16. Memorandum of Conversation0
SUBJECT
- Conversation with Prime Minister Todor Zhivkov
I paid a protocol call on Prime Minister Todor Zhivkov on November 28, 1962, having requested an appointment prior to my departure for consultations in Washington. The Prime Minister received me very cordially, and our conversation was animated and extended, lasting fifty minutes. Also present were Deputy Foreign Minister Angelov, Foreign Ministry interpreter Gerasimov who did all the interpreting and Cultural Officer Bloomfield.
Mr. Zhivkov began by thanking me for my visit and apologizing for his lack of diplomatic experience. He said that his background had been entirely political, and that since this is his first government post1 he has little knowledge of diplomacy and protocol. He added that inasmuch as my background is also mainly political we should be able to understand each other.
The Prime Minister referred to his visit to the US in 1960,2 saying that he had enjoyed it greatly and that the State Department had been most helpful to him. He said that he had become good friends with the policemen who had protected him (of whom he had seen more than anyone else). He had been grateful for his tour of various industrial plants, cities, etc. in the US. He said he had been able to see everything he wanted.
There were other preliminary niceties, while a waiter served us with Slivova and Turkish coffee. The Prime Minister told a rather indelicate story about a peasant from his home village, and I noted that the Foreign Office interpreter hesitated slightly before repeating a somewhat vulgar “peasant” remark.
Bulgarian Government Shakeup
After the usual toasts, I asked the Prime Minister to interpret for me the sweeping changes in the Bulgarian Government which had just occurred.
[Page 28]Mr. Zhivkov began by saying that all these changes had been fully reported and explained in the press, and that the meaning of events was precisely that which had been publicized. (I am inclined to think that the fact that Zhivkov stressed that “all” had been published means the opposite.) He said that Prime Minister Yugov and Tsankov had been ousted because of (1) Crimes against the State. (2) Undermining Central Committee policies. (3) Hindering democratization of the Country. (4) Yugov pursuing “careerist” tendencies. Zhivkov maintained that these were the only reasons for Yugov’s ouster. I felt that he stressed this a little too much, and was overly anxious for me to believe that there were no other factors behind Yugov’s dismissal. He said that Yugov had failed to carry out the directives of the Party, and therefore he had to go, just the same as he, Zhivkov, would have to take his hat and go if he failed to carry out the Party’s orders. However, he added laughingly that he did not wish to leave the office he had just assumed and therefore he intended to carry out the Party’s directives.
Mr. Zhivkov went on to say that the many other changes in the Government were necessitated not because of political factors, but because of the need to bring new, young blood into the Government and also to carry out the Party plans for more scientific and technical development. The Prime Minister noted the presence of several academicians in the new Government, and remarked also that the Party’s new plans require that experts be placed in charge. Mr. Zhivkov pointed particularly to new Foreign Minister Bashev, stating that he is well qualified with a background in ideological training and that he speaks four languages. He said that Former Foreign Minister Lukanov and also the former Minister of Transport Dimitrov, for example, were not dismissed because of any failures or wrongdoings (such as Yugov’s and Tsankov’s) but only because of poor health and overly-long tenure. He added that most of the former officials would be retained in the Government, but given lesser jobs.
The Prime Minister stressed the need for Governmental reorganization, and mentioned in particular that the Foreign Office will be reorganized.
Since he had emphasized Governmental plans, I asked him if this meant that the Government would assume a greater role than the Party in directing the affairs of the country. He said not at all, simply that the Government will have to carry out the policies and plans of the Party. He repeated that if he, as Prime Minister, did not carry out Party orders then he would be thrown out, the same as Yugov had been. (I believe that Mr. Zhivkov repeated this idea at least three times which makes me think that he is somewhat uneasy over the way in which he has reached the Premiership. Perhaps it is also a case of “uneasy is the head that [Page 29] wears the crown”.) Yesterday it was Yugov, today it is Zhivkov, and tomorrow—?
Bulgarian Internal and Foreign Policy
I then asked the Prime Minister what would be the principal changes one could expect in the internal and external policies of the new government. His reply as regards internal policies followed the same lines he had already mentioned, greater scientific and technical development carrying out the 20-year Plan etc. He was not specific, and did not mention agriculture. He referred briefly to the need to develop transportation and industry, but dwelt mostly on generalities about carrying out the Party’s directives and the 20-year Plan which had all been published, he said.
Then Mr. Zhivkov turned to the question of foreign policy which, he said, would continue to follow the same lines of peaceful coexistence and friendship with all nations. He said: “We are even trying to improve relations with Turkey, which is an ally of the US. While the Ottoman Turkey oppressed Bulgaria for 500 years, we do not hold this against the present Turkish Government, with which we want good relations.” Although Mr. Zhivkov spoke for several minutes about Bulgaria’s continuing to adhere to “peaceful coexistence” policies, he did not mention the Soviet Union (or Yugoslavia) at this point, nor indeed throughout the entire conversation.
Relations with the United States
I asked the Prime Minister how the new Government’s foreign policy might affect Bulgaria’s relations with the United States. He began by replying emphatically that he wants to improve relations with the US, in particular in the economic and political spheres.
As for political relations with the US, the Prime Minister said that the first problem is that Bulgaria is a small, poor nation and the US is a great, rich one. He said that Bulgaria is sensitive about being ignored or treated as if it were not important. He said that Bulgaria has felt that the US had not regarded Bulgaria with the principle of equality which even small nations deserve. He declared that in spite of our ideological differences the US had nothing to fear from Bulgaria, and that Bulgaria is not going to try to bolshevize the US. He added that neither is Bulgaria afraid of the US and it does not feel that we will be able to exert much influence on it. He said that I had been in this country several months now and must be aware of the feelings of the people. (This was apparently a veiled reference to Bulgarian-Soviet attachments, implying that the people heartily support the Soviet Union.)
