21. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Afghanistan0

715. Embtels 10481 and 1053.2 Policy guidelines for future foreign assistance and presentation to Congress this program developed by Presidential Task Force in accordance with President’s message being pouched soon. These guidelines expected make clear U.S. prepared make long-term commitment those countries whose stage of development, planning and internal resources mobilization sufficiently advanced give promise self-sustained growth in foreseeable future. These concepts appear for present, at least, preclude long-term commitment in support Afghan Second Plan. There is thus nothing of substance [Page 44]which you may appropriately give Naim beyond that conveyed your letter February 21.3

U.S. currently contemplating commitment in support Indian requirements first two years its Third Plan, and Pakistan requirements second and third years its Second Plan. Both commitments would be subject necessary Congressional action on aid program and dependent on commensurate contributions from other free world sources. IBRD Consortium which met Washington April 25-26 to discuss Indian requirement reconvening May 31; Consortium on Pakistan convenes June 5. If questioned further regarding unconfirmed press reports of U.S. commitment made at either these meetings suggest you follow line taken with Naim as reported your 1053. In event U.S. commitment to either country is officially confirmed suggest you emphasize long period U.S. close association and fact detailed plans those countries have been available U.S. and other free world countries for study and discussion for some time. Commitments those countries taken in light advanced stage of development planning, execution, and internal resource mobilization.

Latin American program being developed under special authority recently approved by Congress for that area.

Since reports U.S. commitments these other countries may give rise to RGA misunderstanding U.S. position as conveyed your letter to Naim of February 21 you may wish reiterate assurances of continued U.S. close association with Afghan development plans without however exceeding instruction Deptel 5414 and Icato 1135.5 You may also wish to indicate further study Afghan needs and capabilities would place U.S. in better position to assess specifically its overall relationship to Afghan development requirements and to determine what if any adjustments in present aid program would be warranted.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 789.5-MSP/5-1361. Confidential. Drafted in NEA/SOA by Robert J. Carle and Adams, cleared in draft by Weil and with B/FAC and ICA, and approved by Armin H. Meyer (NEA).
  2. In telegram 1048 from Kabul, May 12, Byroade asked for guidance on the future direction of U.S. economic assistance for Afghanistan. (Ibid., 789.5-MSP/5-1261)
  3. Telegram 1053 from Kabul, May 13, reported on a conversation between Byroade and Foreign Minister Naim in which Naim referred to the fact that the United States was making long-term foreign assistance commitments to other countries. Naim professed to be confused in that he had understood from Byroade that the U.S. Government could not make such long-term commitments without prior Congressional authorization. Byroade responded that Naim’s information was apparently based upon a newspaper account concerning a commitment to India, and he added that he did not believe that any such commitment had been formalized. (Ibid., 789.5-MSP/5-1361)
  4. See Document 7.
  5. Telegram 541 to Kabul, February 15, instructed Byroade to make the points concerning economic assistance for Afghanistan that Byroade made in his February 21 letter to Naim. (Department of State, Central Files, 789.5-MSP/2-1561)
  6. Not found.