Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–8, Documents on South Asia, 1973–1976

12. Telegram 72260 From the Department of State to the Embassy in Afghanistan¹ ²

Washington, April 10, 1974, 0018Z.

Subject:

• Review of Policy Toward Afghanistan

Ref:

• Kabul 1090 and A–12

For Ambassador

1. We have examined with interest results of Mission’s review of U.S. policy toward Afghanistan (reftel) along with report of Review Group. We commend your thorough efforts particularly Mission’s openness in involving elements of country team and inclusion of dissenting views. Your review is timely both in terms of new requirement for annual U.S. foreign policy assessment (FAM 212), and in view recent political evolution under Daoud government. We endorse major recommendations of your review, which we note remain in basic accord with 1969 NSC/IG policy paper on Afghanistan. Dept comment follows on selected portions of your policy review message and Review Group’s paper.

2. We agree that basic interests in Afghanistan remain unchanged by advent of Daoud. USG interests there continue to be interwoven with our interests in promoting peace, stability and cooperation among nations of region, particularly neighboring Iran and Pakistan. To extent that Afghanistan remains stable, independent and nonaligned, US policy interests in the region are well served. An Afghanistan regarded by other countries in area as a threat—either by its own intemperate actions or through domination by another power—would be detrimental to our policy goals in the region.

3. Your review notes that GOA recognizes the importance of USG presence in country as primarily in form of developmental assistance. We agree that our assistance programs must continue to be based on their own merits. We do not repeat do not perceive present or future grounds wherein political considerations would lead us to approve unsound developmental projects at same time worldwide constraints on US assistance could inhibit adoption of otherwise desirable projects from both political and developmental viewpoints. In this regard, we endorse Review Group’s recommendations on increasing effectivenes of USG assistance toward programs with broad developmental benefits for the poorest majority. We also concur in mission’s intent to undertake review at this time of all US program ARR project activities, in context of total US effort in country.

4. Development of more collaborative style with GOA should help insure that assistance programs are Afghan-proposed and have fullest Afghan support. In this regard GOA request for continued US assistance in Helmand should be handled in way that insures Afghans are out in every phase of review, and in initiation of any proposed new activities, including current assessment.

5. Concerning programs other than USAID, Peace Corps approach to dealing with GOA should parallel that of AID in style. We note that certain PC programs have been stymied, owing partly to references and policies of new personel in GOA. Careful tailoring of PC programs in areas of priority to both GOA and USG will be necessary as we attempt to meet objectives of both our countries. Re MAP, we concur that program should continue at about present level, subject to GOA desires and worldwide MAP priorities and funding. We view USIS programming at or near present level as about right for Afghanistan. Any new restrictions on USG cultural, educational or informational programs, if pointed at U.S. and not others, would probably indicate overall shift in GOA policy and attitude toward total US presence which might necessitate general review of policy toward country.

6. On foreign policy we are in general agreement with reftel recommendation to continue line we have taken in past to promote improved Afghan relations with neighboring Pakistan and Iran. On Pushtunistan, we should continue to stay out of middle, while observing option to take more active role if circumstances warrant, such as threat to Pakistan’s internal stability or of more adventurist Afghan policy. At the same time, we should continue to make known our commitment to intergrity of Pakistan and desire for a peaceful resolution to this problem.

7. Finally, Department endorses Mission’s increased efforts toward improved understanding by Americans of Afghan language and culture and other measures to decrease “ghetto mentality” of American community in Kabul. We agree such moves will enhance American presence and foreign policy objectives in Afghanistan.

Kissinger

1. Source: National Archives, RG 84, Kabul Embassy Files: Lot 77 F 53, POL 1, AFG Government (General) 1974. Confidential. Repeated to Colombo, Islamabad, Kathmandu, London, Moscow, New Delhi, Tehran, and CINCPAC. In telegram 1090 from Kabul, 21 February, the Embassy summarized its yearly policy review, concluding that the change in regime had not altered the United States’ role in Afghanistan and emphasizing that the use of aid could encourage Afghanistan to remain outside Soviet orbit. (Ibid).
2. Secretary of State Kissinger concurred with the Kabul Embassy’s assessment of relations with Afghanistan, and discussed at length development efforts.