 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. Glad to say hello again after our summer vacation. Now may I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope. Edward P. Morgan and Larry LeCœur, both from the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Sir Gladwin Jebb, permanent representative of the United Kingdom's delegation to the United Nations. It's a glad one. We're glad to welcome you back to Chronoscope, particularly at a time when the United Nations General Assembly is moving into the area of decisions on Korea. It's, of course, no news to you, sir, that nevertheless many Americans have become what we might call disenchanted with the whole Korean business and at the outset of this special assembly session are greeted with headlines of differences among the houses of cousins between us, the British, and the Americans. Can you straighten us out a little bit on that, sir, before we get into the main discussion? Well, all this question difference is, it may be legitimate to discuss them, but I like to say just as the outset that we've got to agree after what is the position. You are the most powerful individual nation in the earth. But we, we are a great power and we are, furthermore, I would remind you of the center of a commonwealth which comprises well over, I think, a quarter of the population of the globe. And therefore if we agree, we're safe. The whole free world, in my view, is safe. And for that reason, we must agree. There's no alternative. We've got to agree. But again, if we are to agree, it's no good just calling ourselves each other's names. It's no good you're just announcing us as appeasers. It's no good our just announcing you as imperialists or whatever is said by some people in Great Britain that doesn't help at all. The thing is that we are, or we certainly ought to be, partners. What does that mean? That means that as democracies, both of us, we have, and we're bound to express the majority opinion in our countries, and quite right too. And why shouldn't we? And if we do have, express the majority opinion in our governments, it's no point in thinking that it's the end of the world or anything terrible happening. We've got to get agreement as a result of the expression, this expression of opinion. And therefore, sometimes, obviously, one government has got to defer to the views of the other government. Otherwise, there is no partnership. Now, in the Far East, of course, we wouldn't dispute that you, after your enormous sacrifices in Korea, have got, shall we say, a major interest in the Far East. But nevertheless, I suggest that we, who've also made sacrifices in view of our other commitments, quite considerable, we have a right to express our point of view. And we don't see why our opinion should not at least be heard. Well, so glad one to get down to specific questions. The United States strongly opposes the participation of India, a British Commonwealth nation, in this Korean political conference that follows the armistice sometime next fall, or this fall. Now, could you, would you care to state what the United Kingdom's position is on the participation of India in this political conference on Korea? Yes, I would. But that, of course, means that we must explain in two words what our general position is. And we think that, in the first place, the United Nations has scored a great victory in repelling aggression and pushing back the aggressor way it came from. And it hadn't been for that, which is largely your initial decision. Where should we be now, in a terrible situation with the Third World War threatening? Let me be undiplomatic and interrupted diplomats are glad. When that brings up a point right there that it seems to me is quite important to Americans. And that is that we have been taught in school and just in our general life that when you go into a game or into a war, you're supposed to win it. A lot of people think that there has been no victory in Korea, that we haven't won it. Well, I don't agree. And that seems to be bothering. I don't agree. I think we have won it. And so far as the game has been played, we won. We've repelled aggression. But what is our having repelled aggression? What are our objectives now? I think that our objectives, yours and ours, our objectives are the same. And I'm sure that's been said on both sides of what is the objective? The objective is the unification by peaceful means of Korea. And that is our objective. Well, if you rule out war, of course, we're not going to go on with this war having one of what we set out to do. What is the procedure? If you're going to unify Korea by peaceful means or going to do it by peaceful means, and what does peaceful means mean? It means by talking, by negotiation. What else can it mean? If you're going to have a negotiation, you must do it in the best possible way. That is to say, you must get into the negotiation. Anybody who can affect one way or another, but affect definitely the situation in Korea and have an effect on the peaceful unification of Korea. And that is why we support the Indians and indeed the Russians. I'm glad when it's also a question who does the negotiation, I suppose. The United States, for example, is strongly opposed to the invitation to Soviet Russia to participate in this political conference on Korea as a member of the United Nations side. How do you feel about that? Well, we don't. We think under the strict interpretation of Article 60, it's true, there are two sides that are those who fought on both sides, on one side, the Koreans and the North Koreans and the Communist Chinese and the other, the 16 nations. And the strict interpretation, you might say those are the two sides. That may be so. We wouldn't dispute that. But if you want to have a successful negotiation for the peaceful unification of Korea, then out of you, you have to get in some other people too. And we think the General Assembly has a perfect right to recommend and to recommend, because if it recommends, it must be accepted by you and by the Chinese, but at least it can recommend that other states who have a great interest in Korea should be there to express their point of view. That's what we think. Well, you don't think that Russia should be exposed as, apart from her fictitious role as a neutral in Korea, bearing no responsibility, and to actually sit on the aggressor side of this political conference? I didn't say she was a neutral in Korea. I think she hasn't been altogether neutral. I think that's another point. But I think that her presence is necessary, if you want to get a solution by peaceful means, that's all I said. Sir Gladwin, would you