8. Telegram From the Embassy in Czechoslovakia to the Department of State0
312. Hajek sent for me at 3:30 pm today and said he wished discuss frankly and seriously his concern re lack progress economic agreement negotiations. He said that feeling was current here among members of government that perhaps we did not want agreement or improvement in relations. Re alleged lack desire conclude agreement he referred my mentioning to him that Czech Embassy Washington been talking with press (Embassy telegram 298).1 He checked into matter and finds Embassy was approached by press because of Olsen article New York Times and been quite noncommittal in what it told press other than negotiations had been going on for some years and involved steel mill and settlement certain claims. Hajek said that our raising this matter made him wonder whether we trying cast blame on Czech Embassy as excuse for getting out of agreement.
Re doubts about our desire improve relations Hajek referred to speech by Ambassador Stevenson to Bnai Brith as published in Herald Tribune January 15 in which Ambassador reportedly showed unfriendly attitude toward Czechs along with Cuba and North Vietnam. He also mentioned very briefly speech by Ambassador Merchant in Canada which referred to Moscow’s domination over Czechs.
After foregoing Hajek turned to question of inclusion in agreement of article covering trade statement and office. Said his government could not accept anything less than what we had agreed to in Principles which made commitment whereas he considered aide-memoire only meeting this point halfway at most. I gave him substance Department telegram 2902 relating this particular subject and he said he frankly was not convinced by our views and would have to stand on Principles. I assured him of our good faith in wishing proceed with negotiations and pointed out that we unfortunately also had some doubts regarding their point of view in respect inclusion new language on debt claims in claims article. He said that only additions they wished to make were caused by fact we were limiting our original views as expressed in Principles and they had to meet these limitations by additional phraseology on their part.
[Page 14]Conversation ended by Hajek stating they were in no hurry rush through agreement, that they would not be pressured into accepting changes from Principles and he hoped we could sit down next week on basis of Principles and work out something satisfactory.
As it now stands, problem is that Czechs insist that agreement on trade office and statement have some status and force as economic agreement itself. Department on other hand opposes inclusion trade point in economic agreement. Hajek has however not indicated that Czechs insist on inclusion trade point in economic agreement. In interest advancing negotiations therefore suggest Department examine possibility of exchange of notes or of separate agreement signed by both sides limited to trade article and annex contained in Statement of Principles.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.494/2–262. Confidential.↩
- Telegram 298, January 24, reads: “I spoke Hajek yesterday evening. He expressed surprise agreed Czech actions inappropriate. Indicated would wire Embassy instructions.” (Ibid., 611.494/1–2462)↩
- Document 7.↩