US Representative at UN (Austin) to the Department of State

April 11, 1952

Pursuant to Dept’s instructions contained Deptel 376, Apr 9, USUN called on Graham, expressing Dept’s thinking and congratulations on his most recent proposals.

1. Graham and Jackson had just received Indian aide-mémoire in reply to his (mytel 685, Apr 8). Indian reply stated (a) GOI willingness to negotiate here and later in such places as might be agreed on, preferably Geneva or the subcontinent; while not opposing association of PlebAd designate with Graham, GOI would object to PlebAd engaging in negotiations which might prejudice his impartiality at later stage when acting in capacity of PlebAd; (c) GOI confirmed its statement to Graham it would withdraw troops from Kashmir and Pak frontier.
Graham and Jackson interpreted this reply as on the whole encouraging, because(a) is not conditioned by (b) but an absolute statement re willingness to continue negotiations.
Graham is about to draft clarification re proposed role of PlebAd designate. He stresses language of original aide-mémoire that PlebAd will be associated with Graham in studies and consideration of problem. He does not intend he should be negotiator. However, Jackson points out distinction between negotiating with two govts which is solely role of Graham and informal discussions in which Nimitz would play a role. He and Graham agree that given Nimitz’s prestige he is bound to have discussions of importance but that formal negotiations would be channeled through Graham. Thus Graham’s clarification to GOI would be that he does not intend Nimitz as his negotiator. Jackson added that Nehru is on record as agreeing to association of this sort of PlebAd and UN commission before stage of plebiscite is reached.
2. We expressed on behalf of US and UK (at request of Fowler) our hope that proposed date of Graham report, Apr 15, does not mean that he would act until firm replies are received from both parties and that he would hold question open and confidential so long as concurrence on his new suggestion is possible. We added that if one or both parties offer further serious difficulties, diplomatic assistance might be possible and UK had suggested its desirability in such a situation. Necessarily such assistance would depend upon keeping negotiations confidential. Graham said that his statement he “expected to submit a report on Apr 15” is merely the expression of a hope and stated that he regarded the date as purely tentative and would confer with us further before taking any action of a public nature and would let us know the Pak reaction to his aide-mémoire.
We covered current developments, including Nimitz’s availability as indicated by Dept’s recent soundings and Dept’s recent démarche contained Deptel 10292 to Karachi, repeated Delhi. He was interested in Dept’s view re his terms of reference as stated in third para, Deptel 376, of Apr 9, but was anxious to keep off this entire subject so as not to be diverted or have parties diverted from current tactical problem.
3. In general, Graham seemed moderately optimistic and relaxed as far as timetable is concerned and emphasized desirability of keeping in close touch with us.