871.00/7–1146: Telegram
The Representative in Rumania (Berry) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
[Received July 14—7 p.m.]
705. Remytel 681, July 4. In conversations with political leaders and the King’s close advisers throughout week I have maintained it was vital that all local democratic forces coordinate their strength in. order to obtain from Government maximum concessions in its draft electoral laws. Stressing that this was my personal point of view, in order to leave door open for change of front if Department desires, I said I felt maximum progress could be registered at this time by. Rumanian politicians themselves. I did not deny Maniu’s charge that we have responsibilities on December Moscow decisions, but I said our effectiveness today in implementing decisions could go little beyond notes of protest, whereas he, having member of his party in Government, could bring about changes in draft legislation. Although not convinced, historic party leaders, and particularly Liberals, followed this lead and in course of week made considerable progress in removing objectionable features of Government drafts electoral laws.
Last evening Cabinet, in 9-minute session, approved fifth draft of two electoral laws over strong objections of National Peasant and National Liberal representatives. Opposition Ministers declared National representation law unconstitutional by virtue of suppressing [Page 615] Senate and that second, or election law proper, was drafted to facilitate all possible electoral frauds, citing as examples provisions for voting in factories, business enterprises and Government offices, limited time given to control electoral lists, and permitting Government to name its functionaries as heads of all local electoral boards. They then left session and cameramen proceeded with filming of Cabinet approving two decrees.
Cabinet communiqué announced electoral bill had been discussed in several Cabinet sessions, with an Inter-Ministerial Commission, and had been frequently amended. The final texts were now approved and Justice Minister Patrascanu authorized to submit them to King for signature. Patrascanu in press statement referred to free discussion of proposed bills, to adoption of many amendments suggested by historic party leaders, adding, whether they agreed or not, decrees had been “drafted with direct participation of both Mr. Romniceanu and Mr. Hatieganu”. On constitutional question he retraced his previous statement (mytel 641, June 238) and declared 1923 Constitution in force except as modified by article 3 of constitutional decree of September 2, 1944, which he maintained authorized Government to abolish Senate and organize a Chamber of Deputies as “representative assembly of people’s will”.
After Cabinet decision, General Susaikov sent his aide to Marshal Negel to say General hoped King would sign laws “today or tomorrow at the latest”. Before signing, the King will, I understand, seek to clarify Government’s recognition of 1923 Constitution, aside from clauses concerning Senate.
King Michael realizes electoral law offers opportunity for Government to pack ballot boxes and return an assembly of its own choice. He realizes the dangers to Crown and country of Communist Assembly. He knows the country is overwhelmingly anti-Communist. However, he feels he cannot refuse his signature on the ground that abuses will be committed under the law. He realizes that Government if acting under most perfectly framed electoral law, could still resort to same corrupt practices for purpose of returning itself. Clearly, if there is no good intention on part of Groza government to hold free and unfettered elections, no law however carefully phrased will prevent Government from carrying out its plans. Its immediate plan is to win elections regardless of its promises and commitments under Moscow decision. In this I believe it has concurrence of Soviet authorities. In recent private conversation, Communist Cabinet member told the King that in free election Government could not obtain 20% of votes, whereas Government expected to have 80% of votes of elected Assembly.
[Page 616]Faced with this situation, what should our attitude be? In my opinion on receiving protests from Maniu, Bratianu and Petrescu, we should call Government’s attention to inadequacies of present law and recall its commitment to hold free and unfettered elections. We must reconcile ourselves to fact that such will be little more than paper protest in view of Soviet Government attitude. However, we must maintain position whereby we are free to refuse to recognize results of elections if we desire. It seems to me we can do little more in view of fact that truly effective ways of forcing Government to hold free elections, that is neutralization of key ministries and presence of foreign observers, were eliminated before the ambassadorial commission reached Bucharest last January.
Repeated to Moscow as 106 and London as 97.
- Not printed.↩