357.AB/10–2551
Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (McGhee) to the Secretary of State
Subject: Kashmir: Possible Discussions During General Assembly Meeting in Paris
Discussion
On October 15 Dr. Frank P. Graham, the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan submitted to the Security Council a report on the progress of his negotiations as provided for under his terms of reference contained in the Security Council Resolution of March 30, 1951. Dr. Graham’s efforts were directed toward achieving a demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In his report Dr. Graham outlined twelve proposals concerning demilitarization which he submitted to the Governments of India and Pakistan as well as the replies to both Governments. As a result of his negotiations with the parties and the replies which they gave to his proposals Dr. Graham concludes that “the possibility of arriving at a basis of agreement by the two Governments is not excluded”. He further recommended that “if the Security Council decides that a renewed effort to obtain an agreement should be made … such negotiations should be carried out at the seat of the Security Council and the Council should instruct the United Nations Representative to report [Page 1898] to the Council within six weeks”.* After Dr. Graham’s presentation to the Security Council on October 18 of his oral views the Council decided to resume hearings on the Kashmir case following its reconvening in Paris.
The assassination of the Pakistan Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, in Rawalpindi on October 16, the day after Dr. Graham submitted his report to the Security Council has created profound shock in both countries with Prime Minister Nehru calling for renewed effort to plan Indo-Pakistan relations on a new basis. Immediate reaction to the Graham Report in Pakistan has been somewhat unfavorable in view of the feeling on the part of the Pakistanis that some censure should have been leveled against India for what Pakistan considers to be its intransigence. In addition the death of Liaquat Ali Khan in the minds of many Pakistanis is linked to the delay in the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. Reaction in India has been confined mostly to objective reporting of the proposals outlined by Dr. Graham with some slight criticisms. The Government of India has discouraged criticism of the Graham Report by the Indian press on the grounds that the time was inauspicious. On balance, it might be said that Indian reaction was as good as could be expected.
It should be mentioned that Dr. Graham has not assessed blame to either side for delays in the settlement of this issue but has seized upon the areas of agreement which exist and has attempted to bridge the existing differences between the parties. We believe the report is an excellent one and that if the Security Council, as we hope, requests Dr. Graham to continue his mediation in Paris there is some prospect of agreement. We are convinced that the best approach is for Dr. Graham to continue his efforts. Dr. Graham has made a good impression on both Indian and Pakistan officials and in particular appears to be persona grata with Prime Minister Nehru.
There is a danger that with attention drawn on so many subjects of Concern to the General Assembly, not sufficient attention will be given to the Security Council and Dr. Graham’s efforts with respect to the Kashmir case. A position paper outlining the Department’s views will be forwarded to Paris for the guidance of the US Representative on the Security Council.
[Page 1899]Recommendation
It is recommended that Dr. Graham be fully supported in his efforts at Paris to bring about an agreement between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute.
Concurrence: UNA.
- Chapter 5 Recommendations, Page 37, “Report of Dr. Frank P. Graham United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to the Security Council” S/2375. [Footnote in the source text.]↩