Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 1

501.BC/2–948

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Chief of the Division of South Asian Affairs (Thurston)

[Washington,] February 9, 1948.

Mr. Noyes¹ telephoned this morning to report that the Security Council consideration of the Kashmir case had taken a turn for the worse. He went on to say that over the weekend the Canadian President of the Council (McNaughton) and the Belgian rapporteur (Langenhove) had met with the Indian and Pakistani delegations and had placed before them alternative drafts of resolutions² which might take the form of either an appeal to the two parties or of a joint agreement between the two parties with respect to certain principles. Mr. Noyes did not have the exact texts which were placed before the parties but understands that the proposals were quite similar to those embodied in the enclosed draft.³

The upshot of the negotiations has been a letter⁴ just received by the president of the Council from the Indian delegation stating that the proposals put before them are so different from those which they have submitted in previous negotiations that they wish to suggest an adjournment of Security Council consideration of the case so that the Indian delegation could return to New Delhi to consult with their Government.

Mr. Noyes stated that Ambassador Austin and he both strongly felt that the Indian request for an adjournment should be turned down, and he wanted to have the Department’s concurrence on this point. However, the principal need for guidance is with respect to what steps the Department believes the American representatives should now take in regard to future action by the Council on this case. Mr. Noyes and I discussed five possibilities as follows:

1. Permitting an adjournment for a few days only in order that the Indians might have an opportunity to get fresh instructions from New Delhi;

2. Proceeding to discuss and to pass a resolution draft as an appeal to both parties to conclude a settlement along the lines of the enclosed document;⁵

3. Proceeding at once to a finding of fact with regard to the threat to peace involved in this issue and passing a resolution embodying detailed terms of settlement somewhat along the lines of the enclosed document;

4. Taking whatever action may be necessary to activate the Tripartite Commission authorized by a previous resolution⁶ and passing on to that Commission the possibility of working out on the spot the terms of a settlement; or

5. Agreeing to meet at least some of the Indian terms of settlement along the lines of the Indian memorandum presented to the Council some days ago.⁷

Mr. Noyes said that he and Ambassador Austin were considerably dismayed by the contents of telegram No. 117 of February 7 from New Delhi in which Ambassador Grady, while taking at the outset a firm stand on the Kashmir question, ended up by giving his support to a procedure which is almost exactly like the original Indian position in the Security Council. This action by Ambassador Grady might, Mr. Noyes thought, be one factor in the apparent Indian refusal to continue discussing the question in the Security Council. Mr. Noyes hoped that our Embassy in New Delhi was getting full information with respect to the proceedings at Lake Success and pointed out that Ambassador Austin was rather far out in front on the question of an interim question in Kashmir before and during a plebiscite, whereas Ambassador Grady has taken an entirely different attack. Mr. Noyes hoped that we would straighten New Delhi out in this respect.

Mr. Noyes stated that the text of the proposals put before the Indians and Pakistanis this weekend as well as the text of the Indian letter, would be telephoned down as soon as received. In the meantime he hoped that the Department would give urgent and serious consideration to the problem presented by the Indian letter and would communicate its recommendations to New York today.

1. Charles P. Noyes, Adviser to the U.S. Deputy Representative on the Security Council (Herschel V. Johnson).
2. Reference here is to Security Council document S/667 submitted to the delegations on February 6 but dated February 10. For text, see SC, 3rd yr., Suppl. for Jan.–March 1948, pp. 24–25.
3. Not printed.
4. For text of letter dated February 8, signed N. Gopalaswami, and an answering letter dated February 9 from McNaughton, see SC, 3rd yr., Suppl. for Jan.–March 1948, pp. 26–27.
5. Not printed.
6. Belgian Draft Resolution (S/654), adopted by the Security Council at its 230th meeting, January 20, 1948. For text and discussion, see SC, 3rd yr., Nos. 1–15, pp. 129 ff.
7. Presumably the Indian proposal introduced as document No. 2 in the 231st meeting of the Security Council, January 28, 1948. For text and discussion, see SC, 3rd yr., Nos. 1–15, pp. 266 ff.