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

174. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Romania¹

Washington, December 12, 1968, 1828Z.

286014. Subject: Secretary Rusk Receives Romanian Ambassador: European Questions. Following, based on uncleared memcon,² is FYI, Noforn and subject to review. Secretary received Ambassador Bogdan at his request for 45 minutes morning December 10. Bogdan leaving for consultations and home leave December 11. Tour d’horizon covered following European topics:

1. Brezhnev Doctrine (BD). Secretary brought up and expressed concern about so-called BD.³ We cannot accept, he explained, principle that relations among sovereign states of same system purely internal matter for Moscow. This could lead to titanic struggle among limited number of great powers. Some day BD could create problem for Romania. Ambassador should tell Foreign Minister Manescu, Secretary regrets press leak at recent NATO meeting due to indiscretion on part two delegations in revealing private discussion among Ministers, but does not apologize for discussing effect on NATO security of what happens outside NATO boundaries. Bogdan responded Romanian position on BD made clear several times, most recently in Ceausescu speech December 1, which asserted possibility participation in Warsaw Pact and membership in socialist community without diminished sovereignty. Personally, Bogdan remarked, he is interested in the recent discussion of NATO Ministers on subject whether Romania does or does not belong to “gray zone.” Secretary replied press comment went too far. We do not intend expand area of NATO responsibilities, he explained, but cannot remain unconcerned when, as in the case of Czechoslovakia last summer, Soviet forces move forward west and south. Secretary and Ambassador agreed best present procedure is to continue work toward détente, in spite of difficulties, quietly and without fanfare, outside as well as inside UN.

2. European Situation. Bogdan asked how Secretary views European situation after NATO November meeting. Secretary replied new element in situation is Soviet leaders’ demonstrated ability make decisions for which heavy price must be paid: worsening of relations with Czechoslovakia, disruption of East-West relations, antagonizing world opinion. What does this mean? Ideological step backward? Fright over development of East-West coexistence? People capable making Czech-type decision also capable of facing world with other unpredictable decisions. This is why NATO must now improve quality of its forces. Europe is not third force between US and Soviet Union. Contention between these two powers not over polar bears in Arctic, but over security of Europe, which is primary issue. We have a national interest in reasonably correct relations between Eastern and Western Europe, even if we do not have as many illusions as some of our West European friends. We have a national interest as well in the future of Germany.

3. Germany. Bogdan asked how Secretary envisaged solution German question. Secretary replied solution will take time and will be work of German people themselves, East and West. Solution will be acceptable to US in case German people decide there should be two separate Germanys; also, if they agree two countries should come together. Bogdan commented unification of Germany of concern to Bucharest, indeed a difficult and painful subject, because there are Germans, both East and West, who are not interested in unification alone.

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 17 ROM. Secret; Exdis. Drafted by Tihany, cleared in EUR/RPM, and approved by Toon. Also sent to Moscow and USNATO.
2. Copies of the memoranda of conversation dealing with European affairs, the Middle East, and Vietnam are ibid., POL EUR, POL 27–ARAB ISR, and POL 27 VIET S, noterespectively.
3. See footnote 4, Document 23.