315. Memorandum of a Conversation Between the Yugoslav Ambassador (Mates) and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Dillon), Department of State, Washington, October 24, 19571
SUBJECT
- Call of the Yugoslav Ambassador
Mr. Dillon stated that he had asked the Ambassador to call in order to clarify certain unfortunate newspaper accounts appearing in the last day or so which indicated that a decision had been reached to suspend US aid programs to Yugoslavia. These stories, he said, were not entirely accurate. As is often the case, newspapermen obtain a kernel of fact upon which they build, producing an exaggeration of the true situation.
Mr. Dillon recalled, however, the conversation between the Secretary of State and Mr. Humo in which the Secretary pointed out that Yugoslavia’s closer, if not total, alignment with Soviet positions on major international issues created a very difficult problem for us in providing aid to Yugoslavia.2 As a result of what has happened since this conversation took place, it has become necessary for us to reexamine the situation, particularly as regards timing. It will be necessary for us to study the effects of the present situation on attitudes in Congress, bearing in mind our need to go before the Congress again for next year’s program. Therefore, while no decision has been taken on the aid program for Yugoslavia, one result of this present situation is we cannot now proceed with negotiation of the PL 480 program for this year as early as was indicated during the Humo talks. Mr. Dillon made it clear that the present problem would not [Page 796] affect the smaller PL 480 program on which negotiations had begun in Belgrade.
Ambassador Mates expressed appreciation for this clarification, saying that he would, of course, communicate it to his Government immediately. He felt obliged to state, however, that reexamination by the US of its Yugoslav policy was not an unfamiliar occurrence, having happened on a number of occasions in the past and even several times in one year. He found it regrettable that situations continually arise requiring study and reappraisal by the US of subjects on which the Yugoslav Government has frequently made itself clear. The Ambassador maintained that he didn’t object to an examination of the Yugoslav foreign policy which considered this policy as a whole. He did object, however, to concentration on specific acts. Foreign policy, he believed, is a matter of continuity and specific acts have to be examined in the light of the more general policy over a period of time.
The Ambassador believed also that friendly relations between countries could not imply agreement on all questions. The important thing, however, was the way positions were taken. He pointed out here that in those cases where Yugoslavia has differed with the US, the Yugoslav position has been expressed in line with its general foreign policy. Yugoslavia, he emphasized, has made no hostile statements or engaged in hostile acts.
Ambassador Mates then launched into a defense of Yugoslavia’s foreign policies, covering familiar ground with respect to Syria, Germany, and Hungary. He maintained throughout that Yugoslavia has not joined in any hostile alignment against the US and, in this connection, alluded to the fact that Yugoslavia had not echoed the recent Soviet charges concerning threats to the peace in the Middle East.
The Ambassador emphasized that Yugoslavia’s positions on international issues have been consistent with its policy of non-alignment. Despite this, Yugoslavia, he stated, was subjected to the most hostile propaganda in the US, directed at its internal system and foreign policy, especially by the Congress and the Press. It was not enough that the Secretary of State and the Department of State understood Yugoslavia’s policies. Relations between two countries must be looked at as a whole. This basic hostility, he insisted, was responsible for the constant reexamination of policy. If there was something wrong with our relations it was not the fault of Yugoslavia, but the hostile attitude in the US, which has been offset only in part by the Secretary of State.
Again arguing that Yugoslavia was not aligned with the East, the Ambassador cited as evidence the efforts made by Yugoslavia to develop its economic relations with the West and create permanent ties. [Page 797] If a country wished to align itself with a bloc it would do so on such a basic matter as economic relations. Yugoslavia, he maintained, has been rebuffed by the West on a number of proposals which would have the effect of tying it to the West. Yugoslavia is thus being driven to the East. Notwithstanding these rebuffs, however, Yugoslavia has refused offers from the East to develop basic areas of its economy such as minerals and power. Another example cited by the Ambassador was the rejection of Soviet offers to establish television in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia did not wish to tie itself in with the television standards of the East and was therefore paying hard cash to buy transmitters and other equipment in the US and Western Europe. The Ambassador hoped that these facts would be given due consideration in our reexaminations.
Mr. Dillon said that, of course, these matters are [being] given consideration. He explained that in a democracy there is a lot of discussion with many points of view expressed, and from these a balance is reached. The conclusions reached in past years have certainly not been unfavorable to the Yugoslav Government. Yugoslavia’s recent actions, however, have upset the balance of forces. The Department has to try to maintain the balance of forces in the way we think best. We think we understand the general outline of Yugoslavia’s policy, but the events of recent weeks have, as the Secretary has said, made the situation much more difficult. The Department will, of course, examine the matter calmly, looking at the whole problem, and not just a few issues. While we cannot predict the outcome, Mr. Dillon said, we hoped for the best.
Ambassador Mates commented that after five years in the US, he was not inclined to be so optimistic. Regardless of what Yugoslavia does, he said, short of alignment with the West or abandonment of socialism, both of which are clearly impossible, it could not stop the hostile propaganda against it. This basic hostility in the US, which actually represents efforts to subvert Yugoslavia, come to the fore from time to time, forcing the State Department constantly to review its policy. The prime example of this hostility, the Ambassador said, was the treatment of the proposed visit by Tito to this country.2
Another example of hostility mentioned by the Ambassador was our visa policy as applied to Yugoslav newspapermen and students. He stated that although no obstacles were put in the way of American newspapermen going to Yugoslavia, Yugoslav journalists could come to the US only under false pretenses, i.e., as Yugoslav government officials. He also cited the example of six scholarships having [Page 798] been set aside for Yugoslav students, the students being selected by the American Embassy in Belgrade, and then visas could not be obtained. The scholarships subsequently lapsed.
The Ambassador concluded, saying that our relations were a patchwork, which has held together for some time and may hold together for some time in the future. He felt much less optimistic now, however, than when he first came to this country.
Mr. Dillon commented that he did not share the Ambassador’s pessimism. The majority of Americans believe that each country is entitled to adopt any system of government it wished so long as it didn’t try to force that system on other countries. He thought that there was considerable understanding of Yugoslavia’s position in the US, and therefore was optimistic as to the future course of our relations.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.68/10–2457. Confidential. Drafted by Julius C. Katz.↩
- See Document 307.↩
- Regarding Tito’s visit to the United States, which was cancelled, see Documents 295–298.↩