330/7–1750: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
niact
[Received July 17—8:08 p. m.]
113. 1. In view wide publicity given to Nehru’s approaches and deliberate leak Soviet reply, we agree that documents exchanged must eventually be made public and that therefore our reply should be brief and contain minimum argumentation. (Deptel 71 July 16).
2. We consider text helpful, but have some concern lest Nehru will be offended at our failure to let him know our present attitude re Chinese representation. He may consider our silence this regard evasive and indicative lack of proper respect for his approach on which he has staked so much before whole world.
3. We venture, therefore, suggest that something along following lines be substituted for last sentence of penultimate paragraph your draft:
“Our views in this regard are already known to you. There have been no recent developments which, in our considered opinion, would justify a change in them. We believe that in the interest of the UN and of world peace, such decision as the UN may make should not be influenced by threats or acts of aggression or by any other conduct which would subject the UN to coercion and duress.”
4. Nehru has made so much of this diplomatic venture that he is sure to be annoyed at negative reply from US no matter how gentle and disarming our language may be. We probably shall be widely denounced for several days by Indian press and certain sections public for blocking “peace move.” Nevertheless we are hopeful that the more sober although not so voluble elements among Indian leaders who are beginning to have a true appreciation of world situation and who quietly wield considerable influence will prevent Nehru and his more irresponsible advisors from giving expression to their irritation in manner which can do permanent damage.
5. I suggest that in delivery of message recipient be informed that it is short and devoid of argumentation because in view of wide publicity already given to Nehru’s messages and Soviet reply, it is evident that eventually the whole correspondence must be published and we are of opinion that publication of detailed argumentation may exacerbate rather than relieve international tension.1
- Telegram 78, July 17, 11 p. m., to New Delhi, authorized Ambassador Henderson to use the substance of paragraphs 3 and 5 of telegram 113 orally if he so desired (330/7–1750).↩