all prisoners of war who request repatriation should be assisted by the neutral country to repatriate;

5. After the expiration of 6 months The treatment of prisoners of war who are still under the custody of neutral countries shall be negotiated and resolved by the political conference stipulated in the armistice agreement; 6. All expenses incurred by prisoners of war in neutral countries shall be borne by the country to which the prisoners of war belong.

However, Harrison, the chief representative of the " United Nations Forces ", believed that the plan of North Korea and China was unacceptable at the meeting. He still adhered to the three points mentioned in his letter on April 16 and opposed the sending of prisoners of war outside North Korea. Send prisoners of war to the demilitarized zone to be taken over by neutral countries.

He believed that the six-month explanation period was too long, and advocated shortening it to two months, and suggested that Switzerland be a neutral country that temporarily takes custody of prisoners of war who are not directly repatriated.

Regarding the final treatment of prisoners of war, he advocated that it be handed over to the political conference after the expiration of the explanation period. Prisoners of war who have not been repatriated after 30 days should be released or handed over to the United Nations General Assembly for processing.

The main points of disagreement between the two sides are:

1. As for the custody location of prisoners of war who are not directly repatriated, North Korea and China require that prisoners of war who are not directly repatriated be sent to neutral countries to get rid of the military control and influence of the detaining party, while the United States is opposed to the detention of prisoners of war. Sent to a neutral country, they advocated being handed over to neutral countries for reception and custody in North Korea;

2. Regarding the explanation time for not repatriating prisoners of war directly, North Korea and China advocated an explanation time of 6 months, and the United States advocated 2 months;

3. The issue of neutral countries, the United States North Korea and China have yet to make specific proposals regarding the ideal choice of Switzerland as a neutral country.

The United States has taken great pains to choose neutral countries. The U.S. State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructed Clark to prepare two options:

If North Korea and China nominate India, the United Nations military can nominate India and Switzerland (or Sweden ); if North Korea and China nominate India, The parties nominate Indonesia , and the "United Nations Army" can nominate Indonesia and Switzerland to bargain with North Korea and China during negotiations.

After more than 10 days of negotiations, there is still no progress in comprehensively resolving the prisoner of war issue. However, North Korea and China have understood all the intentions of the United States, and then followed the original steps and put forward 8 new proposals on May 7 (i.e., the second plan).

This plan adopted the reasonable part of the US proposal and suggested the establishment of a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, composed of Poland , Czechoslovakia , Switzerland, Sweden, and India. Prisoners of war who are not directly repatriated by either side shall be released from the military control and custody of the detaining party at their original place of detention and handed over to the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission for the reception and custody of them. After taking over the charge, the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission shall immediately make arrangements for the repatriation of prisoners of war.

The new plan insists that the country where the prisoners of war belong has the right to explain to the prisoners of war, and shortens the explanation period from 6 months to 4 months. After the explanation, for all prisoners of war who request repatriation, the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission should be responsible for assisting them to return to their homeland quickly. When the explanation period expires Afterwards, prisoners of war who are still under the custody of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission shall be submitted to the Political Conference for negotiation and settlement.

The day before, Zhou Enlai, in accordance with Mao Zedong's instructions, met with Gao Boden, the counselor of the Indian Embassy in China, and handed over the second plan of North Korea and China to the Indian government, and pointed out: After we proposed the new plan, we still retained April 26 Japan’s plan, if the US has a bad attitude towards our new plan, we will still go back to the old plan.

The new plan between North Korea and China has been generally praised by international public opinion. Indian Prime Minister Nehru issued a statement on May 15, advocating that North Korea and China’s proposals should be used as the basis for North Korea’s armistice negotiations, and in favor of convening the highest meeting of the General Assembly to discuss peace issues. The Myanmar government also issued a statement in favor of using the North Korean and Chinese proposals as the basis for North Korean armistice negotiations.

U.S. President Eisenhower and some of his political and military advisers also believed that these plans by North Korea and China showed the spirit of compromise and provided a basis for negotiating an acceptable armistice agreement.

However, the United States made an extra step and suddenly put forward 26 counter-proposals on May 13, demanding that all captured Korean People's Army personnel who would not be directly repatriated after the armistice be "released on the spot" and captured Chinese People's Army Volunteer Army personnel be handed over to neutral countries. After the Repatriation Committee, "release on the spot" after the expiration of the 60-day explanation period. At the same time, the Repatriation Committee stopped working and was disbanded. The Neutral Nations Repatriation Committee temporarily took care of and assisted in the repatriation of prisoners of war, as well as the country where the prisoners of war belonged to. Various unreasonable restrictions were put forward to explain the work.

