357.AB/9–1851
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Ward P. Allen of the Bureau of European Affairs
Subject:
- 1)
- Kashmir
- 2)
- San Francisco Conference
| Participants: | Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, Foreign Minister of Pakistan |
| Mr. Ward P. Allen—EUR |
Kashmir. During the course of a lengthy conversation on this subject, Sir Zafrullah made the following major points:
1. He strongly hopes that Dr. Graham’s report will be submitted as soon as possible—in any event no later than the end of this month, and he suggested (as he had to the Secretary on September 14) that the US seek to induce Dr. Graham, if possible, to advance the date of submission. I stated that Dr. Graham is, in fact as well as in name, the UN and not the US representative and, without directly suggesting that Zafrullah do so, asked whether he had yet discussed the problem of timing of his report with the Secretariat. Sir Zafrullah replied that he had intended to do so on September 20th.
2. He thinks it vital that as soon as the report is received it be considered immediately by the Security Council and stated he made this point with the Secretary as well as with Messrs. Morrison and [Page 1860] Schuman. It is essential that SC consideration be well under way and the general lines of the Council’s action substantially defined by the time the Council moves to Paris in late October. If that is done the Council will be able to continue its consideration in Paris and push it through. If that is not done, then Sir Zafrullah is convinced from past experience, no real action will be taken until after the Sixth GA. I assured Sir Zafrullah that we desired to have the SC act with dispatch and we would certainly share his hope that active consideration would not be postponed until after the GA Session.
3. Pakistan intends to urge that the SC not resort to the appointment of another mediator but itself now make recommendations under Article 37 of the Charter with respect to the demilitarization phase of the dispute. He recounted the mediatory efforts of UNCIP, General McNaughton, Sir Owen Dixon, and now Dr. Graham, and pointed out there must obviously be an end to this procedure and that the Council itself deal with the substance of the issues. He stated that both Sir Gladwyn Jebb and Mr. Gross in the SC meetings leading up to Dr. Graham’s appointment expressed the view that this would be the last mediatory effort of this nature. He believes that this is likewise Dr. Graham’s view.
4. In response to my question, Sir Zafrullah expressed his high respect for Dr. Graham and stated that he is “an impeccably honest, sincere and scrupulous man”. He used the same terms in describing General Devers, Dr. Graham’s military adviser.
5. He is strongly opposed to any reference of the case to the GA and stated that he made this clear to the Secretary as well as to Morrison. His reasons are that the case is so complex that it would require a minimum of three months for it to be properly layed before and understood by the GA, and the members of the Assembly would undoubtedly go through the same lengthy processes and procedures as the SC and its mediators had over a period of three years. He foresees therefore that the net effect of GA consideration would be chaos, confusion and delay. He sees no merit in the argument that the judgment of the Assembly representing the international community would carry greater weight than actions of the SC, so long as the latter are backed by the US and the UK. He fears that if the case is given to the GA, even if the SC remains technically seized of it, the impression would be created (fostered by India) that the SC as the UN action body had given it up and that from now on UN consideration will be reduced to the realm of discussion and talk in the organ which has no power to act.
Sir Zafrullah stated that when this matter was discussed with the Secretary Mr. McGhee had indicated that one reason we were thinking of GA consideration is to avoid Soviet veto, but that Zafrullah had pointed out the unlikelihood of this in view of the past record of the USSR in the Kashmir case. He stated that the Secretary agreed with him and indicated his preference for returning the case to the Council. If the Council is then blocked by Soviet veto that is the proper time for us to consider taking the case to the GA under the Uniting for Peace Resolution.
[Here follows a discussion of the San Francisco Conference for the Conclusion and Signature of the Peace Treaty with Japan.]