690D.91/9–1951: Telegram
The Deputy United States Representative at the United Nations (Gross) to the Secretary of State
priority
355. Re Kashmir. On Bokhari’s invitation Ross and I lunched with Zafrullah Khan today. I gave Zafrullah sympathetic lead on possibility of transferring Kashmir case to the Assembly. For a number and variety of reasons, he expressed strong opposition. Among reasons for opposition were: (a) loss of momentum and position gained over long period of time in SC; (b) risk of misinterpretation that SC was merely passing the buck to GA; (c) necessity of explaining intricacies of problem to great majority of members of Assembly and getting involved in all sorts of new and fancy suggestions and (d) risk that Indians (needing only one-third vote) could block any constructive res.
On possibility of action under Art 37 Bokhari in effect let cat out of bag, anticipating by implication that Art 37 action at this time might later lead to Chapter VII action. Zafrullah discounted this but only in sense that there would be no early contemplation of Chapter VII action. I indicated strong belief that realistically council would not be willing to contemplate Chapter VII action. Zafrullah made what he considered and we agreed an important distinction in the sense that in thinking about Art 37 action was not so much thinking of recommendations for solution of Kashmir problem so much as recommendations with view to breaking present deadlock. In this connection, I very tentatively opened question of relationship between Kashmir problem and others in relations between Pakistan and India. Although we cannot be sure that Zafrullah got the point, in any event, he gave no sign of being unreceptive to a broader approach.
On the whole it was our impression that Zafrullah was much more calm and relaxed than he has appeared to be on previous occasions. This was true in particular for example with regard to present military and political situation.
Zafrullah was considerably interested in the schedule for SC consideration of Graham’s report. He was concerned lest report be taken up in November during Tsiang’s1 presidency of SC and during the Assembly. He made very clear this did not reflect in any sense on Tsiang or the position of Tsiang’s Govt; it was, on the contrary, a concern that the Russians might create confusion in the SC during Tsiang’s presidency and that this confusion would be compounded by the fact that the Assembly would be in session. I informed Zafrullah [Page 1862] in confidence that we had heard Graham expected to return to this country on the 27th or 28th of September. Zafrullah was very hopeful that Graham might return a day or two earlier, that his report might be issued on the 27th or 28th and that the Council might commence consideration of the Kashmir case early in the first week of October with a view to completing action on this phase before the 22nd. We indicated general support of this objective.
- Tingfu F. Tsiang, Representative of China at the United Nations.↩