Zhivkov then went on to say that economic relations are the most important of all, and that up until now there has been practically no [Page 30] trade with the US. He said that Bulgaria’s export potentialities to the US would be, at best, “but a drop in the sea” to a big country like the US, and he could not understand why there could not be more trade between the two countries.
I replied that this would be difficult to develop, but not impossible. I pointed out that the U.S. produces great surpluses of tobacco and foods, which might be the very things Bulgaria would like to sell to us. His response was almost pleading, “But it surely should be possible for Bulgaria to sell some canned foods and attar of roses oil!”
The Prime Minister then introduced the subject of the financial claims negotiations which he said he understands have been an obstacle in improving relations with the U.S. He declared that this problem must be settled now, and that so far as Bulgaria is concerned this should not be difficult. No amount of money is too great to pay for the improvement of relations between the U.S. and Bulgaria, he said, whether it is $350,000 or $10 million! Even for Bulgaria, which is a poor country, no amount is too great for improving our relations. Mr. Zhivkov looked directly at Minister Angelov, laughed and said, “Perhaps I will get into trouble with the Foreign Office diplomats, but this is what I think! The next time you and I meet to discuss these questions, we should not have any Foreign Office official present, only our interpreters.”
Later on he again said, “You can go to the Protocol Section for the routine things, but when you really want to discuss something serious and worthwhile and of some importance, then come directly to me. We can talk it over. If you want to talk to me as a friend on any kind of subject, then I will be only too happy to see you any time and we will be able to reach a decision.”
Finally the Prime Minister mentioned that cultural relations should be improved too but that he does not view them as of the same importance as economic and political. He made a reference to Bulgaria’s inability to finance an American “ensemble” in exchange for the Kutev Ensemble’s forthcoming tour of the U.S., adding that the “principle of reciprocity” must be observed. (Apparently Mr. Zhivkov was not well informed on this question.) He clearly does not attach much importance to cultural relations.
In my response to the Prime Minister’s various points I emphasized my belief that the development of relations between the U.S. and Bulgaria must proceed in all 3 areas—political, economic and cultural—which are interrelated. I referred to our country’s traditional and firm belief in the sovereignty and independence of small nations, whose rights we would continue to respect. I said that it was true that relations had not been good between Bulgaria and the U.S., but that this was due first of all to world political factors beyond his control or mine. I also pointed out that geographically Bulgaria is remote from the U.S. and [Page 31] that people in the U.S. simply have not known much about Bulgaria. Now the possibilities for communications are improving, I said, and we should take advantage of this period.
As for the financial claims issue, I said I heartily agree with him that this problem should be settled forthwith, and that I was delighted to hear him say that it should not be difficult to conclude an agreement. I said that it had seemed most unfortunate that U.S.-Bulgarian relations had been static, simply because of a difference of a few hundred thousand dollars. I hoped that we could settle this issue at once and move on to more constructive relations.
I stated my belief that cultural relations are important and have a bearing on political and economic development, since people must get to know each other better if trade and political understanding are to increase.
Just before concluding our discussion, I asked the Prime Minister whether a new Bulgarian Minister to the U.S. has been chosen yet. He replied that due to the pressures of the Party Congress there had not been time to select a new candidate, but he assured me there will be a good man named soon.
The Prime Minister asked me to convey his greetings to President Kennedy, for whom he expressed high regard and respect, and to inform President Kennedy of Bulgaria’s desire for better economic and political relations with the U.S.
Mr. Zhivkov also asked me to visit him upon my return from the U.S. and added that he would always be at my disposal. He expressed the hope that we could settle many problems, and work together to improve relations between Bulgaria and the U.S.
Personal Observations and Comments
Mr. Zhivkov has an unassuming manner, at first impressing one as a quiet man. However, he is also talkative and laughs robustly and often. He may affect a Khrushchevian style in his deliberate attempt to be hearty, and at times play the buffoon. He wagged his finger at me to emphasize a point, a mannerism to which I believe Khrushchev is given.
Mr. Zhivkov spoke proudly of his peasant origins and his native village, which is famous for slivova and slivova-drinking. His manners are a bit crude, although he was courteous and most cordial to me.
I believe that a certain rapport was established between us. Mr. Zhivkov’s personality is quite different than Yugov’s, who impressed me as a hard, cruel, cold and ruthless man. Zhivkov, by contrast, is capable of acting in an affable, flexible manner. He does not convey an impression of great strength or intelligence. One would judge him to be a “follower” rather than a “leader”, which may be significant in view of his devotion to Khrushchev and the Soviet line.
[Page 32]I was struck by Zhivkov’s frequent references to his own inexperience, “poor abilities” and “incapable qualities”. Either he must have deep feelings of inferiority, or else the opposite belief in his superiority which he tries to conceal by frequent self-denigrations. Whatever the case, his manner and bearings are those of a modest man.
Whether Zhivkov’s emphatic assertions of his willingness to settle the claims issue now at whatever the cost represent a genuine determination on his part, I cannot be sure. He appeared to mean what he said, but only time will tell. I believe that we should soon test his intentions.
I also believe that Zhivkov’s emphasis on Bulgaria’s sensitivity and desire to be treated “as an equal” and not to be ignored, offer some possibilities for the U.S. which I hope to exploit.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.69/12–1062. Confidential. Prepared by Anderson on December 10 during a visit to Washington for consultations. A notation on the source text reads: “typed in the Department.”↩
- Zhivkov was elected Prime Minister by the Bulgarian National Assembly on November 19.↩
- Zhivkov was a member of the Bulgarian Delegation to the 15th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York September–December 1960.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