501.BC Kashmir/10–2648: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Delegation at the United Nations General Assembly, at Paris
secret niact
us urgent
us urgent
Washington, October 29, 1948—7 p. m.
Gadel 357. Following represents present Dept thinking Kashmir question and may be used as guide by GADel In its reply Cadogan aide-mémoire1 and informal discussions with Brit and others. Delga 442, Oct 22 and London’s 4629 Oct 26.2
- (1)
- Dept recognizes paramount importance direct negotiations which may now be in progress between Nehru and Liaquat since obviously any measure of agreement between them on Kashmir question would be best foundation on which base further UN action.
- (2)
- Should Nehru and Liaquat talks produce any definitive results, we believe it highly important such measures be reflected interim report now under preparation by UNCIP.
- (3)
- Should, however, foregoing high-level talks completely fail, we believe UNCIP and then SC should take definite action designed bring further pressure on parties for peaceable solution Kashmir problem.
- (4)
- We recognize soundness UNCIP’s apparent feeling that including positive recommendations in its report for affirmative action by SC might prejudice UNCIP’s present acceptability to both governments thus impairing its utility as agency for implementation eventual plan settlement. Nevertheless, we continue believe (Kascom’s 35 and 393) UNCIP interim report could and should include some positive conclusions since UNCIP in better position than any individual SC member to reach conclusions and since failure do so would probably result in unnecessary repetition lengthy debates SC.
- (5)
- For example, UNCIP could without appreciably jeopardizing its future utility conclude that broad framework represented by SC resolution Apr 21 and UNCIP cease fire and truce proposals Aug 13 offer reasonable and fair basis for settlement, even though certain modifications might be considered desirable by SC, such as Comkas suggestion plebiscite administrator be made directly responsible UNCIP rather than SYG. In reaching these conclusions UNCIP would in effect be merely reaffirming its own crystallized efforts and those SC, thus enabling SC in its further consideration of matter take [Page 438] advantage well considered principles already established and obviating reopening many details.
- (6)
- Although UNCIP would not under this suggested plan of action make concrete recommendations as to future SC action, it is our belief the six sponsors of Apr 21 resolution should respond to UNCIP’s report by reopening active discussion Kashmir question in SC. These delegations can utilize conclusions reached by UNCIP in its interim report as basis for new joint resolution recommending revised SC recommendations to the parties. It is possible that at this stage SC might wish consider use Art 40 re cease fire and/or truce proposals. Also at this time joint sponsors could give serious consideration possibility including within recommended plan for plebiscite proviso that latter be conducted by districts so that each district may decide whether accede India or Pak. We believe partition idea would more appropriately come from members SC than from UNCIP since neither in Apr 21 resolution SC or in discussions UNCIP with GOI and GOP was matter ever formally considered. If six original sponsors Apr 21 resolution could, however, be brought to agree on desirability scheme accession by districts or some variant of this, this step could be viewed as natural development thinking SC among govts which have been most directly concerned with peaceable and equitable solution Kashmir question.
- (7)
- Partition proposal on basis district voting might overcome Pak fear partition would redound her disadvantage and give predominantly Moslem areas to India and also might overcome GOI reluctance accept SC plebiscite terms for fear GOI would lose entire state. Such procedure would likewise facilitate concentration UN supervision and observation to those relatively few districts where result would be most doubtful and attempts to influence greatest.
- (8)
- Above procedure would permit UNCIP set guides without itself going substantially beyond SC resolution and its own proposals and would at same time, by utilizing six original sponsors Apr 21 res, avoid placing onus on any one member SC for introduction new principle of partition. It would not, of course, obviate difficulty re informal initiative among six original sponsors and this problem we believe should be discussed fully with Brit.
Lovett