Office of the Historian

128. Memorandum From the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) to the Ambassador at Large (Thompson)1

Washington, September 29, 1965.
1.
Thanks for sending me a copy of your account of your short discussion with Dobrynin on special channel communications.2 I feel an obligation to report to the President on this matter and to give him our current recommendations. Would it be too much trouble to check the record on the two communications which Dobrynin says the President did not answer? My own recollection is that we gave informal replies, but I think your record will be better than mine.
2.
I must say I feel that there is a certain difficulty in addressing personal communications to an unidentified person, but on the other hand, I think there is always a chance of learning something about Soviet attitudes by using this somewhat different channel. Could I have your views and recommendations at your convenience? This is a matter on which of course the President will want the Secretary’s opinion before he makes a decision, but I think your own informal comments might be interesting to him even while the Secretary is in New York.3
McG. B.
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 77 D 163. Secret.↩
  2. Document 127.↩

  3. On October 4 Thompson replied that he believed the communications were oral messages of February 1 (Document 89) and February 9 (see Document 91). Thompson reported that he had discussed both these messages with Dobrynin and concluded that the United States had therefore informally replied to them, although not all the issues they raised had been commented on. He concluded his memorandum by saying:

    “I do believe it would be useful to resume the use of this channel for communications between the President and the Soviet leaders but only when we have something specific to say which could be done better in this channel than in regular diplomatic notes or public statements. It may well be that the Kashmir problem will lend itself to this type of communication but this will depend upon how the matter develops.” (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Presidential Correspondence: Lot 77 D 163)

    ↩