Mr. EATON. That is correct, as far as any acceptance of International Committee of the Red Cross in their proper role, to visit prison camps as they are permitted to do in the South.

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR BY SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The International Red Cross, of course, also is deeply concerned with the treatment of prisoners from the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese regulars who are interned in prisons in South Vietnam.

We have heard some criticism of the treatment of prisoners by South Vietnam. Can you advise the subcommittee what the International Red Cross has reported upon their investigation of prison camps in South Vietnam?

Mr. EATON. This is something that has been discussed a number of times, since November, and as late as the last 3 to 4 weeks.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has greatly increased its staff in South Vietnam, also in Vientiane. Their reports show more numerous visits to the prisoner-of-war camps, and, incidentally, the last report which they made indicated that over half of their visits had been made to civilian prisons. I mention this because this has come up as a criticism.

The South Vietnamese Government have permitted them to visit civilian prisons as well as prisoner-of-war camps, because in some civilian prisons, you could have a few prisoners of war.

This is what happened in one instance which is known to the committee.

But their overall reporting has been most favorable on two counts: First, the fact that they are allowed to have any number of representatives they desire available for their inspections; they are allowed to make their inspections freely; they are allowed to talk to the prisoners alone, and not in the presence of witnesses; they are permitted to take as many visitors, their delegates, into the prison as they desire. So that the overall picture is quite good.

And I would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter of great concern to the American Red Cross, because we are as concerned in seeing that the conventions are carried out with respect to these prisoners being held in the South as we are in our efforts toward the North, because we think this reflects or will reflect eventually in the treatment of our own prisoners.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. And you are therefore satisfied that the provisions in the Geneva Conventions are, to the extent possible, maintained in the prison camps in South Vietnam?

Mr. EATON. Yes, sir.

I would like to emphasize again that full lists of prisoners of the North are given to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Committee have made these lists available to the North Vietnamese in accordance with the conventions.

Mail would be permitted at any time; mail is permitted not only in reference to the North Vietnamese who are held prisoners but the Vietcong who are prisoners, so that every effort seems to have been made to carry out the provisions of the conventions.

U.S. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENEMY POW'S

Mr. ZABLOCKI. There was some criticism, and certainly question as to what responsibility the United States has under the terms of the Geneva Convention. That is, continuing responsibility for prisoners which it captures and subsequently turns over to South Vietnamese for detention.

How well has that responsibility been exercised, in your opinion and in the opinion of the International Red Cross?

Mr. EATON. Mr. Starr might speak to that from a legal point of view, because this is a very important point.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD W. STARR, SECRETARY AND

COUNSELOR, AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS

Mr. STARR. Well, Mr. Chairman, the convention specifically authorizes the turnover of prisoners to another party to the convention, by a capturing power who is a party to the convention.

That is, of course, the case in South Vietnam. However, the convention provides that the capturing party who transfers to an ally, also a member of the convention, has a residual responsibility for those prisoners; and if the transferee party fails to observe the convention as respects the treatment of those transferees, then it is the responsibility of the transferor party to see that the situation is corrected.

In order to carry that out, it is my understanding, and I am quite sure my understanding is correct, that the United States has assigned to each prisoner of war camp United States military observers, and advisers, who report immediately to their superiors and thence to the superiors of the South Vietnamese detaining authorities, any transgressions of the conventions.

This is well-known to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Committee of the Red Cross has been advised formally by our Government that it does accept the residual responsibility which the convention imposes upon it, and hence, wants from the International Committee of the Red Cross reports of any transgressions in the handling of North Vietnamese prisoners who have been transferred to South Vietnam.

PROBLEM OF PRISONER REPATRIATION

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I have one further question which was prompted by the suggestion and proposal of our colleague from Illinois, Mr. Findley.

It concerns the unilateral release of North Vietnamese prisoners. Under the convention, how is the problem of repatriation handled? For example, if a man chooses not to return to his country of origin, say, to North Vietnam, must he be forced to? How is repatriation handled?

I presume that the International Red Cross would handle repatriation, would it not?

Mr. STARR. Well, that is a situation, of course, that occurred at the conclusion of the hostilities in Korea, and there, no prisoner was repatriated against his will.

The convention specifically prohibits any repatriation of a prisoner against his will during hostilities.

In Korea, of course, we had the question of forced repatriation after the cessation of hostilities, and it was determined that no prisonersno erstwhile prisoners could be forcefully repatriated to his own. country against his will. And commissions were established, as you may recall, to make certain that that choice of the prisoner was a freewill choice.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Eaton?

Mr. EATON. But the conventions, the POW Convention, specifically prohibits, during the course of hostilities, the forcible repatriation of a prisoner of war.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Does the convention prohibit sending released prisoners back into armed combat, against the former captor? Mr. STARR. Yes; it does.

NONCOMBAT STATUS OF RELEASED POW'S

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Now there is one final question.

We had nine prisoners of war released. To your knowledge, have any of the nine of the released prisoners by North Vietnam been back in combat service in Southeast Asia?

Mr. STARR. Not to my knowledge, sir. Of course, I wouldn't have any firsthand knowledge on that. The convention has never been construed, of course, to mean that a repatriated prisoner could not continue in the military services of his country, but he could not engage in combat.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Findley.

RED CROSS PARTICIPATION IN UNILATERAL REPATRIATION

Mr. FINDLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On that same point, in the large-scale repatriation of prisoners, do you see any reason why the International Red Cross would not be able to participate closely in the development and implementation of the plan?

