110. Memorandum From the Director of the United States Information Agency (Marks) to President Johnson1
I have just returned from a conference which I held of our Public Affairs Officer representatives in Eastern European countries (Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia). From this conference and meetings which I held in some of these capitals, I would like to report the following:
1. Viet Nam is not a matter of principal interest in the satellite countries. It is a “convenient excuse” for taking certain actions or refusing to do so, rather than a basic reason.
2. The Eastern European countries are primarily interested in expanding trade with the U.S., in most-favored-nation treatment, in increase of tourism, and improvement in the standards of living.
3. Even where official relations are cool, our representatives find cordiality in personal relations.
4. Except in Yugoslavia the press is biased, highly critical and militantly adverse to official U.S. positions. However, in private conversations there is a good understanding of U.S. objectives and a latent sympathy.
Following the conference, I accompanied Senator Warren Magnuson to Plovidiv, Bulgaria for the “America Day” ceremonies at the Trade Fair. During the day we called on Prime Minister Zhivkov, representatives of the Foreign Office and Trade Ministries. In our meeting with the Prime Minister at no time was there any reference to Viet Nam, although the Prime Minister had numerous opportunities to bring up the subject.
Senator Magnuson explained his sponsorship of the East-West Trade Bill and his hope that Congress might consider it in its next session.2 He cautioned against optimism but registered his strong support for the measure. In the discussion I pointed out that Bulgaria was the only nation in Eastern Europe which still jammed the VOA (the jamming is only of Bulgarian language and not English programs) and that if this practice stopped it would be an indication of Bulgarian desire to cooperate. The Prime Minister responded by saying, “I could stop the jamming in two minutes—but then what would we Bulgarians [Page 343] have to trade?” He also expressed irritation that the Bulgarian representative in the U.S. was a Minister and not an Ambassador. He felt that this was a discrimination which should be eliminated. I got the feeling that if we upgraded our diplomatic representation, he would order cessation of jamming. I intend to discuss this with Secretary Rusk and urge that this step be taken.
5. In Yugoslavia new economic reforms have been introduced which require all enterprise to “show profit” or go out of business. There are striking similarities with our own free enterprise system and the differences appear to be more in theory than fact. Yugoslavia maintains its independence although it still clings to a theoretical adherence to the communist bloc. The Yugoslavians believe that the Czechs will follow this pattern and that there may be others in due course who will also do so. I met with Ministry of Information officials and found them highly cooperative. Our press relations have improved materially and are likely to remain favorable.
Summary
From my observations I would conclude that although our formal relations in Eastern Europe have not altered perceptively, there is a strong undercurrent which is pulling these nations closer to the West; that although there is no open support for our position in Viet Nam, there is no active personal antagonism. In view of these conditions, continuing close attention should be paid to our relations in Eastern Europe. At some point it might be desirable to send a high level representative on a good-will mission or as an emissary to discuss the possibility of Viet Nam peace negotiations.
- Source: National Archives, RG 306, Director’s Subject Files, 1963–1967, Entry UD WW 101, Box 2, Field—Europe July–December 1966. Confidential. Drafted by Marks. Sent through Kintner.↩
- For further information about the East-West Trade Relations bill, see Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, vol. IX, International Development and Economic Defense Policy; Commodities, Documents 181 and 192.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