The U.S. plan is to continue to forcibly detain prisoners of war, which is a step back from Harrison’s three-point proposal on April 16. North Korea and China severely condemned the U.S.’s regressive behavior of being insincere, forcibly detaining prisoners of war, and going back on its word. , expressed resolutely unacceptable, and suggested that both sides adopt a fair and reasonable plan between North Korea and China in order to discuss specific details.

In view of the fact that this plan aroused strong opposition from North Korea and China, and that the Volunteer Army was active on the front line, in order to further discuss countermeasures, Harrison proposed on May 16 that the armistice negotiations be adjourned until May. On the 20th (later proposed a delay of 25 days), North Korea and China agreed.

Due to the retrogression of the US position, the basis for all negotiations to resolve the prisoner of war issue was destroyed, resulting in another deadlock in the negotiations.

html On May 23, Nam Il, the chief representative of North Korea and China, issued a statement expounding the positions and views of North Korea and China on comprehensively resolving the prisoner of war issue.

He pointed out that there are serious differences in the basic principles contained in the opposing plans of the two sides.

The basic policy of the North Korea-China plan is: "After the armistice, all remaining prisoners of war who are not directly repatriated will be transferred to neutral countries to ensure a fair solution to their repatriation issues."

The basic policy of the "United Nations Army" plan is: " After the armistice, the remaining prisoners of war detained by the United Nations forces who are not directly repatriated will be divided into two. Among them, the prisoners of the Korean People's Army will be released on the spot in the areas controlled by the United Nations forces without being transferred to neutral countries. This is direct forcible detention; China The captured personnel of the People's Volunteer Army were handed over to a neutral country committee that was paralyzed by various restrictions. After 60 days of delay, they were still released on the spot in the area controlled by the United Nations forces. This was a disguised forced detention. "

The key to the disagreement "is whether the warring parties are willing to truly transfer all remaining prisoners of war who are not directly repatriated to neutral countries, and respect and trust them to seek a fair solution to the repatriation issue of prisoners of war, without any interference or oppression from the warring parties." The

statement pointed out: "In order to eliminate obstacles on the repatriation of prisoners of war, North Korea and China have made obvious concessions and made significant efforts, and have successively proposed two constructive plans. The policy is to advocate that all remaining prisoners who are not directly repatriated should be When prisoners of war are transferred to a neutral country, whether they are sent to a neutral country or the Neutral Nations Committee comes to Korea, they must truly have the power to perform their legal duties and responsibilities to control the prisoners of war under their jurisdiction, so as to ensure that all prisoners of war can fight in groups. All have the opportunity to exercise their right to be repatriated'. "

" But concessions must come from both parties before an agreement can be reached. Not only did the United Nations show no concessions in its 26-article plan, it also "

The United States "as long as it gives up... various unreasonable claims and truly agrees to hand over all remaining prisoners of war from North Korea and China who are not directly repatriated to the Neutral Nations Commission to take over, so that their repatriation issue can be resolved fairly," he said. Then the Korean armistice can be realized immediately. This is the basis for the glorious agreement proposed by North Korea and China."

The volunteers' operations on the battlefield, the exposure and refutation of North Korea and China, and the urging of international public opinion forced the US authorities to make compromises.

During his visit to India, U.S. Secretary of State Dulles discussed the Korean armistice issue with Indian Prime Minister Nehru on May 12. During this period, the U.S. government also exchanged views on the Korean armistice with the British government many times.

On May 23, the Washington authorities issued instructions to Clark through the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The main contents are:

1. Agree with India to serve as chairman of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission and provide guard troops, and to immediately release Korean prisoners of war who are not directly willing to repatriate after abandoning the armistice. It was recommended that all these prisoners of war, like Chinese prisoners of war, be handed over to the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission.

2. Negotiate according to India’s plan, adhere to the principle of voluntary repatriation, and ensure that prisoners of war are not threatened during explanations.

3. Issues that need to be decided by the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission must accept the principle of majority submission proposed by North Korea and China.

4. The time limit for explanation of non-direct repatriation of prisoners of war shall be limited to 90 days. The remaining prisoners of war after the expiration of the 90-day explanation period will be submitted to a political conference within a 30-day time limit for negotiation and settlement. The prisoners of war who have not been dealt with after the expiration of the 120-day custody period will either be released as civilians, or their fate will be decided by the United Nations General Assembly.

Eisenhower requested that the U.S. representatives put forward the above-mentioned plan when the Panmunjom negotiations resumed on the 25th. This decision of the U.S. authorities basically accepted the plan of North Korea and China on May 7.

