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

501.BC Kashmir/3–2348

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. J. Wesley Adams, Jr., of the United States Mission to the United Nations

confidential

[New York,] March 23, 1948.

Participants:	Mr. Henry Carter, Canada
	Dr. Ting-fu Tsiang, China
	Dr. Shuhsi Hsu, China
	Joseph Nisot, Belgium
	André Wendelen, Belgium
	Sir Paul Patrick, United Kingdom
	Robert Curson, United Kingdom
	Mr. Ray Thurston, United States Mission
	Mr. J. Wesley Adams, United States Mission

At the request of Dr. Tsiang, as President of the Security Council, the above representatives met this morning in Tsiang’s offices to discuss the Chinese draft resolution on the Kashmir question introduced in the Security Council on March 18. Invitations to participate in the meeting were extended to those Delegations which had presented resolutions regarding the India-Pakistan question or which had submitted suggestions to the President of the Council in connection with his resolution. On this basis, Mr. Lopez (Colombia) was invited to attend but presumably because of pique over the scant attention given his resolution by the Council did not attend the meeting.

The only paper was that submitted by the British which, as Sir Paul explained, contained several United States suggestions. The British document, in fact, incorporated the amendments on which informal agreement had been reached between ourselves and the British in discussions in the Department on March 20.¹ Discussion on the British paper was virtually restricted to the representatives of China, United Kingdom, and the United States. In general, Tsiang expressed his agreement with the amendments suggested but appeared to be somewhat reserved with respect to British amendments dealing with the distribution of Indian troops.

In connection with the proposed amendments expanding the powers of the plebiscite administration with reference to maintenance of law and order, Tsiang explained that he had discussed this question with the Indian Delegation and that the latter had expressed its willingness to place at the disposal of the plebiscite administration both such troops and police as might be necessary for any powers granted him in this category.

After completion of the discussion regarding the detailed amendments, Tsiang raised the question of how he should proceed in endeavoring to obtain the support of the parties to this resolution. In this connection, he emphasized the importance of broadening the base of support for his resolution as amended and inquired whether the Delegations represented at the meeting would be willing to join him in sponsoring the amended resolution. At this point, the Canadian Representative said that he had been instructed to state that Canada must enter a reservation regarding its position, that he could not make any commitment whatsoever, and that the Canadian position had always been that we should strive towards the achievement of an agreement between the parties. He clearly indicated that Canada did not wish to join in the sponsoring of a resolution to which one of the parties was not willing to give its approval. Thereupon Nisot (Belgium) stated that his position was very much like that of Canada, and he entered a similar reservation. The British representatives mentioned that they did not wish to participate formally in the sponsorship of the resolution, and Nisot then turned to the United States representatives and said that while he could understand the British reluctance, he did not see why the United States could not give its formal support to a resolution. He clearly implied that if the United States was willing to take such a step, Belgium might follow suit. Mr. Thurston said that he also would have to reserve the position of his Government on the amended resolution but that the possibility of United States joining like-minded Delegations in a formal support of such a resolution as the one under consideration was not entirely excluded.

The question of sponsorship was left unsettled, and it was agreed that representatives of China, United Kingdom, and United States would meet in the afternoon to work out refinements in the wording of the draft resolution. The representatives of Belgium and Canada stated that they would be unable to attend because of a shortage of personnel. Mr. Tsiang, indicating that he would not need to have the formal approval of the Governments of those representatives, stated that he would undertake to discuss the resolution, as amended, with the represetatives of Pakistan and India in an effort to obtain the greatest possible measure of agreement. Earlier in the meeting, Tsiang had emphasized that while it would probably never be possible to obtain complete agreement of both parties, the effort of the Council should be directed toward narrowing the area of this disagreement to the end that the parties would at least acquiesce in a settlement along the lines under discussion.

In a brief discussion with the British after the completion of the meeting in the offices of the Chinese Delegation, it was agreed that there could be no objection to the Chinese representative approaching the parties with his amended resolution, and telling the parties, if necessary, that his resolution, together with the changes made therein had the informal approval of the United States and the United Kingdom Delegations.

In the afternoon meeting, attended by representatives of China, United Kingdom, and United States, proposed amendments to the Chinese resolution, as contained in the attached draft,² were tentatively and informally agreed to. Dr. Hsu indicated that he would have to discuss certain of the amendments with Tsiang, particularly those relating to the disposition of troops, before he could undertake Chinese sponsorship of them. Mr. Thurston stated that he entertained some doubts regarding the necessity of stipulating detailed provisions with respect to the disposition of Kashmir State troops in view of the other safeguards on this point contained in the draft resolution.

1. Memorandum of conversation not found in Department of State files.
2. Not printed. This draft, and later amendments to it, were discussed in the week that followed in similar, semiformal meetings with a varying list of individual and country participants. Memoranda of conversations of March 25, 26, 29, and 30 are in Department of State file 501.BC Kashmir.