say, sir, that one of the things that might be bothering Americans at this point particularly is that they're afraid that what might be called a round table negotiation would be one of appeasement and that out of discussion they might lose something? No, I don't think so at all. What is appeasement? Appeasement, I suppose, is doing something dishonorable in order to secure a solution, something that you wouldn't agree to on moral or other grounds. That would be appeasement. But if you enter into negotiation, you're not compelled to accept anything dishonorable, and you and we are neither nades nor fools, neither of us will agree to anything dishonorable. I'm quite certain of that, but there's no reason why we shouldn't enter into a negotiation. That's quite another thing. Negotiation is not appeasement. Well, when you get projecting beyond this immediate United Nations assembly meeting and into the political conference, that as Larry said, comes sometime this fall, what are the mechanics, sir, as you see it? Is there going to be an agreement, a majority agreement, on a peace document, or will it be a matter of an axis between Britain and the United States and the Western Allies on one side and China and Russia on the other? Well, if we ever get into negotiation, I hope we shall. It isn't a question of anybody imposing their will. In the resolution, which we shall shortly discuss in the United Nations, it's laid down that there shouldn't be any question of the majority of you prevailing, and how can a majority of you prevail? If a solution is not acceptable to you or, indeed, to the other side, it can't be imposed, and therefore it's laid down that every country participating in the negotiations shall not be bound, except by any decision, except by joint consent, and that applies to you. Does one have to make the dubious inference from that, sir, that there is a great possibility that there won't be any agreement, and we'll just rock along with a divided Korea as we have with a divided Germany? Yes, it's quite possible, but there's no reason why we shouldn't try for a better solution. Who knows what may happen if we try? Well, so glad when you think that the Korean Peace Conference to take place this fall should be strictly limited to the question of the unification of Korea or should go into other questions of the Far East. Well, I think certainly it should start off with the question of Korea. That's what's laid down in the Armistice Agreement, and that's perfectly right and proper. Now, if there is any progress on that, and if, I think it's a big if, but still it's possible, if there should be any disposition to discuss other questions in the Far East, well, that could be done either in the context of this particular negotiation or in some other, but it's possible. I wouldn't extrude that, but I think certainly they ought to concentrate on Korea first and try and get agreement on Korea first. I quite agree with that. And then if they find any agreement out of the questions you think possibly, go into them. Well, why not? Well, so glad I'd like to ask you a question about Red China. Her Majesty's government recognizes Red China, and is my understanding that your government would also like to see Red China admitted into the United Nations? Well, we recognize Red China because we think Red China is the government of China, and in the communist government in Peking, we think it is the government of China. And unfortunately, or fortunately, personally, I don't go into the model question at all itself. We never have. We think that it is actually people who are governing China. Now, that's all we say. Nothing else. So, glad I may ask you a question. If Red China were admitted to the United Nations, do you then think that they would then recognize Britain? I really don't know. Whether it was a change in Chinese representation in the United Nations would depend on a vote in the United Nations. Whether that will happen, I don't know. It will depend, perhaps, on some extent on how the Chinese behave in these negotiations and other things. That brings us quickly, Sir Gladwin, to a final question. Most of our experts agree that the overriding communist strategy is one to try to divide the allies. What's the British reading on that effort as of now? Well, I think that the Soviet strategy is undoubtedly to divide the allies and to try and make NATO a failure and divide us from you. That's their principal objective. But whether they are present in this conference or not is another question. It's quite arguable. I only say it's quite arguable if they were not present in this negotiation. They would divide you and us far more successfully than they were. Thank you very much, Sir Gladwin, for being with us on Chronoscope. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Long Gene Chronoscope was Edward P. Morgan and Larry LaSere, both of the CBS-TV News staff. Our distinguished guest was Sir Gladwin Jeb, permanent representative of the United Kingdom's delegation to the United Nations. Now, if you're contemplating the purchase of a very fine watch, it would be profitable to compare the facts about Long Gene watches with the facts you have about any other watch. Now, you'll find that the facts about Long Gene are convincing proof of surpassing quality. Actual evidence that in the Long Gene watch, you have one of the finest timepieces in made in all the world. For in competition with the world's best watches, Long Gene watches alone have won for excellence and elegance 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes and 28 Gold Medals. For accuracy, highest honors from the leading government observatories. For dependability, a position of leadership in sports, in aviation, and in science. Yet, though Long Gene is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in all the world, a Long Gene watch is not excessively expensive because you may buy and own or buy and proudly give a Long Gene watch for as little as $71.50. And this is important. Whatever the price, every Long Gene watch is manufactured to the highest standards of quality which have made Long Gene the world's most honored watch. The world's most honored gift. Long Gene, premier product of the Long Gene Witner 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 Long Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour. Broadcast on behalf of Long Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, a distinguished companion watch to the world-honored Long Gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Long Gene and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, agency for Long Gene Witner watches.