Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XX, Eastern Europe

117. Telegram From the Embassy in the German Democratic Republic to the Department of State¹

East Berlin, May 16, 1977, 1540Z

6051. Subj: US/GDR Relations: GDR Proposals for Major Expansion. Ref: Berlin 6050² (Notal).

Summary: During May 12 meeting with Charge, Foreign Minister Fischer expressed GDR readiness to expand US–GDR relations noting that CSCE Final Act provided solid basis for such expansion. GDR favored high-level periodic political consultations, increased trade, and cultural contacts. He asserted all humanitarian cases had been resolved, and urged “reciprocity” in granting of visas for journalists. Charge noted that “non-paper” aide memoire³ which Fischer handed over would be carefully studied and responded to as appropriate. We favored development of constructive relationships wherever possible. We were pleased by progress in humanitarian cases, although our records show that not all cases have been resolved, and hoped we could see progress also in emergency family reunification matters. On Consular Convention, our view was that we were waiting for response from GDR side, and we would also like to have some response from them to our suggestion for talks on claims negotiations. Fischer took issue with our view on status of Consular Convention negotiations, but said he would ask his Consular as well as claims people to be in touch with Embassy. He was opposed to double accreditation to US FRG-based journalists to GDR. End summary.

1. In meeting May 12 with Charge, GDR Foreign Minister began presentation by stating that there was a need to accelerate development of relations between the US and GDR. He noted that CSCE provided a solid basis for an expansion of contacts and that US and GDR had been in contact on some non-CSCE related issues. He asserted the GDR had made a variety of proposals to US, adding that the state of relations at the present time was really not consistent with what seemed to be possible. He said a regular exchange of views at different levels would enable both sides to resolve problems and at the same time to draw “a balance” in relations. It was their desire to do whatever was possible to give “a constructive impulse” to the expansion of US–GDR relations.

2. Turning to the aide memoire, which he described as a “non-paper”, Fischer read selectively from it. The GDR was proposing, [Fischer] said, regular political contacts between competent representatives of both countries; for example, it would be possible for the Foreign Minister to hold such consultations in the second half of 1977 in connection with the UNGA in Washington. The May 18 signing of the ENMOD Treaty⁴ could be another such occasion. Further steps could be taken in arriving at agreements, and Fischer asserted it would not be necessary to elaborate on this point.

3. Another area is trade relations, Fischer said, where the possibilities are much greater than the present levels would indicate. There were also possibilities for expanded commercial and business relations and an exchange of appropriate information. Along the same lines, the GDR still retained its interest in opening a trade office in New York.

4. One should not exclude the expansion also of cultural exchanges. Both sides know what has been done until now, and know more can be done. The GDR, Fischer said, is ready to do more, not only in “purely” cultural exchanges. There could also be exchanges on language training, textbooks, and an agreement between news agencies of both countries.

5. In humanitarian cases, the US knows the principled position and practice of the GDR. Each side of course is free to decide how it wishes to resolve such cases. As far as the GDR is concerned, as Ambassador Sieber had informed Under Secretary Habib,⁵ there were no open questions in this area.

6. Fischer suggested both sides might also consider easing the procedures for granting visas, and went on to say that activities of journalists could also be alleviated. In this regard, he asserted, the GDR is “generous”. It had granted accreditation to an AP correspondent in Copenhagen, and had given him a one year visa. Fischer suggested there should be reciprocal action in granting visas, which would apply first to accredited journalists.

7. Fischer concluded that there were further details and proposals in the aide memoire which he would not dwell on. In the interest of implementing CSCE there were a number of possibilities inherent in the situation that should make it possible for an expansion of relations; for its part, the GDR is prepared to do so.

8. Charge thanked Fischer for his presentation and said that careful attention and study would be given to the aide memoire. The US also favored the development of constructive relations wherever possible, and the Charge was pleased to hear the GDR desired to expand relations with the US. While we would respond later in detail to the aide memoire after we had had a chance to study it carefully, Charge said he wished to make several preliminary comments in response to the Foreign Minister’s remarks. First of all, it would be useful to know what the Foreign Minister meant when he referred to further progress in treaty or “agreement” matters. Fischer said he had in mind such things as the Fisheries Agreement, Postal Agreement, a Consular Convention, etc.

9. Charge noted that, with respect to the Consular Convention, it was our impression, as Charge had recently told Geyer (who was present), that the ball was in the GDR court. After the last round of negotiations, we had presented a counter-draft to the GDR side and had heard nothing official from them since. Conclusion of a Consular Convention would contribute significantly to the further development of our relations.

