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

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

Washington, February 3, 1979, 0201Z

28920. Exdis—For the Ambassador from NEA-Jack Miklos. Subject: Indian Complaints About Delay in Presidential Reply. Ref: New Delhi 1322,² Bombay 0280.³

1. We are concerned by complaints lodged in reftels by Shankar and Sethna over delay in President’s reply to Desai’s last letter⁴ as this relates to establishing ad hoc committee. We feel that on behalf of President, we dealt with committee question one week after receipt of Desai letter,⁵ and that our agreement in November did not require that our response specifically be in the form of a Presidential letter.

2. Chronology is as follows:

Nov. 10–11—at Nye-Pickering meetings in New Delhi it is agreed that following GOI approval, “Prime Minister Desai will write to President Carter indicating that fact; the United States will then respond” (78 New Delhi 17392).⁶ Both sides agree that “arrangements regarding the establishment of the committee will be completed by Christmas 1978.” (We note that our agreement called only for U.S. response and did not specify form this should take.)

December 15—Prime Minister Desai’s letter of December 4 agreeing to committee is received in Department, one month after New Delhi meeting and 10 days before Christmas deadline.

December 22—Department cables U.S. agreement to committee, proposes next steps to be taken, and stresses urgency of the task (78 State 322418).⁷

December 22—You tell Shankar of our agreement, but Shankar indicates GOI response is not likely before January 3. You stress importance of getting enterprise moving (78 New Delhi 19836).⁸

January 6—Shankar says GOI prepared to move ahead with next steps in establishing committee but asks you for written statement that President has agreed to committee. You provide this, based on our December 22 cable⁹ (New Delhi 0322).¹⁰

3. Suggest you review foregoing with Shankar and if you feel it necessary or desirable with Desai. You should indicate that the President instructed you as his personal representative to indicate our agreement to this committee, and that you had done so on December 22. Our choice of this method, as opposed to waiting for the dispatch of a letter, was predicated by our desire to move ahead urgently with the establishment of the committee.

4. As to other aspects of Desai letter, a Presidential response will be forthcoming shortly.

Vance

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790052–0655. Secret; Exdis. Sent for information to Bombay. Drafted by John R. Malott (NEA/INS); cleared in OES and S/S–O, and in substance by Thornton; approved by Miklos.
2. In telegram 1322 from New Delhi, January 24, Goheen reported that, in a meeting on January 23, Shankar was “distressed as we that the ad hoc scientific committee has drawn such wide and erroneous attention, much of it critical, and apparently within the GOI he has been having to take the brunt of much of the criticism for having fostered the idea of such a committee. He complained about the delay in the constitution of the committee, much of which he attributes to the President’s not having replied to the PM’s last letter, about which delay he also complained.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790037–0130)
3. Not found.
4. See Document 118.
5. Telegram 322418 to New Delhi, December 22, 1978, informed the Embassy: “While the President’s reply to the Prime Minister’s December 4 letter is in preparation, and will confirm our agreement to establishment of the subject committee and its terms of reference as described, we believe it important to move ahead promptly on next steps.” The telegram then gave instructions on how to work with the Indian Government to decide upon the composition of the committee. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780530–0742)
6. See Document 115.
7. See footnote 5 above.
8. Telegram 19836 from New Delhi, December 27, 1978, reported Goheen’s appeal for action to Shankar on December 22, 1978. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780536–0452)
9. Telegram 322418; see footnote 5 above.
10. Telegram 322 from New Delhi, January 6, conveyed Shankar’s agreement to notify the Indian “Mission in Vienna to proceed with a joint approach to Dr. Eklund as soon as he got a written statement” from Goheen indicating “that the President had accepted the establishment of the ad hoc scientific advisory committee on safeguards proposed in Prime Minister Desai’s letter of December 4.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790008–0738)