357.AB/1–1650: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
40. Reftel No. 37, January 16. Further reference Kashmir case, my view is that no change in method of negotiation seems intended by Prime Minister’s message. GOI has always demanded more than it expected to get. The device of misconstruing our position has been frequent. I believe door is not closed by Prime Minister’s message more than it has been before. Suggest we not be drawn into position of a party. Believe transfer to New Delhi of negotiations would tend to neutralize influence SC in the case. Suggest carry on according to Secretary’s message January 13 so far as possible.
Gross had long discussion with McNaughton and Cadogan1 this afternoon. They agree we should continue efforts to keep McNaughton in picture. They agree to procedure set forth below tentatively suggested by Gross.
Unless Department considers another course more suitable and advises us accordingly prior to SC meeting January 17, we propose to take following action at meeting:
At opening of meeting when agenda is proposed for adoption, US representative will make brief statement referring to interim report by McNaughton made at SC meeting December 29,2 and pointing out that no further developments had been reported to SC since that time. US representative will urge that Kashmir be added to agenda for next meeting with thought that McNaughton will file further report to SC, stating what, if any, developments had taken place since December 29 meeting. We would recommend SC meeting Thursday or Friday for purpose McNaughton’s submitting factual report his efforts, his proposals, and replies of parties.
Following McNaughton report, US representative or some other representative would suggest that discussion of item be adjourned in order to permit parties time to prepare statements, and members SC to consider facts reported by McNaughton.