The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Pakistan 1
688. Dept seriously questions accuracy PM’s analysis USSR intervention (Embtel 745 Jan 21) and assumes Emb shares this belief. [Page 1180] Dept requests Emb’s estimate importance PM’s statement re reexamination GOP-USSR relations. When occasion arises Emb shld stress to PM our belief USSR action most likely motivated by desire block further progress when Kashmir solution appears to be in sight. Thus Sov tactic if successful cld only prove harmful to Pak. Re Vyshinski’s explanation to Zafrulla (Embtel 751 Jan 22)2 you shld note Malik clearly referred to present consembly and not to any consembly yet to be elected Vyshinski to contrary notwithstanding. In any event we have long ago learned to discount word of USSR spokesmen.
Emb may observe further to PM that for present at least any SC res very likely to be vetoed by USSR. If final Graham effort leads to agreement all pts fol another visit to subcontinent, USSR wld be in weak position veto resultant res. You may finally reaffirm to PM our single purpose in seeing Kashmir issue to early successful conclusion. Dept suggests further reference US-Pak mil aid program this connection not desirable.
FYI Emb will be kept informed London talks with Zafrulla re US–UK views on immed future course action SC and Graham which Dept hopes will result deferment res until after final effort by Graham.
- This telegram was repeated to London and Paris.↩
In telegram 751 from Karachi, Jan. 22, Ambassador Warren reported as follows:
“We learned yesterday from FonSecy Baig, and later from PriMin in conversation with Amb, that Zafrulla has reported a conversation in which he asked Vyshinski to explain significance of Malik’s speech on Kashmir. Vyshinski replied it had no special significance, it was just normal participation in SC debate. He said Malik’s ref to a consembly was not to the existing body but to a really representative one yet to be elected.
“Baig expressed personal opinion motive behind Malik speech was to ‘throw a spanner in the works’. He did not think it was intended to help the Indians.” (690D.91/1–2252)↩