793B.00/6–351: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
3483. 1. Although GOI surprised and apparently somewhat shocked at stiff conditions which, according to announcements from Peiping, [Page 1696] Communist China had imposed in Sino-Tibetan agreement, indications now are that it is inclined adopt attitude philosophic acquiescence. According to members UK HICOM who have discussed matter with responsible Indian officials latter inclined rationalize that in view historic and present friendship between India and China, Communist Chinese political and military control Tibet not likely have adverse effect on security India.
2. UK HICOM considering advisability suggesting Foreign Office authorize it urge GOI not remain passive in matter which involves danger for SOA. Members UK HICOM would like be able argue with Indian officials that if GOI bow Communist China “blackmail” re Tibet, India will eventually be confronted with similar blackmail not only re Burma but re such areas as Assam, Bhutan, Sikkim, Kashmir, Nepal.
3. UK HICOM has not suggested we join in any approach GOI and we doubt advisability our doing so this juncture. GOI might consider such approach by us motivated by desire use Tibet to drive wedge between Delhi and Peiping rather than by considerations of danger to SOA inherent in movement Chinese Communist armed forces to India’s northeast frontiers. GOI might not be so suspicious of approach by UK in view latter’s efforts during last eighteen months to propitiate Communist China.
4. Question arises whether US should make any overt move this juncture when attitude Dalai Lama towards agreement announced by Peiping not yet clear. Neither Dalai Lama nor any responsible member or representative Tibetan Government has indicated acceptance or approval alleged agreement; we believe Dalai Lama and his advisers still in state indecision as to what they should do. It looks like Peiping exerted pressure on members Tibetan delegation to obtain agreement and now trying through pressure prevail on Dalai Lama accept. So long as Tibet Government remains silent it is difficult for US denounce agreement as effort deprive Tibet its autonomy by pressure and threat of force. In case Tibetan Government should announce refusal accept agreement we believe US should be prepared issue sharp statement denouncing Peiping machinations to force Tibetans under duress to abandon their long established rights to autonomy. Such announcement should, of course, be couched in such terms as not give undue offense to non-Communist China by questioning Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. In meantime we think it might be helpful if at press conference spokesman for Department in response to query could say Department not prepared comment on alleged agreement between Communist China and Tibet since only information re conclusion such agreement has come from Communist Chinese sources and it is by no means certain [Page 1697] autonomous government Tibet has agreed treaty of character described by Peiping.
5. We wld like at earliest possible moment have further discussion with Shakabpa but cannot do so without being able make some kind replies his various questions (Embtel 3398, May 29). We realize these questions involve matters much delicacy and cannot be answered without careful consideration all ramifications. Nevertheless our ability answer some of them early date might affect decision Dalai Lama as to future relations Communist China. Indeed possible he might be postponing decision pending receipt replies from US.