|
received from the United States side dated December 22, 1973, it is clear to us that though the United States side has changed the way it handles those questions, it had not given up the unreasonable demands in essence. Therefore we made our formal reply to you on June 14 stating our principled position. What remains before us is how the US side will, on the basis of the understanding on a political package settlement, propose to solve this question in accordance with our reply made on June 14. I have just heard what Mr. Habib had to say on this subject and I understand those represent views you held before our June 14 reply. And you have not touched on what you have to say after receiving our reply made on June 14. |
| Habib: | I read the June 14 reply and maybe it is my ignorance as a newcomer, but it struck me as quite probable that there is a degree of misunderstanding. I would like to explain to you why I come to that conclusion. In doing so I will attempt to reply to your June 14 memo.
First, we don't reject the idea of a package deal. On the contrary, I believe that it is the correct way to handle the matter. I don't believe there is any difference in principle. Now, as far as the phrase that you mention that you found objectionable, I think we have concluded it isn't the phrase that is important; we are not wedded to these particular phrases. We are hoping to find some way of defining the assignments so that we can solve the problem. As for the third element that you mentioned on the liabilities occurring before 1949: we have no legal interest in these liabilities. As I understand it, we have no interest in your acknowledging the existence of these liabilities and we have never proposed that you acknowledge these liabilities. So there again, this may have been a misunderstanding. We are not asking that you acknowledge in any way the existence of those liabilities. If there was any misunderstanding, I hope that I have helped to clear it up. |
SECRET/NODIS
