106. Telegram From the Embassy in India to the Department of State1
10699. Kabul for Under Secretary Newsom. Subject: India and the CTB. Ref: State 174235.2
1. The fact that neither the FonSec nor the FonMin accompanied the PM on his return apparently accounts for the PM not having been reminded to announce India’s readiness to sign a genuine, five-year CTB (one such as was described to him by the President3) in the press conference following his landing in Delhi.4
2. Now, however, FonSec Mehta says a problem has arisen. The GOI is troubled by the July 1 New York Times story over the by-line of Richard Burt which says that U.S. military and nuclear experts have forced a change in our position so that certain kinds of testing will be permitted and the duration of the CTB will be reduced to 3 years.5 Mehta indicated that these reported changes in the prospective CTB are very disturbing to the GOI, and he seemed to be saying that India would not become a party to so limited a CTB. Since we had not seen [Page 280] the New York Times story or been alerted to these possible changes in the U.S. position, I was caught at a loss and could only offer to seek clarification. Please provide guidance ASAP.
3. Let me add that I felt it embarrassing to both Under Secretary Newsom and myself to have been instructed to raise with the GOI the matter of India’s commitment to sign a CTB, as we did yesterday with V. Shankar and Jagat Mehta,6 without having been given any warning of this alleged change in what we were talking about. Even if Burt’s story does not correctly portray the current U.S. position, the Department should know that a story like this, on a topic of so much interest to the GOI, in an “authoritative” newspaper like the Times, is bound to be flashed to the GOI and draw its attention. In such situations the Embassy needs a comparable alert, together with guidance.7
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780286–1122. Confidential; Immediate. Sent for information Immediate to Kabul.↩
- In telegram 174235 to New Delhi, July 11, the Department instructed the Embassy to ascertain the status of the proposals made in Washington June 12–13 by Desai and other Indian Government officials during their meetings, in which “Desai told members of Congress that he was prepared to announce publicly that India would adhere to a nondiscriminatory CTB and that this would be announced at his first press conference following his return to Delhi. Similarly, Mehta, Shankar and others told us that they were prepared to consider various proposals we had advanced regarding safeguards and would be back to us on them.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780283–1059) Desai met with about 50 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee on June 13. (Thomas O’Toole, “Desai Says India Won’t Sign A-Pact Just for U.S. Uranium,” Washington Post, June 14, 1978, p. A1)↩
- See Document 103.↩
- Telegram 10669 from New Delhi, July 12, reported Goheen’s inquiry to Shankar about the proposals regarding the CTB and nuclear safeguards made by Desai and other Indian officials during their June 12–13 visit to Washington. When approached, Shankar “made it appear that they had not had much consideration since the return of the PM’s party to India. It was agreed that I would call on him again within the next few days to explore these questions more fully.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780285–0606)↩
- Burt reported that the opponents to the original CTB were the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Energy Department, commenting: “The problem, as described by officials, is that critics of Mr. Carter’s earlier decision have argued that the United States needs to be able to carry out much larger tests to insure the reliability of weapons, explosions equivalent to some 3,000 tons of TNT.” (Richard Burt, “U.S., in a Shift, Asks Less Than a Complete Test Ban,” New York Times, July 1, 1978, p. 4)↩
- For a summary of Newsom and Goheen’s July 12 meeting with Shankar, see Document 107. Telegram 10720 from New Delhi, July 13, reported the July 12 meeting among Newsom, Goheen, and Mehta, who discussed regional issues. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780287–0095)↩
- In telegram 178747 to New Delhi, July 15, the Department responded: “We appreciate your concern but are not able to furnish you further guidance or comment on the Burt story at this point. We will send you additional guidance ASAP as basis for further discussion with GOI.” No further response was found. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780290–0209)↩