335. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Pakistan1
87127. Subject: Pakistan Nuclear Program and Application of the Symington Amendment.
1. Summary. The Pakistan Ambassador called on Under Secretary Newsom April 6 to express regret over the manner and timing of the news concerning application of the Symington Amendment to Pakistan. Mr. Newsom pointed out that evidence available to us on Pakistan’s nuclear enrichment activities gave us no choice but to apply the law. Public disclosure at the noon press briefing was not in the form of any announcement, but came out in response to queries from the press.2 We hope to continue to have close relations with Pakistan and Ambassador Hummel on his return to Islamabad will be exploring the full range of our relations with President Zia. End summary.
2. Pakistan Ambassador Sultan Mohammad Khan called at his request on Under Secretary Newsom April 6. He was accompanied by Minister Hayat Mehdi. Ambassador Hummel and NEA/PAB Director Coon were also present.
3. Ambassador Khan said he wished to inquire about the content and timing of our announcement regarding the application of the Symington Amendment. The issue had been discussed by Mr. Christopher in Islamabad3 and more recently in the Ambassador’s call on the Deputy Secretary4 and he had hoped that there would have been a normal process of consultation before making such an announcement. Moreover, he had understood that the USG would not seek publicity on the issue but he felt the announcement had been made in a way to attract publicity. He noted that Hayat Mehdi had been called into the Department this morning and told that there were press inquiries on this subject and had been shown prepared Q’s and A’s which only indicated [Page 791] that we would be “winding down” our programs.5 The Ambassador felt constrained to express his surprise, disappointment and regret.
4. Mr. Newsom said that he shared these feelings. The circumstances surrounding Pakistan’s nuclear activities have presented us with complex and difficult questions. Pakistan is a country with which we have had and want to continue to have the closest relations. It is still our hope that we can find areas in our relations where we can cooperate. Mr. Newsom pointed out, however, that as the Pakistan Government well knows from many conversations, including Mr. Christopher’s in Islamabad, we have increasing evidence of construction of enrichment facilities which cannot be explained in terms of Pakistan nuclear power program. Faced with this evidence we had hoped we could persuade Pakistan to review its policy so that we could continue to cooperate to our benefit. After Christopher’s visit, we determined within the administration that we had no choice but to apply Symington.6 It had been our hope that we could move quietly and in an orderly manner to apply the law in a way which would minimize the negative effects of this action in our overall relations. However, publicity outran our hopes. Articles in the Indian press and Manchester Guardian and a German TV program apparently led to questions here yesterday which we had to answer in the press briefing. We had called in Mr. Medhi to inform him of the impending publicity and the fact the Symington was in effect. Mr. Newsom clarified a misunderstanding by the Ambassador, pointing out that we had not made a formal announcement at the press briefing but only responded to questions.
5. The Ambassador responded that his government had been placed in a difficult position and it would now have to make clear its views on the question. He said it would be difficult to avoid the impression that our action is discriminatory, noting that India has three (sic) reprocessing plants which is far in excess of its need for power production. He also noted that Pakistan had made constructive suggestions in nuclear matters—to India and others—including the proposal for a South Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (SANWFZ).
6. Mr. Newsom said he understood Pakistan’s point of view and commented that in another year we will be unable to deliver nuclear fuel to India if there is not agreement on full-scope safeguards. He [Page 792] noted that the Symington Amendment is not intended to discriminate against Pakistan, but the law only applied after a certain date and is not retroactive. Referring to Pakistan’s constructive suggestions such as SANWFZ, Mr. Newsom indicated we hoped that these would be further explored.
7. Mr. Newsom also described the orderly manner in which we hoped to phase out the aid program. The Symington Amendment does not affect aid in the pipeline and we can make limited new obligations in order to complete projects which are well underway. Under the IMET program, students already selected for courses will be able to proceed as planned. He also cited that provision in the Amendment that permits a Presidential waiver if it is in US national interest and if we receive reliable assurances that a country will not produce nuclear weapons.
8. The Ambassador commented that such assurances had been given at the highest level on many occasions; the other condition of course is up to the US. Mr. Newsom recalled that during Mr. Christopher’s conversation in Islamabad the question of Pakistan’s intentions arose and the President did not seem to feel that he was in a position to give such assurances. Indeed we had received a contrary impression. He said that if the Pakistan Government could provide such assurances, supported by a suitable formula for verification, we would be happy to reverse the process.
9. In conclusion, Mr. Newsom asked the Ambassador to convey to his government that we have taken this action out of necessity and with great reluctance. We hope still to develop a pattern of cooperation with Pakistan, and also to continue a dialogue on this particular question to see if there might be a solution. He noted that Ambassador Hummel was leaving tonight for Islamabad and we hope he may see President Zia at an early date to explore the full range of our relations of which this is but one facet.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790160–0372. Secret; Immediate; Exdis. Sent for information to Tehran. Sent for information Priority to New Delhi, London, Paris, Jidda, Beijing, and Moscow. Drafted by Coon; cleared in S/S–O and by Miklos and Nosenzo; approved by Newsom.↩
- In response to a reporter’s question about Pakistan’s nuclear program during the April 6 Department of State press briefing, Department Spokesman Hodding Carter acknowledged that the United States Government had concluded that Pakistani Government “activities” had triggered the Symington Amendment, and that U.S. aid was being discontinued. (Telegram 86090 to multiple posts, April 7; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790158–1089)↩
- See Document 325.↩
- See Document 329.↩
- In telegram 85666 to Islamabad, April 6, the Embassy reported Miklos’s April 6 meeting with Mehdi, during which Miklos informed Mehdi of that day’s Department press briefing and warned him that the story about the U.S. response to Pakistan’s nuclear program could break very soon. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790158–0189)↩
- See Document 333.↩