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

29. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Sofia, August 6, 1964.

PARTICIPANTS

• Foreign Minister Ivan Bashev
• Minister Eugenie Anderson
• Foreign Office American Desk Chief Purvan Chernev
• Legation Officer Alexander Bloomfield
• Interpreter

US Views on US-Bulgarian Relations

I began the talk by mentioning certain developments and problems in US-Bulgarian relations, covering the following main points:

(1) Agricultural Production Minister Vachkov’s impending visit to the US, with four agriculturists, is a gratifying development.²

(2) Bulgarian purchases of large quantities of US agricultural commodities (especially fodder) is a healthy sign in the trade field, indicating that the US is able to offer these commodities on terms most favorable to Bulgaria. The Legation is informed that some further licenses are now pending.

(3) The US is preparing an extensive exhibit at the Plovdiv Fair, cooperating with the Bulgarian authorities at each appropriate step of its development, and anticipates successful participation.

(4) As a step toward developing “two-way” cultural relations, the Legation has recently passed on to the Bulgarian authorities some practical suggestions for Bulgarian cultural exhibits in the US which we would be glad to help seek to arrange.

(5) Some problems persist in our relations, the principal one being the continuing militia interference with visitors to the Legation. To illustrate, within the past week a US professor was questioned by the militiaman at the door as he sought to enter. Both sides have agreed that such action is contrary to all principles of international practice, yet it goes on.

(6) We would appreciate it if the Foreign Ministry would expedite action on the claims the Legation submitted last month for payment for damages to our vehicles during the December 27 attack on the Legation. Payment can be made in leva, if necessary.

Bulgarian View of US-Bulgarian Relations

Then Bashev began with his reply, the main gist being that he saw nothing to be pleased about as far as US-Bulgarian relations are concerned. He didn’t think they were very good. There had been absolutely no improvements that he could see. He did thank me for my statement, but he said that unfortunately he found no reasons to say there was any normal basis for developing our relations. The United States, he went on, does not show enough understanding to enable such development to take place.

Bashev claimed that he has said more than once that the development of relations between our two countries must be on a mutual basis. At present such a basis does not exist. The US has not changed its attitude in the economic field. “We see nothing positive that has been done on the part of the United States,” he said. “You continue to discriminate against our commodities. This hampers our exports. The fact that some export licenses have been issued cannot be considered as a change in attitude on the part of the United States. Trade should be two-way trade. This does not exist now due to discriminatory measures on your part. Bulgaria sees no goodwill on the part of the United States.”

Bashev continued as follows:

The Bulgarian Government has not changed its desire to develop good relations with the United States. This has been stated in the past by the Bulgarian Prime Minister and by other responsible officials. And again I am repeating it. I was authorized to say that the Bulgarian Government has the desire to normalize and improve relations with the United States, but we do not see such readiness on your part.

I can give two examples to substantiate my statement. Some time ago we signed the claims agreement.³ The USA expressed at that time its readiness to develop trade, but nothing has been done. During my conversation with Secretary Rusk,⁴ the latter stated that, although there were no legal possibilities to change the discriminatory measures in the trade field, the Department of State might take some other “special measures” to alleviate the situation. No steps were taken.

We buy some US commodities. We may continue to do so for some time. But if the US does not buy our commodities, we will look for other markets which are opening up for us. The US found it impossible to sell electrical locomotives to us. We were able to buy them somewhere else. If the US decides “magnanimously” (here Bashev became sarcastic) to sell some goods to us, this is no help in bettering our relations. We would like conditions on equal footing. Whether this can be done by some legislative action, or otherwise, I do not know. This is your business. If the US has no interest in improving our relations, we will understand that, too; but the United States should also understand us.

We cannot confine our relations to cultural relations, only. This is of small interest to us. For us, the important thing is to develop normal economic relations, not because we are compelled to buy from the United States but because this would amount to the establishment of normal relations.

In absence of appropriate changes on the part of the US toward Bulgaria, we will be compelled to believe that some elements in the US unfriendly to our country are influencing our relations. You know very well what I mean. There were statements made in the US Congress addressed to so-called nationalist groups. At the present time we do not see enough good will on the part of the US ruling circles. Of course, visits by American public opinion leaders to Bulgaria and the visit of Minister Vachkov and his group to the US are positive factors but they are not sufficient to change our relations. We should not minimize the importance of such visits, nor should we overestimate it.

US Considers General Improvement in Relations a Prerequisite to Concessions in Trade

I said I was disappointed and surprised to hear Bashev speak like this. I reminded him, as I have done many times before, that trade is a two-way street. I said we have done everything we could to try to improve relations. I said it was very surprising to me if he thought that economic relations could exist in a vacuum. For us, trade is only a part of good relations—diplomatic, cultural and political relations are also part of the picture. Unfortunately, I said, there has been very little progress during the past year. I reminded him that the December attack on our Legation has made it virtually impossible for me to work toward bettering relations. I said that if he did not understand the effect that the December attack on the Legation and subsequent bad publicity had had on American public opinion, then he did not understand the American people and our Government. I said that he must understand we cannot possibly give Bulgaria MFN treatment at present; that Congressional action is required. Even if Congress should in the future extend MFN treatment to Rumania, I said, there is no guarantee that Bulgaria will receive it. There must be a general improvement in our relations.

