611.9194/12–1354: Telegram
The Chargé in India (Kennedy) to the Department of State1
priority
790. Madras for Kennedy from Will and Bartlett.
- 1.
- We appreciate helpful instructions contained in Deptel 716,2 including interpretations re negotiating history set forth parenthetical references paragraph 4.
- 2.
However, we are not clear how approach four contained A-1243 can be reconciled with Deptel 716
paragraph 4. Penultimate sentence approach four states new service would go into effect 30 days after filing unless determination such service was not warranted was reached by intergovernmental agreement; i.e., presumably giving US power block determination that such new service not warranted. On other hand paragraph 4 states if no agreement reached GOI could impose “forthwith unilateral restrictions upon service”. Should Embassy modify [Page 1792] approach four of A-124 by substituting essence first sentence paragraph 4 in Deptel 716 in place last two sentences approach 4?
- 3.
- If Indians ask whether Department also interprets Article IX to permit unilateral reduction of existing frequencies by GOI under same conditions as applicable “new schedule” under paragraph 4, should Embassy reply affirmatively? This appears to be intent paragraph 5 Deptel 716.
- 4.
- Under sentence 1 of paragraph 4 Embassy telegram 716 how should Embassy explain procedure for “concluding” consultation and thus fixing time when India free impose forthwith unilateral restrictions?
- 5.
- Do “unilateral restrictions” permitted under paragraph 4 Deptel 716 include not only control over frequencies, but control over fifth freedom traffic and number traffic stops in India?
- 6.
- We assume approach four does not alter effect Article XI 1946 agreement and that, pending “advisory report” by ICAO any unilateral restriction imposed by GOI remains in effect.
- 7.
- Answers to questions raised above necessary in order that Embassy’s explanation during oral presentation approach four may be as complete and persuasive possible.