Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVII, Eastern Europe

102. Telegram From the Legation in Hungary to the Department of State¹

Budapest, February 26, 1964, 3 p.m.

514. Reference: Legation telegram 504; Legation A–3; Legation telegram 513.²

1. Szilagyi’s note comes against background of continued accent on economic problems, cautious GOH optimism on Vatican-Church negotiations, and semi-official indications Khrushchev expected here Liberation Day, April 4 (accompanied by still unsubstantiated rumors he will announce troop withdrawal).³ Szilagyi’s proposal fits into this background of possible developments that could set stage for improved relations with US. It may not be entirely coincidental that Szilagyi’s estimate six weeks to two months to agree on agenda brings us to Liberation Day.

2. We believe it desirable to respond to Hungarian note in context Davis talking paper October 1962.⁴ Thus continuity US posture toward Hungary will be underlined and suggestion disabused that something new on our part has suddenly appeared in US-Hungarian relations. By appropriate reference to Davis paper, we can continue to take note of Mindszenty problem and possible exchange of Ministers⁵ (in which Hungary presumably particularly interested) while addressing ourselves to those problems capable of earlier bilateral resolution. Within that context we believe agenda might best be proposed with general caption headings with illustrative examples that will include items still open that were originally listed in Davis paper together with new items that have subsequently developed. Broad headings might be Legation operations, economic, cultural and consular.

3. Legation operational problems should be approached on general proposition that normal relations call for normally functioning and adequately safeguarded diplomatic establishment. To that end present arbitrary limitation size American staff should be eliminated, status of US-owned property in Budapest should be regularized, authorization obtained for leased line to Vienna, and right established to bring in Marine guards. Experience recent months has underlined urgent need for Marine guards for adequate security as long as we occupy present buildings.

4. Economic problems should include settlement financial claims and receptive USG posture toward practical problems now facing Hungary in increasing trade such as meat inspection, more expeditious and liberal (non-strategic) licensing, permission to open sales office in US, certificates of origin, et cetera. Hungarians have clearly indicated here they will attempt to link financial settlement with expanded trade. Key to latter in their eyes is MFN and to lesser degree, annual trade negotiations patterned after those with Western European countries. These negotiations have led to trade agreements setting forth broad set of trade targets and may eventually serve as useful models in developing and controlling trade with Hungary. While Hungarians have not specifically said so, we believe they have in mind Polish model where grant MFN linked with financial settlement.

5. Cultural problems should include lifting present restrictions distribution of informational material and providing basis for more activity in this field here. We have in mind broader daily distribution of US wireless bulletin, monthly distribution of some sort cultural bulletin, and more use of films. In this same context we believe possibility of IMG agreement might be tabled. No GOH permission required for Legation library. On performing arts and exchanges we should be prepared to discuss generally while preserving our own maneuverability. All of this we would seek to accomplish without getting involved in overall formal cultural agreement. There have been some low level indications, however, that Hungary would like some sort cultural agreement for its prestige.

6. Consular problems should include reunion of families of both dual nationals and non-US citizens. We now have lists mentioned in Legation A–301⁶ and they contain 29 and 60 names respectively for each category. They would be submitted when negotiations get under way. Does Department feel time has come for tabling either draft new consular convention or some sort understanding designed to provide Legation notification and access rights to visiting Americans under arrest?

In view of background of events against which Szilagyi’s note was submitted, we believe we should keep ball in Hungary court and make a reasonably prompt reply. We assume Washington will draft note in reply and provide appropriate instructions in connection with Szilagyi’s procedural suggestions. Advise if anything further desired of this Legation.

Jones

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL HUNG–US. Secret.
2. Telegram 504, February 23, reported on a Hungarian note proposing a settlement of outstanding differences between the two states. (Ibid.) Airgram A–3, July 3, 1963, reported on U.S. cultural programming in Hungary. (Ibid., CUL 11 HUNG) Telegram 513, February 26, analyzed the enlarged meeting of the Hungarian Communist Party’s Central Committee. (Ibid., E 8 HUNG)
3. Khrushchev visited Hungary March 31–April 9.
4. See Foreign Relations, 1961–1963, vol. XVI, Document 15.
5. The United States withdrew its Minister following the suppression of the Hungarian revolution of 1956.
6. Dated February 16. (Department of State, Central Files, PT 9–11 HUNG)