 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Edward P. Morgan and Larry Lusser, both of the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Robert Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs. Mr. Secretary, if Larry Lusser and I, during the course of the discussion, refer to you as Mr. Ambassador, instead of Mr. Secretary, perhaps we can be pardoned, because we've both known you so much more recently as Ambassador, first to in North Africa, and then Germany, and most recently Japan. Now, with your position as Assistant Secretary in charge of United Nations Affairs, you're on the spot with us tonight, on the issue of the Korean conference. Sir, just a few nights ago, Sir Gladwin Jeb, the permanent British delegate to the United Nations, was sitting where you're sitting now, and he explained for us, lucidly, the British position as to why they were backing India for the Korean conference. I think it might be helpful if you, in your capacity, could explain the American position against India in this conference for Korea. Thank you very much, Ed and Larry. I just want to say a word, tell you how happy I am to be with you after all these years. I hope that you won't be using any titles to me at all. We had a very vain man in our service some years ago who was appointed Ambassador, and his friend asked him what he should call him, and he said, oh, I don't like titles, just call me your excellence, say. But the question you ask is a very pertinent one, and I'm very happy over this opportunity to state briefly the American position on it. We're very disturbed and unhappy over the notion that an impression has been created that the United States is opposing India as such. That is not at all the position. We, after, as you know, long months of effort and paying a very high price, obtained an armistice agreement in Korea. Part of that agreement lays down the terms of reference for a political conference, which is to be held 90 days after the effective date of that agreement. The terms of reference limit the conference to the government's concern and to representatives of both sides. And in addition, the preamble of the armistice agreement relates to the belligerence. Now, India, by its own statements throughout in its conduct, throughout the period of hostilities, has earned the right of definition as a neutral in this affair. It is not a member of either side to the conflict and was not a belligerent, although it contributed an ambulance unit to the service in Korea. Therefore, and in addition to the fact that India agreed to act as the chairman of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, again stamping itself as a neutral, clearly brings it without the definition. We have no other choice, and it is without any thought of animus or opposition to India as such that we are forced to the position that India is not entitled and should not participate in the political conference. Ambassador, the Cuban delegate of the United Nations has said in a speech that if India participates in this impending Korean peace conference, then Sigmund Rhee is likely to walk out. Do you think that's a real danger or is that part of psychological warfare? Well, I don't think it's psychological warfare at all. Mr. Sigmund Rhee has very firm and ardent convictions on this subject and is against the participation of India. Obviously, a political conference dealing with the Korean question without the participation of the representative of the Republic of Korea would be null and void, and we cannot think in those terms. As you know, India has never recognized the Republic of Korea. There are no diplomatic relations between the two countries, and there is strong sentiment, perhaps on both sides. I'd like to explore this position of India just a little further if we could, Mr. Secretary, using the title. I've run across an editorial in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor, which makes this point the desire of British and French UN delegates that there should be a multi-sided genuine peace conference rather than a mere continuance of haggling between two parties is not only understandable but right-minded. And then it goes on to say, however, that the trouble is that to hold such an all-in conference once would throw together questions which ought not to be considered together, namely withdrawal of Chinese aggressor troops and acceptance of Red China as member of the UN. Now, if you'll bear with me just a little bit, I sound as if I were a politician. They make this point. The United States delegation at the UN ought to make unmistakably clear that it does not oppose the holding of two conferences and that it would even welcome the presence of India as a mediator in the second. Would you care to comment on that, sir, to emphasize your first point? Yes, Ed. I think that's very pertinent to the question. We are entirely sympathetic to the notion that, eventually, there may be another political conference dealing with the larger far eastern situation. The present conference is to deal with two main items which are mentioned in the Arms Disagreement. One is the settlement of the Korean question and the other is the withdrawal of foreign forces from Korea. There's an additional word in that paragraph, et cetera. We presume that is a word added by the Communist representative at Panmunjom. We presume that that relates to the two items I just mentioned. But this conference is not to deal with the larger issues in the far east. It is to deal with a specific problem of Korea. And we feel that naturally India as a great Asiatic power, a friendly nation with whom we want to cooperate in every way in international matters should, of course, be a member of any larger political