Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XIX, South Asia

112. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in India¹

Washington, September 27, 1978, 2307Z

246418. Subject: Desai’s September 16 Letter to the President.

Following letter from Prime Minister Desai was received in the Department September 27.

Begin text:

Secret—New Delhi—September 16, 1978

My Dear President,

I am grateful to you for your letter of the 14th August, 1978, which was delivered to me by Ambassador Goheen.² I have already sent you a letter dealing with the problem of Israel-Arab dispute.³ I was anxious that it should reach you in time for the Camp David meeting.⁴ I hope it did. I am following the news of the meeting from the press reports and am awaiting the news of the final outcome. You have a very difficult and onerous responsibility and you have my thoughts and prayers for your success.

As regards the proposal to have a technical study by a group of independent scientists of problems relating to safeguards,⁵ it was not my intention that such a study should be confined to the impact of IAEA safeguards on the Indian nuclear programmes but rather a comprehensive survey of the entire field of safeguards in an effort to try and formulate guidelines which could assist the IAEA in evolving a standardised and universally acceptable safeguards system as envisaged in the Final Document adopted by consensus at the conclusion of the recent United Nations Special Session devoted to disarmament.⁶ I do not feel that such an exercise would in any way cast any doubts on our confidence in the IAEA which has, under its statute, a definite responsibility in the field of safeguards and which has a membership large enough to command general support. Nevertheless I feel that a fresh look may promote broader understanding on the question of safeguards, their nature and scope, with a view to prevention of switch from peaceful to non-peaceful purposes. I suggest that we adhere to the terms of reference as I had suggested. I am indeed glad to learn that you have decided to recommend to the NRC, in the meantime, that the pending shipment of about 17 tonnes of enriched uranium fuel for Tarapur can be cleared.

Regarding the re-processing of US-origin spent fuel in Tarapur, you seem to hold the view that the United States is not in a position at present to proceed to a joint determination. You will appreciate that it is already more than a decade for the agreement to have been in force and that USA is closely involved in our project. I am sure you do not wish to take a decision which would not be in accordance with the contractual obligations undertaken by both our countries before the re-processing plant was put up in Tarapur. Even if it were due to a change of policy on your part I would request you to consider the wider implications of going back on a bilateral agreement merely on that account. I could have understood it as coming from any other U.S. President but not you.

I am glad to learn that the proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would be one which would not permit any weapon testing. This would truly be a significant step towards nuclear disarmament. I am also happy to learn of your determination to press ahead for a satisfactory SALT II agreement. I hope you will soon resume your talks with the Soviet Union on the Indian Ocean.

I have already had occasion to describe to you our sincere efforts to promote confidence and cooperation with Pakistan. Notwithstanding the troubled internal situation, we hope Pakistan and her friends appreciate that while continuing to seek improvement of our relations, we have observed careful restraint in giving her no cause for any misapprehensions and in no way adding to her difficulties. I had a very cordial meeting with General Zia-ul-Haq in Nairobi where we had both gone for the funeral of President Kenyatta.⁷ I renewed my long standing invitation to General Zia to visit India and agreed that we could exchange views on all bilateral problems in a realistic attempt at good neighbourly relations and regional stability. I told him that in India people in general had goodwill towards Pakistan and wanted to see it united and what, to my mind, is important—this I conveyed to General Zia—is that the pall of suspicions which had bedevilled our relations and slowed our progress should be lifted through our mutual effort. There is strong logic in improving our trade and economic relations. We agree that Pakistan has every right to pursue its own economic policies but all that we expect is that the attitude towards India should not be marked by special discrimination and prejudice. I must say that General Zia’s response and approach was constructive and enlightened and I look forward to meeting him again and continuing the dialogue.

I have only one word to say about its desire to secure arms from abroad including USA. If it genuinely believes in friendship with India need it pile up arms in apprehension of an imaginary threat? Every time we have had to seek arms it has been in self-defense. Even while Pakistan was securing from USA a vast arsenal and facilities as free gift from 1954 to 1965 we became alive to our gaps only after 1962 after the Chinese invasion. Between 1971 and up to date, while it has very considerably added to the quality and quantity of its equipment and forces we have refrained from making any significant additions. But obviously we cannot be complacent if in the process it is reaching near parity, increasing its offensive capability and keeping tension alive. Mr. President, you know that I am a devoted and dedicated man of peace but you will appreciate that I have a responsibility for the defence of our country and our people.