I went on to say that I believe that the terms on which export licenses are being issued to Bulgaria are good ones. If they were not, Bulgaria would not accept them.

Concluding, I reiterated that I see the relations between our countries in a broad spectrum—diplomatic, political, cultural and trade relations. Maybe Bashev is interested only in trade, but we are interested in all aspects. I would like to see an improvement of our general relations before I could recommend special trade concessions.

Bulgarian View: Trade is the Basis of our Relations, and Must Be on Equal Footing

Bashev repeated his same old statement, saying we were not living up to our word. I asked him to be specific: what specifically did he want. He merely repeated the same two examples of our alleged failure to live up to promises to help develop trade, made when we signed the claims agreement and during the Rusk-Bashev talks. Then he went into the question of US purchases of Bulgarian tobacco. He complained that the US buys Oriental tobacco from some countries at 12 percent tariff but that Bulgarian tobacco continues to have the 36 percent tariff.

Bashev said that other countries do not talk about public opinion as a factor governing bilateral relations. He said, “We trade with England, Japan, West Germany, Italy, and the Scandinavian countries—none of them raise such problems. Why should the United States?” He said he would like to remind me that Bulgaria, too, has public opinion, and that this is very important to the Bulgarian Government.

Bashev repeated once again that there are few encouraging factors in our relations. He said Bulgaria considers that it is the fault of the United States. Bulgaria has declared that it is ready to develop relations.

This is not our first conversation on this subject, Bashev recalled. He asked that I understand two points well: (1) trade is not the content of our relations but only the basis; (2) Bulgaria does not ask for any concessions. Bulgaria wants to trade as equal partners. How this can be achieved, whether through legislative action or otherwise, is up to the US Government and not to Bulgaria. The Bulgarian people feel no guilt, and ask for no concessions from the US. Bulgaria is an independent state and can trade with anyone. It is up to the US to decide whether it wants to trade with Bulgaria. Bulgaria wants to be friendly.

Bashev said “I am not angry. I am just stating the facts. On the basis of equal footing and improvement in trade, Bulgaria is willing to improve relations with the US. Until then, there can be no change in US-Bulgarian relations. Bulgaria is ready to see deeds on the US part to substantiate its declarations.”

Bulgarian View of US Participation in Plovdiv Fair

Reacting to my statement about the Plovdiv Fair, Bashev said he would like to see US participation in the Plovdiv Fair help develop trade relations. He asked that our participation be “without any other intentions”.

Bulgaria Will Expedite Payment of Claims for Legation Cars

The sole positive note in Bashev’s tirade on US-Bulgarian relations was his response to my request to expedite payment on the Legation’s claim for damages to its vehicles in the December 27 attack. He said that as I knew, the question “will be settled“, and that the appropriate Bulgarian authorities would be asked to expedite the matter.

Bulgarian View of Vietnam Developments

After Bashev had reiterated his accusations about the US failure to develop trade, I said I didn’t think it was productive to continue this subject and that perhaps we could discuss it another time, with better results. I changed the subject to ask Bashev for his Government’s views about the crisis in Vietnam.

Bashev answered that his government had not met on this matter; they had as yet taken no position. He could only tell me of the Foreign Ministry’s views. He said they were deeply concerned; also that the Bulgarian people are very much concerned about American actions in Southeast Asia. He repeated sadly that they were deeply concerned.

I said we were acting to put down aggression. I pointed out that American ships had been attacked on the high seas and that the US had every right to repulse the attack and defend itself.

Here Bashev shook his head, sadly. He said this was dangerous to world peace and that the responsibility was entirely in the hands of the US Government. “The recent action by the US Government refutes the previous declaration made by President Johnson,” he said, adding that he hoped that common sense would prevail. Bashev said that deeds are more important than declarations. The action against the North Vietnamese villages (sic) was in contradiction to, and refuted, US declarations about democracy, humanity and justice, he claimed.

I said we were only living up to our agreements by helping Vietnam to maintain its independence. Further, I said, we would always defend ourselves when attacked, but we hoped not to widen the conflict.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 1 BUL–US. Confidential. Drafted by Anderson. Transmitted as Enclosure 1 to airgram A–78, August 13.
2. A memorandum of Vachkov’s talks in the Department of State on August 13 is ibid., AGR 7 BUL.
3. For text of this agreement, signed in Sofia on July 2, 1963, see 14 UST 969.
4. They met at New York on September 30, 1963; see Foreign Relations, 1961–1963, vol. XVI, Document 22.