conference dealing with far eastern affairs generally in which she has a very direct and germane interest. Mr. Murphy, speaking of India as a great Asiatic power, what about Japan? Ambassador there very recently, Japan is only 100 miles away from Korea. Do you think it should have any role in the Korean conference? Or a far east settlement for that matter? Of course Japan is very interested in what happens in Korea. I do not believe that Japanese leaders expect to participate in this particular conference. They know that they do not fall any more than India or Formosa does within the definition of paragraph 60 of the Arms Disagreement. And that is the structure on which we're operating. Well, actually what do we hope to achieve in this political conference which should be held sometime in October? Well, there are two major issues. One is the question of the future political structure in Korea as a whole, the question of unification of the country. We have now an artificial division established first by an agreement of military commanders after World War II on the 38th parallel and now the line of demarcation resulting from the recent hostilities. The line is an arbitrary one. It has no relation to the basic political and economic factors in the country. Obviously at some time the country should and must be unified and we stand for the unification of Korea on a democratic and representative basis and we hope that at least this conference will make progress to that end if not accomplished. Mr. Murphy, if the conference doesn't go the way we want it to go and I'm trying to make a distinction now between the present UN assembly meeting which sets up the rules, the ground rules so to speak, for the conference and the conference itself, if the conference itself later in the fall doesn't go the way we want it to go. Will we pull out and go our own way with South Korea? Well, we have an understanding with the President of the Republic of Korea that if after a period of 90 days we come to the conclusion that the conference is being used for subversive purposes, for sabotage we will then reconsider our position and we maintain that at that point we shall have full liberty of action to determine what our future course shall be. We have not committed ourselves in any way to taking any specific action at that time except to review the situation and act accordingly. Mr. Murphy, the resolution which we concur on in the General Assembly says that no states shall be bound by the decisions of the conference unless they agree with those decisions. Do you think that means that we will go it alone with the ROK Republic or will we go to this political conference bound by certain UN requirements? Well Larry, I think it's customary in conferences of this character for the individual government to maintain an independence of action. We are not going to the conference as a member of a team or a delegation responsive to instructions as we will say the individual members of a national delegation receive their instructions from their government. That won't be the situation in this case. The group will be made up of independent governments responsive to their own governmental organizations. Mr. Secretary, a final question and a complete change of pace after this most interesting expose of our position. As we've said earlier, you have been all around the periphery of the Soviet Empire and in many other parts of the world and are now back in the department. You've watched our men of the Foreign Service and in the State Department operate. You are conscious of the fact that they have been severely criticized as a body. What is your considered judgment as to their caliber? Well Ed, I'm very grateful to you for an opportunity to say just a word. It'll have to be just a word, unfortunately. I'm naturally a prejudice witness, but I do wish to say that as a result of 32 years of association with the American Foreign Service and the Department of State, I am convinced and I think I know that the vast mass of Americans who are in the Department of State and the American Foreign Service consist of loyal and devoted public servants. Thank you very much. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Edward P. Morgan and Larry Lusser, both of the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Robert Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs. If you're contemplating the purchase of a very fine watch, it would be profitable to compare the facts about Laun Jean watches with the fact you have about any other watch. And you'll find that the facts about Laun Jean are convincing proof of surpassing excellence, factual evidence that in a Laun Jean watch you have one of the world's very finest watches. Four, in competition with the world's best watches, Laun Jean watches alone have won for excellence and elegance ten World Fair Grand Prizes and twenty-eight gold medals for accuracy, highest honors from the leading government observatories, for dependability, for education of leadership in sports, aviation, and in science. Yet though Laun Jean is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in the world, a Laun Jean watch is not excessively expensive because you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as $71.50, and this is important, whatever the price. Every Laun Jean watch is manufactured to the highest standards of quality, which have made Laun Jean the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. Laun Jean, premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner Distinguished Companion Watch to the world-honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, Agency for Laun Jean Wittner Watches. Saturday nights watch the Medallion Theater on the CBS television network.