In fact, all U.S. decisions on armistice negotiations were made by the U.S. authorities alone. Only after the decision was made, did they "negotiate" with the Syngman Rhee authorities to force them to accept the U.S. decision.

In the negotiating delegation, the U.S. representatives and the South Korean representatives were on guard against each other. Because the South Korean authorities opposed the armistice, the United States was worried that some decisions related to the negotiations would be leaked to South Korea prematurely and would be interfered with by them. Therefore, Try to keep it a secret from them until just before it is announced in negotiations.

South Korea is worried that the United States will betray the so-called "South Korean interests" in order to end the war as soon as possible, and tried every means to learn some of the United States' decisions on negotiations earlier.

According to Cui Dexin, the South Korean military representative who participated in the negotiations, when Harrison flew to Tokyo on the 17th, he also found an excuse to go to Tokyo with him to find out the relevant situation and always maintained contact with Harrison and others. However, until On the 24th, when the U.S. representatives returned to Wenshan, Cui Dexin learned nothing about the new U.S. decision on negotiations.

The new U.S. decision will be announced at the Panmunjom negotiation meeting at 11:00 on the 25th. It was not until 10:00 on the 25th that Clark and Briggs, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, informed Syngman Rhee of the new U.S. decision.

In order to appease Syngman Rhee and seek his cooperation, Clark handed over Eisenhower's personal letter to Syngman Rhee, and also conveyed the following assurances from the U.S. government to South Korea:

1. If the Communist Party violates the armistice agreement, then in South Korea The 16 countries fighting will ensure unity against the enemy. At that time, the retaliation taken by the 16 countries will not be limited to South Korea.

2. Expand the South Korean army to 20 divisions and build corresponding navy and air force.

3. The U.S. government guarantees at least US$1 billion in economic assistance.

4. Until North Korea truly achieves peace, maintain a combat readiness posture in North Korea and along the coast.

Syngman Rhee had been kept in the dark about the U.S. decision-making process. When Clark informed him of the U.S.'s final plan, Rhee was like a "thunder blow."

After the meeting, Syngman Rhee urgently informed Choi Deok-shin, the South Korean representative participating in the Panmunjom armistice negotiations, that he would no longer attend the negotiation meeting. From then on, until the Korean armistice was achieved, the South Korean representative did not attend the negotiation meeting.

The United States ignored Syngman Rhee's behavior and announced a new plan at the negotiation meeting on the 25th as planned, abandoning its position on the May 13th plan, except for the final treatment of prisoners of war (that is, after the expiration of the 120-day custody period) , prisoners of war who have not yet been dealt with through negotiation, or released as civilians, and the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission is disbanded, or their final disposition is handed over to the United Nations General Assembly for decision), the recommendations of the May 7 plan of North Korea and China were adopted in major aspects.

The South Korean representative did not attend the meeting and was replaced by a Thai general.

In order to carefully study the U.S. plan and make comprehensive comments, North Korea and China suggested adjourning the meeting until May 29. The U.S. side suggested adjourning the meeting until June 1 for full consideration, and later extended it to June 4.

In view of the new US plan, they basically accepted the suggestions of North Korea and China on the May 7 plan. Therefore, North Korea and China are ready to accept the new US plan, but they still need to make some technical modifications to the US plan.

Before North Korea and China made a clear statement on this, the United States had no idea. Therefore, the United States expressed its wishes through various channels.

html On May 26, U.S. President Eisenhower issued a statement stating that now "the attention of the free world is focused on the armistice negotiations in stores" and "the United Nations Command once again worked hard on May 25 to seek to bring glory to North Korea." peace and seek a just and humane solution to the prisoner of war issue.”

However, the United Nations Army advocates some fundamental principles that are unchangeable, that is, "No prisoner can be forcibly repatriated, and no prisoner can be forced or intimidated in any way. At the same time, they must be detained for a certain period of time." limits, and government procedures must be consistent with these principles."

In all these respects, the opinions of the Allied Powers are completely consistent, consistent with the majority opinions of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and are exactly the same as the principles formally adopted by the 254 member states of the United Nations.

html On May 27, Commander-in-Chief Clark of the "United Nations Forces" sent a letter to Kim Il-sung and Peng Dehuai. In the letter, Clark hoped that North Korea and China would accept the United Nations plan, and said that the new plan catered to the conditions of North Korea and China for a fair solution to the problem and was The highest limit that the United States can put forward with complete sincerity. At the end of the letter, we urgently request the DPRK and China to take advantage of the current opportunity and give urgent and most serious consideration.

html On May 28, the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Pollan accepted the entrustment of the U.S. government and visited Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov to inform him of the new proposals put forward by the United Nations in the North Korea negotiations. It was pointed out that the new US plan gave up the idea of ​​"in situ release" of Korean prisoners of war, and made concessions in terms of explanation time, transfer to political conference for resolution, and working principles of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission. However, the final solution without direct repatriation of prisoners of war should be handed over to the United Nations General Assembly.

