Office of the Historian

167. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Carlucci) to President Reagan1

Washington, November 20, 1987

SUBJECT

  • Romanian MFN

Congressman Wolf’s November 12 presentation on Romanian MFN was a powerful indictment of the Ceausescu regime. However, the fundamental question is whether suspending MFN would improve or worsen the situation in Romania.

All U.S. government agencies believe that an MFN suspension at this time would most likely hurt our national interests, help the Soviets, and worsen human rights in Romania.

The Political Situation

Romania has long been a thorn in the side of the Soviets, an unreliable ally to Moscow. It is in the U.S. national interest to keep it that way after Ceausescu is gone. Instability in the country is growing, as evidenced by reports of a November 15 anti-government demonstration involving 100,000 people.2 No one knows under such circumstances how much longer Ceausescu will be around. We do know that Soviet influence among some Romanian groups is increasing. The Soviets would love us to cut our most important link to the country—MFN—just [Page 467] as they are maneuvering to bring Romania back into the Soviet fold. We cannot afford to pull out now and leave the field to Moscow.

The Human Rights Situation

Since the US granted MFN, 170,000 people have emigrated from Romania. Last year, 15,000 were let out—more than the combined total from the USSR, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia. In addition, we have prevailed on Ceausescu to simplify emigration procedures. Suspension of MFN would very likely diminish the limited leverage we have. That is why American Jewish groups oppose MFN suspension.

Legal Implications

The Jackson-Vanik amendment, under which Romania received MFN, applies in a strict sense only to emigration. The Romanians are technically complying with the provisions. Suspending MFN because of broader human rights concerns would distort the Jackson-Vanik amendment, making it difficult to restore MFN to Romania or to use Jackson-Vanik elsewhere in Eastern Europe to motivate freer emigration.

Congressional Situation

Under Jackson-Vanik legislation, you must determine each year whether MFN should be renewed. You did so most recently in June. The MFN suspension amendments, sponsored by Congressman Wolf and Senator Armstrong, are part of the trade bill which is now in conference. If you decide to veto the trade bill and MFN is not suspended through Congressional action, we can review the Romanian situation next spring and determine whether or not to renew MFN. Meanwhile, we can continue pressuring the Romanians on human rights while the door is kept open for unexpected developments, like Ceausescu’s departure.

  1. Source: Reagan Library, Rudolf Perina Files, Chronological File, Chron November 1987. Secret. Sent for information. Copies were sent to Bush and Howard Baker. Reagan initialed the top of the memorandum. A notation at the top of the memorandum reads, “The President has seen 11/25.” Perina also initialed the top right-hand corner of the memorandum.↩
  2. Telegram 9424 from Bucharest, November 16, reported on the demonstrations in Brasov. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D870941–0416)↩