357.AB/4–852: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Department of State
priority
684. Re Kashmir. Pursuant to instructions USUN called on Graham today at his request. He handed us copy of aide-mémoire (text in immediately following telegram)1 he gave Indian and Pakistani reps this morning. He said they both received it without outcry and said they would send it to their govts for early reaction.
Graham said he had come to conclusion soon after return to subcontinent that neither India nor Pakistan was willing to give way sufficiently on troop quantum to make compromise on demilitarization possible. At same time, Indian decision to withdraw a division means that majority of forces on both sides will be withdrawn. This he construes as bringing demilitarization process to final phase, at which point it merges with phase of establishing prerequisites for holding of plebiscite. Purpose of associating plebiscite administrator designate with UNRep in next round of negotiations is to link questions of disarming, disbanding and location of remaining forces with question of withdrawal.
Graham said this idea came from his principal secy, Marin. Marin explained proposal further, pointing out that UNRep in final stage of demilitarization would be encroaching on PlebAd’s responsibility unless some form of association and joint consultation were established. PlebAd’s functions now would be simply advisory, not executive. He thought this step would be very good for Pakistan as indication to people of real progress towards plebiscite. He thought proposal also advantageous to India in that if it should develop that plebiscite could not in fact be held, i.e. if agreement on demilitarization is still not forthcoming PlebAd was only authoritative person to make this finding.
Graham said task they had set themselves in Geneva was to find device which would keep negotiations moving, bring in new element, and avoid SC debate. He thought they had succeeded. He believes parties will both accept his proposal. He suggested that if proposal [Page 1219] commended itself to US it would be helpful if Dept should decide to instruct Bowles and Warren to commend proposal to parties.
Graham and his staff did not seem confident that negotiations even with this new approach would succeed. Jackson said if this became apparent after month or two it might be helpful if indication could be given that Graham’s terms of reference were broad enough to permit him to explore alternative. We said we understood Graham was heir to Dixon’s powers and wondered why question arose. Jackson referred to Dept’s March 29 message to Graham in Geneva (Deptel 742)2 which suggested Graham might proceed with further negotiations without regard to deadline on report and limitations of terms of reference. Marin said there was also some feeling in secretariat that March 30, 1951 res limited Graham strictly to 2 UNCIP res and did not include Dixon’s terms of reference. We said there was apparently confusion on this point and promised to raise it with Dept.
Regardless of answer on this point, Graham said he had no intention of raising alternative solution at present. Any such suggestion, he said, would send Pakistanis straight through roof.
We told Graham about our representations on sub-continent, on importance of continuing negotiations, and about Zafrullah’s reply (Deptels 1018 to Karachi3 and 2128 to New Delhi;4 Karachi’s 1154).5 He said he was pleased, and encouraged by Zafrullah’s response.
In departing we raised question of Engert and story he gave Times correspondent. Graham knew nothing about it. Marin said Engert had told him he had not spoken to James and that general line of James’ story was being talked around Karachi by Pakistan officials who complained to them of US favoritism to India on economic assistance, etc. Marin said he would ask Engert about story again and if he had spoken in this way to James would recommend to Graham that he drop him from staff. Graham said he had told people in Karachi he wouldn’t even listen to such stories, that he was UNRep and had nothing to do with US relations to either India or Pakistan.
- Telegram 685 from New York, Apr. 8, not printed, contained the text of the aide-mémoire Graham gave to the representatives of India and Pakistan, summarizing his third report to the Security Council. For the text of this report, dated Apr. 22, 1952, see UN doc. S/2611.↩
- Dated Mar. 29, p. 1213.↩
- Dated Apr. 5, p. 1216.↩
- Dated Apr. 5, p. 1217.↩
- Supra.↩