He said that this is the biggest concession the United States has made to reach an armistice agreement, and it can no longer make concessions. It is hoped that the Soviet government will pay attention to the new plan of the United Nations and play its due role in promoting the Korean armistice negotiations.

Molotov said these issues would be studied as soon as possible.

5 days later, on June 3, when Molotov met with Pollan, he stated that solving the North Korean negotiation issue did not depend on the Soviet government, and at the same time conveyed a clear message to him: "It can be concluded with satisfaction that the Panmunjom negotiations will be successfully completed. The route has been initially determined." Pollan thanked Molotov for his briefing and said he would immediately report the news to the US government.

html On May 27, Zhou Enlai met with the Indian Ambassador to China to explain China’s views on the US’s new plan on the 25th.

html On June 4, the meeting of the delegations of both sides resumed. At the meeting, Nam Il, the chief representative of North Korea and China, read out the full text of the "Draft Agreement on Government Repatriation Issues" prepared by North Korea and China.

Nanri said in his speech that he basically agreed with the new US proposal on May 25 and was willing to accept the new US plan as the basis for the two sides to reach an agreement on the repatriation of prisoners of war. At the same time, it proposed amendments to various clauses in the new US plan, and suggested that North Korea and China's amendments be used as a draft agreement on the repatriation of prisoners of war.

North Korea and China agreed to the new US plan except for the final handling of prisoners of war not to be repatriated directly, the explanation of the number of prisoners of war not to be directly repatriated, and the explanation of communication equipment and personnel required for representatives.

In the terms of the treatment of prisoners of war, North Korea and China suggested:

Those who have not exercised their repatriation rights within the 120-day custody of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, and have not agreed on any other treatment for them at the political conference, should be declared discharged by the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission. Prisoners of war status, making them civilians, and then based on individual application, those who choose to go to a neutral country should be assisted by the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission and the Indian Red Cross Society. This work should be completed within 30 days. Upon completion, the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission will cease its work and declare its dissolution.

In this regard, Harrison raised objections and hoped for further explanation. Generally speaking, the United States believes that the plan proposed by North Korea and China is satisfactory.

html On June 6 and 7, delegations from both sides continued to meet to negotiate on the last few controversial technical issues.

Regarding the issue of the number of interpreters, the two sides made concessions to each other, and finally agreed that there should be no more than 7 interpreters for every 1,000 prisoners of war who were not directly repatriated. Regarding the communication equipment and personnel carried by the interpreters, the United States agreed with the North Korean and Chinese suggestions, such as all prisoners of war. If the prisoners are concentrated in one location, they should be allowed to carry two communication groups. If the prisoners of war are scattered in several locations, they should be allowed to carry one communication group at each point, with each group not exceeding 6 people.

Harrison suggested holding a staff meeting between the two sides to discuss the text of the draft agreement on the repatriation of prisoners of war in order to prepare the agreement and sign it on the 8th.

html On June 8, the negotiating parties finally reached an agreement on the prisoner of war issue and signed the document " Terms of Reference of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission ".

At this point, the issue of repatriation of prisoners of war, the only issue that had hindered the armistice agreement for more than a year, was resolved, and all agenda items of the armistice negotiations were reached.

According to this agreement, all prisoners of war who are not directly repatriated should be released under the military control of the detaining party within 60 days after the armistice takes effect, and handed over to representatives of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Sweden, and India in North Korea. The Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was formed.

The countries to which prisoners of war belong should have freedom and convenience. From the day when the Neutral Powers Committee takes over the prisoners of war, representatives should be sent to explain to all prisoners of war attached to that country for 90 days. If after 90 days there are still prisoners of war who have not exercised their right to repatriate, the issue of their disposal shall be submitted to the political conference for resolution within 30 days. After that, if there are still prisoners of war who have not exercised their right to repatriate, and the political conference has not reached an agreement on how to deal with them, the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission should announce within 30 days that they will be relieved of their prisoner of war status and become civilians, and assist them to apply for their return. Place to go.

After reaching an agreement on the repatriation of prisoners of war, the two sides immediately moved to the work of recalibrating the military demarcation line.

Since the negotiating parties reached an agreement on the military demarcation line on November 27, 1951, although the military demarcation line established at that time has not changed significantly, the Volunteer Army has become stronger in the Vietnam War and has advanced in many local areas.

