501.BC Kashmir/4–2949: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
476. Comkas 39. Commission presenting simultaneously both governments April 28 its “truce terms” requesting “unreserved acceptance” with no further discussions and with one week time limit for reply.1 Lozano will present to GOI in Delhi and Macatee2 to GOP in Rawalpindi.
As anticipated Comkas 38,3 terms consist of April 15 proposals revised and clarified to take into account previous replies both governments, together with revised schedule withdrawal Indian forces worked out by DelGOI [Delvoie] and addition of provision that seven week time limit withdrawal Pakistan troops may be extended to three months if decisions reached in seven weeks on reduction Azad forces.
Principal difficulty has been created by provision April 15 proposals, which USDel opposed, that if defense of northern area of state necessary, Commission may agree to GOI posting garrisons there. In last few days GOP has made several oral and written protests that any Commission agreement permit stationing Indian garrisons this area would contravene II B 2 of August 13 Resolution.4 Latest letter from GOP virtually states that if the provision retained in new proposals, GOP will not accept them. These communications have had unfortunate counterproductive effects on rest of Commission which USDel had found hard to combat and have made more difficult any modification previous proposals this point.
However, USDel received information that only reason GOP objection was complete lack faith in Lozano and Leguizamon and fear that they would force Commission to agree stationing troops this area near future. USDel therefore successful in persuading Commission [Page 1702] modify truce terms to provide that without prejudice to Commission delegating its powers to PA, if the Commission and/or PA should conclude that it was necessary for defense of northern area, Commission and/or PA may agree stationing Indian garrisons specified points. USDel believes that truce terms represent fair compromise which either government would be ill-advised reject.
Different but consistent letters will accompany terms to replace necessity oral discussions by explaining briefly certain points about which governments had expressed concern in replies April 15 proposals.
Re Kascom 725 USDel convinced unwise introduce PA into truce negotiations this point until replies received both governments truce terms. If replies negative we will advise further. Present trend thought Latin American members is that if replies negative next step would be refer problem to SC. USDel believes this premature. If this developed as firm view of other members USDel would favor as alternative introduce PA into truce negotiations.
Inform Nimitz.
Sent Department 476, Rangoon 18, repeated London. Pouched Karachi.
- For the text of the truce terms, and for related documentation, see SC, 4th yr., Special Suppl. No. 7, pp. 111 ff.↩
- Robert B. Macatee, of the United States Delegation, Vice Chairman of the UNCIP.↩
- Telegram 456, supra. ↩
- For documentation relating to the UNCIP resolution of August 13, 1948, see Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. v, Part 1, pp. 265 ff.↩
- Not printed.↩