Office of the Historian

64. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Poland0

Washington, September 15, 1962, 12:15 p.m.

391. Re Embtel 500.1 Dept agrees Winiewicz statements unsatisfactory re both bonds and publicity. Re former not clear whether Embassy made point contained in last paragraph Deptel 320 in rebuttal Winiewicz comment on MFN.2 Polish reference to 1960 statement of intent seeks to ignore point that our present initiative caused by their failure effectuate this statement for over two years. Re balance of payments difficulties we can point out that benefit Poles gain this regard from PL 480 agreements contributes to ability deal with bond indebtedness and that we cannot ignore this.

Re publicity useful point out that we as well as Poles have internal political considerations and that ours dictate our receiving more than unofficial hints of future action. We cannot accept situation in which Poles ask us make commitment in form of agreement while saying that they “might” then provide some publicity.

Not clear from last paragraph Reftel whether Embassy plans continue discussions at FonOff during absence Winiewicz. While we intend indicate our dissatisfaction to Poles here and may express our views to Winiewicz in New York, we believe that discussions must continue in Warsaw. Poles may be informed that if discussions suspended until return Winiewicz, they must anticipate effect on timing negotiations.3

Rusk
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.4841/9–1362. Confidential. Drafted by Wortzel and approved by Vedeler.↩
  2. Document 63.↩
  3. See footnote 1, Document 63. The last paragraph reads: “Believe question bonds should be pursued at this time. In this connection if question MFN raised as affecting ability deal with bonds you may suggest they assume no change on basis discussion tentative pending completion legislative action on Trade Expansion bill.”↩
  4. In telegram 524 from Warsaw, September 17, the Embassy reported that during the discussion Winiewicz showed a complete understanding of the status of the trade bill and also indicated that even in favorable circumstances he could give no assurances on meaningful actions on the bond issue. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.4841/9–1762)↩