611.60F31/5–346: Telegram
The Ambassador in Czechoslovakia (Steinhardt) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 4—4:10 a.m.]
694. The misunderstanding referred to in Department’s 397, May first,27 appears to have arisen out of the following circumstances.
The Embassy was informed through the medium of Department’s instruction No. 5, June 21, 194528 that negotiations for a commercial agreement had been initiated in Washington. The memorandum of conversation annexed28 to the instruction stated that “it was agreed that respective drafts of the most-favored-nation type of statement be drawn up for discussion”. The Department’s instruction No. 19, July 6 transmitted a memorandum of a further conversation held in the Department and a copy of an aide-mémoire handed to the Commercial Counselor of the Czechoslovak Embassy in Washington.29 The Embassy’s 348, September 15 transmitted to the Department the text of an aide-mémoire from the Minister of Foreign Affairs30 which the Embassy, having received no instructions to approach the Ministry on the subject, assumed related to the negotiations in Washington. Dept’s 441 and 442, December 5,31 the substance of which was immediately conveyed to the Foreign Office by note,32 specifically stated that the Czechoslovakian Embassy in Washington was being informed of the Department’s views with respect to the Czechoslovakian aide-mémoire. The Embassy’s 180, February 2 transmitted a note from the Foreign Office33 to the effect that the wording of proposed paragraph 12 was not sufficiently clear and that the Minister would appreciate an explanation. Department’s 128, February 21 giving the desired explanation was immediately transmitted to the Foreign Office by note.33 On March 5 (No. 155)34 the Department telegraphed the Embassy that it was considering informing the Czechoslovakian [Page 195] Embassy on the occasion of opening negotiations for an Exim Bank loan that it desired the conclusion of an interim commercial agreement prior to or simultaneously with the conclusion of a loan agreement and requesting my views. I concurred in my 361, March 12.35 As up to this time the Embassy had been requested merely to transmit occasional messages which did not reflect the full scope of the negotiations in Washington, we were puzzled on receiving a request (Department’s 360, April 18 [25]36) “for an exact statement of the position and progress of the negotiations in Praha”.
I have not changed the opinion expressed in my 361, March 12 that we should insist on an interim commercial agreement prior to or simultaneously with a loan. Had it been possible, as I anticipated, to conclude the interim commercial agreement in Washington prior to April 1 or even April 15, I would have favored doing so. In telegraphing on April 26 that I regarded an interim commercial arrangement as undesirable and unsatisfactory, I assumed the Department would connect this change in my point of view with the statement in the preceding paragraph of the same telegram that Kunosi’s sudden proposal was undoubtedly motivated by a desire to enable the Communist Party to claim credit with the Czechoslovakian public, before the general elections on May 26, for the conclusion of a commercial agreement with US. In other words, I see little advantage to US in concluding an interim commercial arrangement 2 or 3 weeks before the general elections, as against a very great political advantage to the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia. To further clarify my position, I should add that I will again favor the conclusion of an interim commercial arrangement immediately after the general elections. I also still favor pressing the Czechoslovakians for an interim commercial agreement prior to or simultaneously with an Exim Bank loan.
Insofar as concerns the Department’s request for a progress report, I assume that my 670, May 1 crossed the Department’s 397, May 1. Other than the aide-mémoire from the Foreign Office transmitted in my 670 and which was received by the Embassy April 30, there is nothing further to report.
If the Department desires the Embassy to conclude the interim commercial agreement in Praha, I estimate that it should not require more than 1 or 2 weeks in which to do so from the date on which we receive the final text from the Department. Time could be saved if the Department would send us the text immediately as, unless instructed to the contrary, I would not sign before May 27.
- Not printed; in it the Department sought to clarify what it believed was a misunderstanding on the subjects discussed in telegram 637, April 26, from Praha, p. 190.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Neither instruction 19, July 6, 1945, to Praha, nor the enclosed memorandum of conversation is printed. For text of the aide-mémoire of June 29, 1945, to the Czechoslovak Embassy, see Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. iv, p. 543.↩
- Telegram 348 not printed. For text of the Czechoslovak Government’s aide-mémoire of September 13, 1945, contained therein, see ibid., p. 548.↩
- Telegram 441, December 5, 1945, to Praha, is printed ibid., p. 548. Telegram 442, December 5, 1945, to Praha, not printed, but see footnote 2, ibid., p. 549.↩
- Embassy’s note of December 12, 1945, to the Czechoslovak Government, not printed.↩
- Neither printed.↩
- Neither printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed, but see footnote 21, p. 190.↩