860H.00/12–2149: Telegram
The Ambassador in Czechoslovakia ( Briggs ) to the Secretary of State
1878. Had first meeting with Foreign Minister Clementis today, Vice Minister Hajdu and Patek (Clementis’ son-in-law, head of American section) also present. After exchange amenities I said I desired explore with Foreign Minister a general line of approach to current problems, in which connection I made oral statement as follows:
When I presented credentials to President Gottwald,1 I had observed [Page 428] that it would be unrealistic to ignore fact that problems have arisen between our two governments, notwithstanding which I wished to dedicate myself during service in Czechoslovakia to such constructive steps as it might be practicable to take. In his reply President had acknowledged my suggestion and indicated that in spirit of my remarks I would find full understanding on part Government of Czechoslovakia.
I said is source personal regret that official relations are not more cordial and that there seems to be an area in which today two governments are not in agreement. My study of position has led me to question how much either Minister or I can accomplish in that particular area, progress in which may wait upon events not within control of either of us.
Notwithstanding this, I suggested it would be worthwhile for us to begin our relationship on assumption that there is another area—a related or adjoining area—in which it should be not only possible but desirable and mutually advantageous for our governments to seek agreement. If this assumption correct, then should we not try to locate and identify area of possible agreement and also expand its boundaries. I concluded that on both sides we should seek for steps that can profitably be taken in area of possible agreement, and at same time we should refrain in that area from steps capable of producing friction or impairing relations.
Clementis expressed appreciation for frankness with which views had been stated. He did not specifically say he accepted those views. His attitude while generally affable, was on whole rather cautious, and I had impression from time to time that he was speaking as much for Hajdu’s benefit (or for Clementis’ record) as he was to me. Foreign Minister said that he thought he understood what in present ideological circumstances I meant by “area of disagreement”, but could I give examples in other area so that he would clearly understand what I had in mind. I replied by citing the eight points covered in my November 30 conversation with Acting Foreign Minister (Embassy’s despatch 723, December 32) most of which I said should in my opinion fall within “area of possible agreement”.
How about, asked Clementis, “the libelous broadcasts of VOA”. He then abused Voice with some vehemence as “organ of US Government undermining US–Czechoslovak relations”. Foreign Minister also bitterly critical of VOA and US press in recent treatment of him personally and in allegedly inspiring and circularizing “absurd and preposterous” stories about him. Later in conversation here turned to [Page 429] same subject via Meryn case,3 characterizing President’s action in ordering release as “gesture of generosity in regard guilty official” which had been distorted by US press as “American victory over Czechoslovakia”, thus impairing relations. He commented resentfully re Allen’s recent statement that Voice would appeal to foreign peoples over heads their governments.4
There was considerably more along this line, the implication being that unless Voice changes tune, might be at least difficult to find any “area of possible agreement”, Czechoslovakia being injured party, etc., etc., to which I observed that I had not seen recently many bouquets sent in direction of US by Czechoslovakian press. I observed further that purpose of Voice was to portray and convey truth, as I had told Acting Foreign Minister on November 30, and also that I was prepared at any time, should Czechoslovak Government consider it had evidence that Voice had not told truth, to examine a given case. On other hand, perhaps it might be well to assume that this situation lay within area in which not possible for our two governments to be in agreement.
Clementis at that point again replied that if that were inherent in my proposed approach to solution of problems, he doubted whether we would get very far.
Hajdu then endeavored reopen Meryn case as described above and I suggested that since that was past matter it would be better to proceed to unfinished business “such as the Field and Hvasta cases” and the other items mentioned three weeks ago in regard to none of which has there been any reply by Czechoslovak Government. Remainder of conversation taken up, however, with discussion of two cases mentioned (see separate telegrams5).
[Page 430]At end Clementis again thanked me for frank presentation and said he looked forward further discussions. Conversation ended amiably by Foreign Minister’s remarking that with respect to pheasant shooting at least, we had found “area of full agreement”. By way of comment, while little concrete was accomplished, at least a basis for further talks with Clementis has been established. Presence Hajdu definitely unhelpful and I hope (rather than expect) that at future meetings this excessively unprepossessing official may be absent.
Department will note that every high official with whom I have talked since arrival has complained against VOA, from which I surmise first, that Voice now exerting considerable effect in Czechoslovakia and second, that as long as present tone continues we can probably expect Czechoslovakia to seek to take refuge behind that complaint as sort of defense mechanism or justification for failing to act on matters about which we complain. This I think is point meriting our consideration, at least to extent that care be taken at all times to have Voice truthful as to content, and to maintain objective and judicial tone. I also gather from Hajdu’s effort to revive Meryn case and in particular his assertion that Voice had misinterpreted his statement to Penfield so that Czechoslovakia “of course could not grant favor of interview with prisoner until after correction had been made” that this plus irritation of US press treatment of Meryn release may perhaps lie behind Slansky’s attack (Embtels 1872, December 20 and 1873, December 216). I did not mention Slansky matter this morning, because might merely have protracted fruitless VOA discussion, and if we are to take notice of Slansky more effective method, would be to do so in Washington.
Sent Department 1878; pouched London, Paris, Moscow, Sofia, Budapest, Warsaw, Bucharest.
- Regarding Ambassador Briggs’ presentation of credentials on November 8, see telegram 1671, November 8, from Praha, and footnote 2 thereto, p. 412.↩
- Regarding Ambassador Briggs’ conversation of November 30 with Acting Foreign Minister Široký and the eight points therein discussed, see telegram 1779, November 30, from Praha, p. 414. The despatch under reference, not printed, transmitted the text of a memorandum given to Siroký during that conversation and elaborating the points made during the conversation (860F.00/12–349).↩
- Regarding the conclusion of the Meryn case, see telegram 1671, November 8, from Praha, p. 412.↩
- For text of Assistant Secretary of State Allen’s address, entitled “Propaganda: A Conscious Weapon of Diplomacy”, delivered at Duke University at Durham, North Carolina on December 10, 1949, see Department of State Bulletin, December 19, 1949, p. 941.↩
-
In his telegram 1879, December 21, from Praha, not printed, Ambassador Briggs reported that during his conversation with Foreign Minister Clementis he had again brought up the case of Jan Hvasta (see footnote 4 to telegram 1779, November 30, from Praha, p. 415). Briggs stated that the case ought to be settled without further delay, and he suggested that the most simple solution would be the remission of the remainder of Hvasta’s sentence and his immediate deportation. Clementis remained silent throughout this portion of the conversation while Hajdů “aggressively and provocatively” rejected Briggs’ requests for access to Hvasta and information about his trial and conviction. Hajdů argued that no foreign government had a right to information regarding criminal proceedings against its citizens under arrest in Czechoslovakia nor any right of access to such persons (860H.00/12–2149).
Telegram 1880 reported on the Ambassador’s futile effort to elicit information on the whereabouts of Hermann and Noel Field. At this time Briggs, acting on instructions from the Department of State, delivered a formal note expressing the deep concern of the United States Government regarding the safety of the members of the Field family and renewing earlier requests for information about them (340.115/12–1649).
↩ - Neither printed, but see footnote 1 to telegram 1234, December 22, to Praha, infra.↩