A vendetta against Kissinger
From Krishna Bhatia, WASHINGTON, Jan. 11.-Besides speculation about the possible source of leak, the current public controversy over the publication of White House documents occasionally produces additional crumbs of secret information.
It was revealed today Dr. Henry Kissinger told India’s Ambassador Mr. L. K. Jha. “If India became involved in war with both Pakistan and China the U.S. could be of no assistance.” This warning was seen coming not so much from the U.S. as from Peking which, it is stated, was only using Washington to frighten India.
Mr. Tom Braden, another well-known columnist who disclosed this also claimed that on Oct. 12, the U.S. Ambassador in India. Mr. Kenneth Keating, met Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and conveyed to her the U.S. warning that if India did not “cease aid to dissidents in East Pakistan, Pakistan would attack from the West.” Taken aback by this word from a friendly Power, Mrs. Gandhi reportedly inquired what the U.S. would do in the event of such an attack. Mr. Keating said he had nothing more to tell her. The government investigation into the leakage of the Anderson papers is not complete but columnists and writers are having a field day discussing various implications of what they have learnt from documents. Opinions vary about the significance of disclosures but many observers agree that motive in handing secret documents to the Press was a personal venom against Dr. Kissinger.
This conclusion is unlikely to help much in tracing the source, for diverse agencies and senior individuals are known to resent Dr. Kissinger’s domineering manner and the fact that he virtually contorls the Administration. He has excluded the pentagon, the State Department, military top brass and even other sections of the White House Executive branch from the decision-making processes and installed himself between them and Mr. Nixon as a formable barrier.
Reuter adds:
Meanwhile, State Department spokesman Charles Bray yesterday refused to say whether the United States was denying Indian officials here access to senior department officials.
But the spokesman could offer no explanation why the U.S. Government chose to express its “displeasure” over India’s decision to exchange ambassadors with North Vietnam to the Foreign Ministry in New Delhi.
It is usual Department practices to covey diplomatic messages of this sort to a country’s ambassador in Washington as well as to the Foreign Ministry abroad.
(Indian official spokesman in New Delhi on Jan. 8 had said U.S.
Ambassador Keating had called at the Foreign Office and orally protested against India’s action. Other officials had said there was no question of “displeasure” being conveyed and the ambassador would not have been allowed to use any such impermissible language as between sovereign Governments.)
Later, Mr. George Shukla, Press Secretary at the Indian Embassy, said the last visit by an embassy official to the State Department was on Dec. 20.
Asked whether Indian officials here felt there was a policy to freeze them out or treat them at lower levels, Mr. Shukla said: “Whether there is a policy or not is only for them to say. We are here. We are not shy to meet them.”
Mr. Bray declined to comment on most aspects of these reports except to deny that some Indian officials had not been received in the department and that Mr. Jhan had been told not to hold Press conferences.
When asked if Mr. Sisco had told the Ambassador that his criticism of U.S. policy was unwarranted, Mr. Bray declined comment.
He said Mr. Kenneth Keating enjoyed the full confidence of the administration.
Reference: Hindustan Standard 12.01.1972