89. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Bulgaria1
305798. Subject: (C) Assessment of Tsvetkov Visit.
1. (C-entire text)
2. Immediate benefits. The most immediate benefits of Tsvetkov’s visit were the clarification of each side’s position on various issues and the establishment of personal contact between officials of the two foreign affairs establishments.2 Both sides gained a clearer understanding of each other’s terms for improving relations, i.e., the importance we attach to progress in resolving divided families cases and the importance the GOB attaches to improved economic relations (the “spine” of bilateral relations, to cite the word Tsvetkov used at Commerce) and to simultaneous progress in all aspects of relations. Such progress, Tsvetkov implied, would assist in the resolution of divided family cases. The fact that a Deputy Foreign Minister had talks in Washington was also a symbolic plus for the GOB.
3. Closer consultations—The GOB clearly desires closer consultations as indicated by Tsvetkov’s invitation to Vest to visit Sofia within the year and Tsvetkov’s apparent approval of a visit early next year of a team headed by EUR DAS Goodby to review CSCE implementation and to discuss preparations for Madrid. We hope that a by-product of the visit will be enhanced access for Embassy Sofia officers to GOB officials.
4. Dialogue on conditions for MFN? The GOB obviously would like to obtain MFN tariff status. Tsvetkov’s signal during Round-Table II that the GOB is interested in MFN, and the Deputy Secretary’s indication that we would be willing to discuss our laws and policies pertaining thereto, may have set the stage for subsequent GOB efforts to establish a dialogue on this issue. However, Tsvetkov and his colleagues must have realized that we do not contemplate any early movement on MFN.
[Page 259]5. Chancery site—The prospects for movement in this area may have been enhanced. Although Tsvetkov exaggerated the condition of the Bulgarian Chancery and Ambassador Grigorov’s residence (the roof did not fall in during Grigorov’s reception for Tsvetkov), the GOB is concerned and therefore anxious to obtain a lease on two lots in the Van Ness Street International Center. The GOB now should have no doubt about our concern over its cooperation with Embassy Sofia in resolving the Chancery problem there. Tsvetkov described the Chancery problem as “technical”, not “political”, hopefully indicating thereby that the GOB will soon take steps to resolve the problem.
6. Bulgarian concerns—Gotsev commented in private that the GOB really dislikes our position on divided families and our linkage of the US and Bulgarian Chancery problems. Tsvetkov indicated during the second round-table session that it seemed as though we began every discussion by referring to divided families. We have the impression that the Bulgarians may have decided to go slow in resolving divided family cases, an area of clear interest to us, until we have demonstrated a willingness to move ahead in areas of interest to them.
7. Many thanks to Embassy Sofia for its assistance in arranging Tsvetkov’s visit. We hope that it will help make your work easier.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780499–0186. Confidential. Drafted by Glenn and Gilmore; cleared by Schmidt; approved by Vest.↩
- Tsvetkov participated in two roundtable discussions at the Department. The first, chaired by Vest, discussed international issues, in particular détente and the CSCE process, but also disarmament, the Middle East, and U.S. normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China. The second roundtable, chaired by Vine, discussed Southern Africa and Balkan developments, as well as bilateral relations, trade, chancery sites, and divided families. The Department reported the discussions in telegram 291476 to Sofia, November 16. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780472–1195)↩