23. Memorandum From the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) and Robert Komer of the National Security Council Staff to President Johnson1
Two Pak/Indian matters pose immediate problems. Recent evidence suggests that Ayub smells blood in his effort to lean on India over Kashmir, at a time when India is weak. He just told McConaughy he wouldn’t let up until he got a settlement (Karachi 1654).2 We see his tactics as totally miscast. India’s weakness will just lead it to dig its heels in harder, so the only result may be a big Kashmir crisis, perhaps this summer, which could reduce rather than enhance the prospects for settlement and catch us in the middle again to boot.
Even more worrisome, that tough bargainer Ayub seems to think he has us on the run, given our mild reaction to the Ayub-Chou love feast and our continued benign tolerance of constant flaying of us by the Pak press, plus public criticisms by Ayub himself. He’ll be convinced [Page 50] of it if we now go in and dangle a five-year Military Assistance carrot before him, without simultaneous blunt talk about having reached the limits of our tolerance over his playing with Peiping at the very time when it is squeezing us in Southeast Asia. Indeed, we planned the five-year package (which as you recall has been kept free of any price tag) for the very purpose of permitting us to talk bluntly.
We here believe Ayub fully realizes how his utter dependence on us sets limits of tolerance beyond which he cannot go. But State’s intelligence chief3 (just back from Karachi) says that the Paks are very pleased that these limits are so flexible, and will keep stretching them as far as they can.
So it’s time for us to do a bit of hard bargaining with Ayub by setting out firmly to him the terms on which we will continue US military and, implicitly, economic aid (several hundred million dollars a year). A five-year MAP approach (even on a no-commitment basis) is such a big carrot that unless we put the quid pro quo clear on it he may see it as another evidence we’re caving. This will only encourage him to step up his pressure on India thus putting us on a direct collision course.
Talbot, our Near East Assistant Secretary, will see Ayub Wednesday,4 which is the time for setting out where we stand. Only if Talbot is clearly speaking for you, however, will he carry the necessary weight. As you know, Ayub believes in direct dealing at the top. So we suggest that you arm Talbot with the attached message which is carefully calculated for effect.5
- McGB
- RWK
- Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Pakistan, Vol. I, Memos, 11/63–5/64. Secret.↩
- Document 22.↩
- Thomas L. Hughes.↩
- March 11. Talbot was scheduled to visit India and Pakistan as part of a tour of posts in the Middle East and South Asia.↩
- Bundy sent this joint memorandum and the attached draft message to President Johnson on March 8 under cover of a shorter memorandum in which he made the point that they were designed to begin the job of “staightening out Ayub Khan, which will take a lot of time.” Johnson checked the option line that reads: “Speak to me.” He added a handwritten note that reads: “I’m against sending message to Talbot. If I know Ayub it will only incense him.” (Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Pakistan, Vol. I, Memos, 11/63–5/64) Bundy discussed the proposed message in a telephone conversation with Johnson on March 9. Johnson reiterated that he felt it would be a mistake to send a stiff message to Ayub in his name which Ayub would be certain to resent. Bundy agreed but repeated the case for taking a firm line: “The reason for talking firmly is that if we don’t change the signals our man is going in there with a military assistance package, and we do not want them to think that we come right around with more cookies.” Johnson approved sending a firm message through Talbot, one he anticipated would “make him [Ayub] come to us.” (Ibid., Recordings and Transcripts, Recording of a telephone conversation between President Johnson and McGeorge Bundy, March 9, 1964, 4:27 p.m., Tape F64.16, Side B, PNO 1)↩