We continue to watch the developments in Afghanistan and counsel others who have influence with her to show concern about it that, in whatever way possible, a cooperative consensus should be reached and a situation not allowed to develop which can only cause or enhance anxieties. The new regime in Afghanistan has affirmed the policy of non-alignment. We hope that they would adhere to it recognizing that it would be wiser from their point of view as also in the wider context. Incidentally, it would seem that mutual anxieties between Pakistan and Afghanistan have somewhat eased, and this cannot but be a welcome sign. The visit of General Zia to Kabul last week appears to have had a sobering effect on both sides.

Our attempts to modernize our defence capability are limited and geared to minimal preparations for defensive contingency and to the normal process of modernization and replacement of aging equipment. You will appreciate that we have to take into account the situation both on the northern and western borders and our long coast lines—two seas and one ocean. Pakistan’s problem of defence is much smaller and only if it could accept our sincere and keen desire to be genuinely friendly and good neighbourly it would be much easier too. Our proposals for the replacement of our obsolescent aircraft far from leading to an increase in the size of our air force, would actually lead to a reduction in the actual number of squadrons. Considering our size and the diverse contingencies which we cannot ignore, such a replacement programme can scarcely be viewed as starting an arms race or building an offensive capability affecting regional stability.

Foreign Minister Vajpayee has recently been to Tokyo. His visit coincided with the signing of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty. You are aware of the Soviet anxiety at the Chinese insistence on the inclusion of some unusual clause regarding the dangers of ‛hegemony’. For our part, we are against all kinds of domination and every kind of activity which is disruptive of nations’ rights to protect their independence and to determine their own national economic and political policies. We are more than ever convinced that our broad approach of promoting beneficial bilateral cooperation with all powers, without seeking to take advantage of differences amongst them, is the correct way of promoting international inter-dependence and safeguarding national independence. In today’s world, the concept of a military balance of power would seem to be antiquated and counter-productive to efforts at securing peace. The recent revived intensity of polemics, notably between the Socialist countries, is a new feature of the international landscape. Such diplomatic and propaganda hostility goes beyond legitimate national concerns as it does not always appear to be for positively promoting international understanding but for competitive influence, somewhat unnecessarily complicating the international situation. For our part, we shall remain detached from such negative maneuverings which tend to exploit bilateral or international tensions and disrupt the logic of cooperative inter-dependence.

Consistent with our principles, we intend to seek improvement of relations with China. We would not want to improve relations with China at the cost of complicating the established mutually beneficial relations with the Soviet Union. I am convinced that, in keeping with India’s traditions, our national interests do not in any way harm the legitimate interests of other countries or the requirements of international cooperation.

I fully reciprocate your interest in promoting educational and cultural exchanges between our two countries. I do believe that the encouragement we gave to our Joint Commission and its Sub-Commissions at our meeting in New Delhi last January has helped to accelerate the pace of such exchanges considerably.⁸ You have referred to the specific problem area of research projects in India in the field of social sciences. I have made enquiries. Difficulties seem to arise only when American scholars seek to undertake research in some sensitive problems or areas. Ambassador Goheen is aware of the position. I hope the scholars would be able to locate numerous other subjects for research in this vast country which could also be useful to their Indian counterparts and could embody the spirit of USA’s benevolent interest in our social and economic problems, particularly now that our planning and programming are deeply rooted to the ground. While I have directed that delays in approval of projects be eschewed, I wish to assure you that there is no discrimination against US nationals.

Let me again thank you for your warm and friendly letter and send you and Mrs. Carter my best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Morarji Desai

His Excellency Mr. Jimmy Carter,

President of the United States of America,

Washington, D.C.

End text.

Christopher

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780395–0422. Secret; Immediate; Exdis. Drafted by John R. Malott (NEA/INS); cleared in S/S–O and by Lande; approved by Miklos. A copy of Desai’s original letter is in the National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840131–1406.
2. See Document 111.
3. Telegram 228141 to New Delhi, September 8, transmitted the text of Desai’s August 30 letter to Carter, in which he shared his thoughts on the Arab-Israeli dispute. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780366–1100)
4. The Camp David Summit was held September 5–17.
5. See Document 108.
6. See footnote 6, Document 109.
7. Telegram 13610 from New Delhi, September 7, transmitted the Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ report to the Embassy on Desai and Zia’s meeting in Nairobi, which was “basically a get-acquainted meeting” where “both leaders spoke of their interest in further improving relations, but also pointed out the problems they had with their respective public opinions.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780365–0775)
8. The Indo-U.S. Joint Commission met in New Delhi, January 3, during Carter’s visit. Telegram 343 from New Delhi, January 6, reported on the meeting. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780011–0678)