357.AB/1–1650: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
priority
38. While Dept sees no reason further delay SC meeting on Kashmir case, if McNaughton unwilling present rpt before Feb 1, Dept meeting be arranged for that date or soon thereafter.
[Page 1376]In further development of suggestions contained Deptel 18, Jan 17 and Gross-Zafrullah conversation Jan 21,1 Dept inclined believe fol wld be best procedure for next SC meeting:
- (1)
- factual rpt by McNaughton,
- (2)
- statement by parties,
- (3)
- statements by Council members supporting McNaughton’s approach and approving the genl principles underlying his proposals,
- (4)
- resolution by Council requesting that McNaughton continue to consult with parties, that he consult with members of Council and that in light these consultations he submit to SC in say, one or two weeks, suggestions for Council action.
In our present view such a broadened and more flexible mandate to McNaughton wld be preferable to resolution limited to directing him to continue his mediatory efforts and calling on parties to work with him. While affording sufficient opportunity for GOI assume more cooperative attitude in event it disposed to do so following SC debate, suggested mandate wld serve notice at same time that mediatory efforts outside Council will not be continued indefinitely and some SC action is imminent. Furthermore, such mandate wld provide useful procedure for placing before SC a recommended course of action which US cld strongly support.
Dept not inclined favor this stage Council resolution formally approving principles McNaughton proposals as suggested by Paks. Such action, as distinguished from expressions views individual members, wld make even more unlikely any possibility reaching agreement with parties during interim through modifications McNaughton’s proposals.
Unless you disagree, pls explore above approach with UK and CanaDels.
- Memorandum of conversation not found in Department of State files.↩