10. Fischer said, “You know our position.” We don’t feel we have to give you an answer because the US side has not responded to GDR proposals which, in the GDR’s view, represented a compromise between the positions of the two countries. However, since the US side wished to pursue the matter further, he saw no reason why responsible officials from the MFA’s Consular section could not meet with Embassy officials in the near future to see what possibilities might exist for the next round of negotiations. Charge said that while our viewpoint might be different about who owes whom a reply, we would be pleased to get together with the MFA’s Consular division.

11. Charge also noted he had suggested some time ago, in connection with our interest in a claims settlement, that a State Department lawyer would be willing to come to Berlin for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of pertinent GDR regulations and for informing GDR officials about US procedures and practices in claims matters. Conversely, we would be prepared to receive an appropriate GDR official in Washington for such discussions. As of now, we have heard nothing about this suggestion. Fischer replied that the absence of any mention of claims in their aide memoire did not mean that they had intended to exclude the subject; but it was a matter of their “physical capacity” since they were involved in negotiating claims settlements with a number of countries. They remain interested in being in contact with us, Fischer said, and he would ask a responsible officer to talk with us about “preparations for negotiations.” Charge said he thought this could be a useful step.

12. Charge went on to note that, since the Foreign Minister had mentioned the matter of journalists, he had a comment to make. As the Foreign Minister knew, US journalists had expressed an interest in being accredited to the GDR as well as to other countries where they might be resident. Until now, there had been no movement in this area.

13. Fischer responded, saying that the GDR wanted to facilitate the activities of journalists, but he wondered whether it would be right to grant double accreditation. The present arrangement, with accreditation for an AP correspondent in Copenhagen, is better than giving double accreditation to American journalists in Bonn or West Berlin. Were the GDR to do so, he was afraid that some FRG politicians would take it as a demonstration of the “Old Germany”, and the GDR was not prepared to give anyone such an idea. They were ready to accredit US journalists who are in Western Europe but not those in Bonn or West Berlin. Perhaps the time will come one day when US correspondents in the FRG might also be accredited to the GDR, but both Fischer and the Charge would probably be older and grayer by then.

14. On humanitarian cases, Charge noted we were pleased by progress we had noted recently. It was a good step forward, as a result of Amb. Sieber’s statement to Mr. Habib that all outstanding cases have been satisfactorily resolved, we had checked our files and our records were somewhat different and Charge had asked our Consular section to be in touch with the MFA’s Consular section on the matter, and therefore Charge would not bother the Foreign Minister with the details. We would, at the same time, hope that cases involving emergency family reunification will also be resolved satisfactorily. Fischer made no comment on emergency family reunification cases and said that, as long as Embassy and MFA Consular section officers were in touch on other cases he saw no need to respond.

15. Meeting closed with Charge reiterating we would be in touch as appropriate with MFA once we had had opportunity to study “non-paper” thoroughly.

16. Embassy’s comments on “non-paper” aide memoire follow septel.⁶

Polansky

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770174–0968. Confidential; Priority. Sent for information to Belgrade, Bonn, Bucharest, Budapest, London, Moscow, Paris, Prague, Sofia, Warsaw, West Berlin, and USNATO.
2. The reference is in error. Telegram 6050 from East Berlin, May 16, addressed logistical and bureaucratic matters. The reference is likely to telegram 6040 from East Berlin, May 12, which also reported on the meeting with Foreign Minister Fischer. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770167–1049)
3. In telegram 6044 from East Berlin, May 16, the Embassy forwarded a translation of the aide mémoire. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770173–0574)
4. The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), formally known as The Convention on Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, which banned the use of military and hostile techniques for weather modification, opened for signatures in Geneva on May 18, 1977, and entered into force October 5, 1978. The United States signed the convention on May 18, 1977. The Senate ratified the convention on January 17, 1980.
5. In a meeting with Habib on April 26, Sieber conveyed a message for Vance from Fischer (on Honecker’s behalf) that “requests made to GDR authorities by official representatives of the US for authorization of marriages between GDR citizens and US citizens, as well as for emigration (uebersiedlung), have been carefully examined. All these requests have been approved.” (Telegram 94855 to East Berlin, April 27; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770148–0715)
6. In telegram 6127 from East Berlin, May 23, the Embassy commented that the aide mémoire was “tendentious and disingenuous,” and contained nothing new. The Embassy recommended that, though prospects in the cultural area appeared to be improving, there was no reason to accede to East German desires for regular, high-level political consultations. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770183–0708)