118. Letter From Indian Prime Minister Desai to President Carter1
Thank you for your letter of October 112 transmitted to me by Ambassador Goheen. Since then, as you know, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Dr. Joseph Nye have been in Delhi in connection with the Indo-US Subcommission on Science and Technology.3 It was suggested that the opportunity may be utilized to exchange views on the question of our nuclear cooperation particularly the proposal to establish an ad hoc Scientific Advisory Committee to examine the different concepts of safeguards on nuclear activities. As a result of the discussions, it was agreed that the following terms may be proposed to the respective Governments:
(1) To examine the options available within the concept of safeguards on all nuclear activities;
(2) To survey the types of safeguards being applied in various countries and their impact on the nuclear R & D and energy programmes of those countries in terms of national priorities, needs and interests; and
(3) To seek to determine whether there is an appropriate IAEA safeguards programme consistent with foregoing paragraphs (1) [Page 327] and (2) and without hindrance to the progress of nuclear energy programmes.
We have approved of the above terms of reference. It was also proposed that the Committee would comprise of one eminent Scientist from U.S.A. and another from India to be nominated by the respective Governments; two other Scientists would be nominated in their personal capacity by mutual consultation. It was also agreed that Dr. Eklund, the Director-General of IAEA would be the Chairman in his personal capacity. According to the time schedule discussed, it was hoped that the Committee’s report would be available by August, 1979. We have approved of the above proposals and the terms of reference and if you also approve of them, further action to set up the Committee could be taken and other incidental matters as discussed at the meeting can be processed.
We were glad to receive confirmation from the U.S. officials that they saw no present difficulty in the continued supplies of enriched uranium for our Tarapur atomic power station. We are, however, concerned to learn that the N.R.C. have not been able to finalise their conclusions on application XSNM–1222 for 16.8 metric tonnes of enriched uranium and that they would require extra time of 60 days in view of the “complexity and sensitivity” of the application. This is despite the fact that according to the Rules of the Commission no further dilatory formalities are involved if there has been no material change in the situation since the last application was approved. As you are aware, if there has been any change, it has been for the better. I trust, therefore, that your administration will use all the influence at its command to see to it that this shipment is made without undue delay and also that our subsequent application for a further supply of 19.8 tonnes is dealt with expeditiously.
You will also recall that, separately but not unrelated to the shared ideal of arresting the dangers of proliferation of nuclear weapons, I have always emphasized the vital importance of definitive steps towards nuclear and conventional disarmament. It was our hope that, following the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, concrete steps would be taken in the direction of an early conclusion of a truly comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a second agreement with U.S.S.R. on the limitation of strategic arms. I am aware of your interest both in the C.T.B. treaty and SALT–II, but may I once again reiterate that if the world is to recognise that the great powers are in earnest about the dangers of vertical and horizontal proliferation of weapon, the residuary difficulties must be overcome and the agreements finalised without further delay!
I am glad you agree that Pakistan’s problems are essentially political. I have also noted your assurance that the United States will not [Page 328] enter into a military supply relationship with Pakistan which would adversely affect stability in South Asia. Given the relative sizes of the two countries and the respective defence responsibilities, there can be no question of military parity between the two countries. We have done everything possible to assure Pakistan that not only do we have no desire to interfere or add to her difficulties, but we have also firm faith in the necessity of maintaining Pakistan’s stability and progress. It naturally hurts us when our bonafides become suspect and a theory of military balance is put forward on grounds of Pakistan’s apprehensions or its internal problems which are of its own making. In this context I realise your concern for peace in this region. We naturally have a major stake in that peace and cannot but act in the spirit of achieving and maintaining it.
Like you, we are concerned at the internal turmoil in neighbouring Iran. Based on our experience and my own fervent faith, I had taken the liberty of urging His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Iran when I met him in June last to democratise the political dispensation, simultaneously with planned and rapid modernisation of the country and to do so early enough and, not in installments, taking into confidence local elements which form public opinion. You and I agree that, with all its shortcomings, the democratic system provides an outlet for the expression of the people’s political aspirations and also safeguards against sudden explosions of the kind that have occurred in that country. Outside powers cannot help and could even exacerbate the situation by involvement. A durable solution has to evolve from within. And, the sooner Iran can return to normal Government, associating with it elements representative of the people, the better it would be for a region to which, in a sense, we consider we belong. There is some evidence that the Shahanshah now fully recognises this, and I hope it is not still too late for Iran to find the right mix of economic progress and political and democratic freedom under enlightened administration.
The problems in Africa are, if anything, getting more dangerous. The South African regime seems determined to defy international opinion and attempt its own variant of an internal settlement which is unlikely to provide the necessary confidence for the African majority. No peaceful solution in Zimbabwe seems to be in sight. I had long urged the Frontline States as well as the liberation movements that, with unity of purpose, a regime representing the majority of the people could soon be established. But no one can deny that the longer the basic aspirations of the Africans are frustrated and forms of racialist domination continue, the greater are the chances of protracted struggles involving destruction and bloodshed which in turn can only increase the risk of international involvement. I wish South Africa would realise this and take a long-term view of its own interest in a peaceful solution [Page 329] sooner rather than later. The occupation by Ugandan forces of Tanzanian territory, now allegedly vacated, is another retrograde development. It has exposed the hesitancy of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).
All this only indicates that we have troubled situations all around us. But, in India, in spite of all that you may hear about the political problems within this country, we can claim that we adhere firmly to our committed course of democratic and steady evolutionary economic progress. On the other side, South-East Asia is again seething with tensions. We have made a beginning of economic relations with Vietnam and consider it a duty to help that country in its reconstruction after the devastation it suffered. Here again, we are scrupulously detached from bilateral problems between China and Vietnam, or Vietnam and Cambodia. We have long believed that the strength of nationalism must be respected, and there can be no justification for any support of ethnic minorities or territorial claims or interference and involvement in the internal affairs of other countries. We would like to see South-East Asia as a whole free from great power involvement and build a fabric of confidence and cooperation. I was happy to meet your Secretary of Commerce, Mrs. Juanita M. Kreps and hope that her discussions here will help to remove impediments in Indian exports to the U.S. and generally improve our commercial and economic relations.4
Over the last two weeks, we have also had meetings in New Delhi of the Indo-U.S. Sub-Commissions for Science and Technology as well as Commerce and Economics.5 I am glad that such meetings are resulting in not only a better understanding between the scientists, economists and other scholars of our two countries, but are also making progress towards concrete programmes of cooperation and exchanges.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840153–0242. No classification marking. William Brown forwarded the letter to Dodson under a December 15 covering memorandum. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P840153–0240)↩
- See Document 114.↩
- See Document 115.↩
- See Document 117.↩
- Telegram 17493 from New Delhi, November 15, reported on the meeting of the Subcommision on Science and Technology. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780469–1222) Telegrams 17745 and 17770 from New Delhi, November 17 and 18, reported on the meeting of the Ecomonic and Commercial Subcommission. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780474–0281 and D780475–0490, respectively.↩