357.AB/10–651: Telegram
The Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Gross) to the Secretary of State
priority
Unmis 65. For Hickerson from Gross. Re: Kashmir.
Graham called me just now and brought me up to date on his thinking since last night. You will of course realize that his thoughts are going through evolutionary process as he thinks problem through here in New York. But I stress his basic thinking, as set forth in my letter of Oct 2 to you, remains constant and he is concerned principally with tactics connected with his report, SC action, and his private negotiations with the parties. Your guidance on these questions, in the light of the Kashmir problem and Graham’s approach to it, will be highly important to him and to me as we exchange ideas and work this problem out. My next talk with him, when he wishes to discuss the following ideas on approach, will probably be at lunch Monday, Oct 8. He is anxious for constructive suggestions.
You will recall that in my letter of Oct 2 I reported that I had suggested to Graham possibility that SC might adopt res extending his term and in broad form enlarge his authority to deal with Kashmir case. Graham is now turning over in his mind this possibility. He wonders whether he might submit a report which would give factual background, including twelve points previously discussed with parties and parties’ reactions thereto, and add to his report recommendation that SC enlarge his mediatory authority. He would not in his report make reference to the “new points” discussed in my letter, nor would he want the SC to do so. Instead, acting upon the basis of a res which in broad and general terms widened his mediatory authority, he would present informally to the parties these new points and endeavor to persuade them to accept.
The advantage he sees in such a course would be that he would thus not be bound to the specifics of the points but might, for example, find some method of “international policing” other than the introduction of UN forces. Moreover, the parties would not be in a position to anticipate his informal discussions with them by taking a public position regarding his new points. This he feels the parties might do if his report were to refer to them.
[Page 1877]He stressed, and I of course agreed, the decisive importance of making clear that the UNCIP res of Aug 13 and Jan 5 remain intact and are in no way abrogated.