Therefore, the United States attempted to keep the military demarcation line as established at that time without changing it, but it was opposed by North Korea and China.

North Korea and China insist on following the provisions of the military demarcation line agreement reached by the two sides. If the armistice agreement is signed after 30 days, the military demarcation line will be revised based on the actual changes in the line of contact between the two sides.

This is what the United States insisted on adding. At the same time, considering that the actual line of contact between the two sides was unstable before the armistice agreement was signed, in order to realize the armistice as soon as possible, North Korea and China proposed to delineate military divisions after the armistice. However, the United States disagrees with the proposals of North Korea and China and advocates either recognizing the original military demarcation line or redrawing the military demarcation line.

Since the United States is unwilling to draw a military demarcation line after the armistice, North Korea and China agreed to recalibrate the military demarcation line in accordance with the principles of the agreement before the armistice.

At this time, the second phase of the Volunteer Army's summer counterattack had begun. In particular, the 60th Army and the 67th Army captured the positions of a total of three regiments of the South Korean 5th and 8th Divisions in the east and west areas of the North Han River, making the United States nervous. , so it was requested to use the positions controlled by both sides at 0:00 on June 16 as the boundary for re-correction.

After June 10, the delegation meetings of both negotiating parties adjourned, and the staff officers of both sides recalibrated the military demarcation line and made final text modifications to the armistice agreement.

html On the 15th, the Volunteer Army stopped the second phase of the summer counterattack campaign. After the fruitful work of the staff of both sides of the negotiation, the military demarcation line was completed and recalibrated on June 16th. It was approved at the delegation meeting of both sides on the 17th. , the military demarcation line calculated this time was compared with the military demarcation line on November 27, 1951. The Volunteer Army and the People's Army advanced a total of 140 square kilometers southward.

All other work in preparation for signing the armistice agreement is also in full swing.

The draft of the Korean Armistice Agreement was written as early as August last year. Now it is just some corrections and additions to some specific details and text of the draft agreement. After consultations by the staff of both sides, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, on June 18 On the same day, a final agreement was reached on the text terms and words of the armistice agreement.

According to the agreement reached by the two parties, the Neutral Nations Supervisory Committee is composed of officers appointed by neutral countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia nominated by North Korea and China and Sweden and Switzerland nominated by the United Nations military; the Neutral Nations Repatriation Committee is composed of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, and Switzerland. Composed of committee members appointed by five countries including India, in accordance with the provisions of the Korean Armistice Agreement and the Terms of Reference of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, both parties issued formal invitations to the countries participating in the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission to start work immediately after the armistice.

After consultation, North Korea and China decided that the Chinese government would have full authority to issue invitations to the envoys of Czechoslovakia, India, Sweden, Switzerland, Poland and other countries stationed in China.

html On June 10, Zhang Hanfu, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese Government, met with the ambassadors of Czechoslovakia, India, Sweden, the Minister of Switzerland, and the Charge d'Affaires of Poland respectively in Beijing, and formally invited the five countries to participate in the work of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Committee.

html From November 11 to 13, the above-mentioned five countries accepted the invitation of the Chinese government and agreed to participate in the work of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission.

When the United States issued an invitation, the Swedish government quickly accepted the invitation from the United States on June 9 and agreed to participate in the work of the repatriation committee. However, it encountered some trouble when inviting Switzerland.

Switzerland was skeptical about whether South Korea could abide by the armistice agreement. The Swiss government proposed that unless all participating countries, including South Korea, promised to abide by the terms of the armistice agreement, it would consider sending people to North Korea to serve as members of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission.

The United States quickly explained that the South Korean army was under the command of the United Nations Army, and the United Nations Army had the right to negotiate with North Korea and China. In addition, all prisoners of war were taken in by the United Nations Command, not by the participating countries. After negotiations, on June 13, Switzerland agreed to the invitation of the United States and required the other party to provide conditions for full performance of its functions.

In addition, because South Korea opposed India as a neutral country member and opposed the entry of Indian troops into South Korea, India, which was about to serve as the chairman of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission and provide armed forces, would face great difficulties. Despite this, the Indian government still accepted it on June 13 At the invitation of the United States, on June 15, Poland and Czechoslovakia also expressed their willingness to serve as members of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission.

After the neutral countries accepted the invitations from both sides, the United States repeatedly requested that the neutral country members participating in the two committees arrive in North Korea as soon as possible so that they can start work immediately after the armistice agreement is signed.

By June 18, all preparatory work before the armistice had been completed, and the armistice agreement was about to be signed.