740.00119 Control (Bulgaria)/7–1246: Telegram
The Representative in Bulgaria (Barnes) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 13—6:50 p.m.]
528. General Robertson in reply to oral and written complaints made [by] him to General Cherepanov against Militia interference with Bulgarian civil personnel of US Military Delegation has now received letter from General Biryusov in which Russian General takes issue with complaints on grounds of “respect for national sovereignty of Bulgarian Govt” and because “armistice agreement limits us and does not give us right of unrestricted action in Bulgaria as may seem fit to us”. Biryusov states that under these circumstances “I must inform you that I do not share your point of view” and “suggest that proceeding from above-mentioned considerations you explain to your Bulgarian employees how they should act.” General Robertson has sought without success to see General Biryusov personally on question. It is obvious from fact General Biryusov has now been here since June 21 without permitting any personal contact between himself, US and UK representatives ACC, that he is too busy with affairs beyond scope of Commission to allow himself become concerned about such insignificant matters as disrespect of local Militia for representative of one of powers that imposed unconditional surrender on Bulgaria. General Robertson has today sent the following note to General Biryusov:
“I have given consideration to contents of your letter No. 2160 of July 10 replying to expressions of my dissatisfaction with Bulgarian Militia because of Militia activity aimed at intimidating Bulgarian civil members my staff. I regret to say that my conclusion is either that you have replied to my complaints under a misapprehension, or [Page 115] that you have failed give careful consideration to important factors involved in these complaints.
I should like to recall to your memory that I have never maintained that Bulgarian civil employees my delegation should be immune from Bulgarian law. I have merely maintained that authority of a defeated nation should be made to show the respect that is due to the representative of one of principal victorious Allies on ACC. In my opinion, this requires cessation of Militia intimidation my Bulgarian employees, and prior notification to me by Militia when charges involving arrest are to be brought against Bulgarian members of my staff.
On above point permit me to say that it is the view of US Govt that local immunity should be granted to clerks and servants of diplomatic establishments regardless of their nationality while engaged in business of such establishments. For many years my Govt has held to this rule in principle and in practice. At same time US Govt has always been disposed to give due consideration to question of waiving immunity in individual cases in which persons employed by its Mission may be charged with violating law of the land. I am sure you will agree that rights of diplomatic immunity and privileges are to be enjoyed by my delegation.
Fact that Bulgaria is still under an armistice regime renders even more inadmissible the proposition that any personnel in regular employ of US Missions should be subjected to summary arrests by an organ of Bulgarian Govt without prior notification to Mission of grounds for such arrests and without any request by Bulgarian Govt for surrender of accused.
As you already know from official correspondence, it is view of US Govt that primary purpose of armistice is to impose obligations on lights of the victor. You will also recall that you have been advised officially of view of US Govt that Bulgarian Govt surrendered unconditionally.
The fact that the Govt of USSR subsequently saw fit to recognize Bulgarian Govt cannot, of course, alter legal position obtaining between Govts of US and Bulgaria. The two primary facts on which my decision no longer to tolerate action of Militia is based are that Bulgaria is still under an armistice regime and that Bulgaria surrendered unconditionally not only to the USSR, but to USSR, the UK and the USA. Under these circumstances intimidation and subversive activities on part of Militia against the US Military Delegation is not to be countenanced.
In view of foregoing it follows that I cannot consider your communication of July 10 responsive to my complaints. Therefore, if you, as Deputy Chairman of ACC are unable or unwilling to take the steps that would put an end to Militia interference of which I have complained, I must rely upon my own resources to remedy matters as best I can. In this connection, I may state that I have been instructed by my Govt to continue to make most vigorous protest against the conditions of which I have complained to you.
With respect to the two cases mentioned at end of your letter, I assume that statements made are allegations, not proven facts. In American jurisprudence, and I understand that the same is case in [Page 116] Bulgaria, the accused remains innocent in eyes of the law until proven guilty. I, therefore, assume, in event judicial procedure is instituted against the two employees, Bojinov and Georgiev, that these Bulgarian subjects will be accorded their full rights under Bulgarian law and that I shall be directly approached by Bulgarian Govt on subject of handing them over to the competent authorities.
I am sure you will realize that my complaints against Militia seem the more justified by fact that it is only at this late date, and by virtue of a letter from you, that I have been told that serious charges were to be made against these two employees. I should add that these two employees were not of my own selection, or of that of my predecessor, but were originally detailed for service with USDel on ACC by the Bulgarian War Minister. They became civil employees only by virtue of fact that they were subsequently demobilized from Bulgarian Armed Forces.”27
Repeated to Paris as No. 107 for Delsec, Dept please repeat to Moscow as Sofia No. 230.
- Telegram 584, July 27, 1946, from Sofia, reported the receipt of General Biryuzov’s reply to General Robertson’s note of July 12. Biryuzov reiterated that “ACC determines the order of work of Commission and not representative of USA in the ACC.” It was the view of both Barnes and General Robertson that “Biryusov has made it impossible for US Representative to take any effective part in work of Commission and that facts of General Biryuzov’s negative attitude toward American delegation will be made known to American people”. (740.00119–Control (Bulgaria)/7–2746)↩