Library of Congress - Kissinger Papers
1971-12-23
Transcript of Telephone Conversation Between Secretary of State Rogers and the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger), Washington, December 23, 1971, 8 p.m.
Foreign Relations of the United States
Volume E7
Documents on South Asia, 1969-1972
Source: Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Kissinger Papers, Box 370, Telephone Conversations, Chronological File, 18–23 Dec. 1971. No classification marking. The excision was in accordance with the donor’s deed of gift.
Washington, December 23, 1971, 8 p.m
Telecon
Mr. Kissinger
Secretary Rogers
12/23/71; 8:00 p.m.
K: I have just read your press conference and in connection with this commitment to Pakistan, you should know that the President told Matskevich that there was a commitment and if there was an attack on West Pakistan there would be a confrontation. I also showed this to Vorontsov the next day. I told Alex Johnson. He also made me show it to the British Ambassador to explain … Haldeman was in his office when he asked me to do it. I have been seeing these stories coming out of State…
R: Has the President said there is a commitment?
K: The quote is if there is an attack on West Pakistan there will be a confrontation. He showed the aide memorie of Kennedy’s — in case of aggression by India against Pakistan the U. S. would come to the assistance of Pakistan.
R: It doesn’t say military. I don’t think there is any problem. The Aide Memorie of Kennedy’s does not commit the U. S. to go to war in the event that Pakistan is attacked by India and we should not say that. On the other hand, I pointed out that the discussions we have had with Pakistan indicated we would provide assistance and that can be in whatever form we want. You can’t say Aide Memorie commits U.S. to go to war. You can’t circumvent the Constitution…
K: I am not trying to circumvent the Constitution. I am trying to maintain a minimum of credibility which is almost impossible in the light of this niggling.
R: Oh, come on. There is no niggling or haggling. I have only said we have no treaty commitment to go to war in the event there is an attack on Pakistan. But, we have no legal obligation. If we suggested we had it would be a catastrophe. None of our treaties provide that we have a commitment to take military action.
K: That’s not the point. That document was used to justify some of our actions.
R: What document?
K: The Aide Memoire.
R: No one has said there was no document.
K: But it was said that it was washed out in 1965…
R: I did not even know about the damn thing. I am convinced U.S. has no legal obligation to go to war. If the President has told people this might lead into a confrontation — fine. I don’t think I said anything that is contradictory.
K: What we have said …
R: Listen we could always go to war if we want to.
K: That’s not the point.
R: Nothing I said undermines or undercuts the President …
K: But the document was used as a basis of justifying his actions in this and he did use it and he did ask it to be shown to people so he attached some importance to it.
R: That’s alright. There is nothing that I said that detracts from it. What I am saying is whether we have a commitment to come to the defense of Pakistan in a military way in the event of a military attack. The answer is no. We can do it as a matter of discretion. We certainly don’t want to tell the American people that we are committed to go to war. See what the newspapers say in the morning and talk to me about it again.
K: I am not worried about the newspapers.