Student Groups to Form 'Cease-Fire Committee'

Back Indian Plan; Keep One Loophole

Representatives and observers from 11 student organizations last night thrashed out a Harvard Peace Council proposal for an immediate Korean cease-fire and tentatively agreed to form a committee to bring the issue before the student body.

About 40 people, many of them unattached, attended the meeting in P.B.H. called by the Peace Council to consider it's cease-fire plan. The council invited all student political and religious organizations recognized by the University, and any other interested individuals.

In its lively two-hour discussion, the group freely criticized the Peace Council proposal for "an immediate cease-fire in Korea, not contingent on settlement of the prisoner of war issue, but implemented by the agreements made by the negotiators in the draft armistice."

Partial Agreement

Although the group put forth a number of counter proposals, at the end it did manage to come to a partial agreement. Eleven members joined in supporting a modified plan put forth by Phillipe Villers '55, representative from the Liberal Union.

Villers moved that the group declare itself in favor of "the Indian resolution on Korea in the United Nations, but that if some agreement cannot be reached on that basis, the U.S. should consider the possibility of an immediate cease-fire, subject to the safeguards already agreed upon at Panmunjon, with the implementation of the U.N. position on repatriation left to post cease-fire discussion."

Meeting Tuesday

Although the group did not formally adopt the Villers plan, it did agree to meet next Tuesday in order to consider it further and to frame proposals for stimulating student discussion of the issue. Burton Reif 1L, a member of the Peace Council and chairman of the meet- ing, said that the group would probably form some sort of an inter-organizational continuation committee to carry on its activities. These activities, he said, may include sponsoring a forum on the question and a University-wide referendum.

Before Villers' proposal the group was split into three main positions. Six members favored the original Peace Council proposal; nine a proposal for cease-fire implemented by certain actions, such as the admission of Red China to the U.N.; and four, unilateral disarmament.

The backing for the unilateral disarmament proposal came mainly from a contingent of Students for Non-Violent Action. One member, Robert W. Tucker '53, explained that although the SNVP favored unilateral disarmament they realized that such a move "hinges upon a moral regeneration in America" which he called "unfortunately so implausible as to be ridiculous." For this reason he suggested that the group recognize the Korean problem as "insoluble."

Ten Organizations Represented

Besides the Peace Council, the Liberal Union and SNVP, eight other organizations were represented either officially or by observers. They included: the United Nations Council, the Canterbury Club, the Young Progressives, the Cambridge Young Friends (an affiliate of the Friends Service Committee), the Wesley Foundation, the Radcliffe Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the United World Federalists, and the Debate Council