Mr. STARR. Certainly not from the standpoint of our Government. Whether or not they could gain any access or exercise any negotiating arrangements with the North Vietnamese, of course, is very problematical.

Mr. FINDLEY. Yes, sir. Under this proposal, the cooperation of North Vietnam would not be required.

Mr. STARR. I understand.

Mr. FINDLEY. It would be entirely unilateral.

I have been appalled at the attitude of North Vietnam on the treatment of prisoners of war and those missing in action, and am amazed that they would not show some greater sign of humanity, if for no other reason than to hasten the departure of U.S. forces from South Vietnam.

In questioning Colonel Overly yesterday, one of his responses indicated that he questions whether Hanoi really wants all of the American forces out at the earliest possible date.

Do you have any reason to question that yourself?

Mr. STARR. No, I wouldn't; and, of course, I wouldn't be in possession of the information that would be basic to forming an opinion on that point, Mr. Findley.

Mr. FINDLEY. Can you speculate as to why Hanoi doesn't at least cooperate to the extent of identifying the place of burial or sending the personal effects left by someone known to be dead?

Mr. STARR. I can't for the life of me see why they think there is any advantage in withholding this information. And I have found in my discussions with members of other Red Cross societies the same bafflement as to why they think there is any political advantage to be gained by withholding that information, or failing to send in a death certificate, or

Mr. FINDLEY. It would seem to me that Hanoi would recognize that its policy on prisoners of war is really holding back the full and prompt withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam. And that they would, in light of that, assuming they do want us out as fast as possible, do the best they could to build some sympathy or at least some acknowledgement of world opinion that they are living up to the Geneva accords.

Would that seem reasonable to you?

Mr. STARR. Yes; it would. I think I may be in a little different position from those who have expressed the opinion that North Vietnam is completely insensitive to world opinion.

I think that they are going to play this, of course, to what they think is their best advantage. However, I believe that if the countries who are really sympathetic with the North Vietnamese military position or political position, make it known to them, which, of course, we are trying to do through the Red Cross societies involved, that they are gaining disfavor, and that their cause is suffering, that it will have some impact.

Mr. FINDLEY. Ünder the proposed unilateral large-scale repatriation of prisoners, about 1,600-assuming that many are willing to be repatriated-would be released at one time from one location. Do you know of any similar event in history?

Mr. STARR. I can't say that I do.

Mr. FINDLEY. Do you happen to know what the largest unilateral unconditional release of prisoners might have been?

Do you have any approximate figure?

Mr. STARR. None at all.

Mr. FINDLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REPORT OF HAGUE MEETING ON GENEVA CONVENTIONS

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I wish to apologize to the committee that inadvertently I began the questioning without giving Mr. Starr an opportunity to make a statement on the meeting held at The Hague. If you would care to do so at this point, it may generate some additional questions.

Mr. STARR. I would be happy to at this point, Mr. Chairman, but it may come as some disappointment to the committee that The Hague meeting did not deal with the North Vietnamese-South Vietnamese

American prisoners of war problem. It was not an appropriate—as a matter of fact, it was not an available forum for such a discussion.

I have to give you a little background on The Hague meeting. The International Committee of the Red Cross was under instructions by the International Conference of the Red Cross, which is, of course, the supreme deliberative body of the International Red Cross, to undertake a study of the present conventions with an eye toward improving them, improving their effectiveness, particularly in the field of the treatment of civilians.

They undertook that study, and called a meeting of experts from 39 governments, which will be convened in Geneva at the end of May, and will run for some 3 weeks.

Those 39 governments will then consider the proposals which the International Committee of the Red Cross has developed, looking toward supplementing the existing humanitarian conventions by providing further protection for victims of armed conflicts, both international and non-international in character.

The International Committee of the Red Cross then invited every Red Cross Society to attend this meeting in The Hague, at which time. they would have an opportunity to look at the Committee's proposals, which would be submitted so the government experts at the meeting, the Geneva meeting, convening at the end of May.

The International Committee and the Dutch Red Cross were, of course, the hosts for this conference. There were no votes taken on any subject. There were no resolutions adopted. And it was a rule promulgated by the hosts, and I think a very appropriate rule, that specific instances, specific charges against any state, would not be appropriate, that we were talking only in generalities, about the advisability of augmenting or supplementing the present humanitarian conventions.

The Prisoner-of-War Convention was discussed in that manner. There was, when I say agreement, remember, I say that there were no votes taken, no resolutions adopted-but everyone who spoke on this particular subject, which I will outline in a minute, expressed great interest in and support for the idea that there must be devised some better method of supervising the observance of the conventions. There was, I think, without any dissent, a feeling that the hands of the International Committee of the Red Cross had to be strengthened, in order to ensure that they could carry out their humanitarian functions, such as the inspection of prisoner-of-war camps, and other scrutiny of compliance with the terms of not only the POW but all the Geneva Conventions.

The American Red Cross, of course, took the position that we were in favor of any supplementation of the conventions that was practical, that we could not, of course, pass upon the specific proposals in terms of what they might mean in terms of military procedures, and so forth, but that our main plea was to remember, was to remind that in addition to strengthening the conventions, it is very, very important that every National Red Cross Society and every segment of the International Red Cross devote itself to seeing to it that the terms of the present conventions are applied.