Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume X, Eastern Europe

412. Telegram From the Embassy in Czechoslovakia to the Department of State¹

632/Depto 10020.

Prague, February 3, 1987, 1414Z

SUBJECT

• Deputy Secretary’s Meeting With Czechoslovak Communist Party Secretary Vasil Bilak.

1. Confidential—Entire text.

2. Summary: The Deputy Secretary met for over two hours on February 2 with Czechoslovak Communist Party Secretary and Presidium Member Vasil Bilak—the first time a U.S. representative has called on a Czechoslovak party official in Bilak’s position for many years. Noting the historic and friendly ties between the people of Czechoslovakia and the U.S., Bilak said efforts to bring the two governments closer together were welcomed, as was the Deputy Secretary’s visit. Mr. Whitehead said U.S. concerns regarding Czechoslovakia primarily result from its human rights policies and practices, including treatment of dissidents, restraints on religious practices, and limits on freedom to travel and emigrate. Our commitment to human rights is part of our heritage. In the U.S. view, he said, Czechoslovakia is very closely linked to the Soviet Union; we believe it would be in Czechoslovakia’s interest to move away somewhat. Some recognition of our human rights concerns would be required, he said, if U.S.-Czechoslovak relations are to improve. He also noted that a number of small steps have already been started to extend the bilateral dialogue.

3. Bilak defended Czechoslovakia’s close ties to the Soviet Union, said the U.S. stresses individual rights while Czechoslovakia primarily values “collective rights”, compared dissidents to the mafia and drug dealers in the United States, and rejected assertions that religious freedoms are restricted. At the same time, he implied that Czechoslovakia might be more forthcoming regarding former Czechoslovaks revisiting their homeland and said we would have no objection to the resolution of certain divided family cases. In reply to the Deputy Secretary’s enumeration of areas where bilateral progress might be made, Bilak said Czechoslovakia favored cooperation in such fields as drugs, terrorism, health, S&T, and trade, but urged that it not be made dependent on political preconditions.

4. The Deputy Secretary stressed in concluding the discussion the strong commitment of the U.S. to human rights and to speaking out against unfair restrictions on individual freedoms wherever they occur. Bilak thanked Mr. Whitehead for his candor—the likes of which he had not experienced in his 37 years as a “practicing politician”—and assured him that Czechoslovakia was ready to discuss any and all issues. He said he supposed their meeting “would do no harm;” it was certain in any case, he said, that the two sides had clarified their positions. End summary.

5. Deputy Secretary Whitehead was received at CPCZ headquarters on the morning of February 2 by Central Committee Secretary and Presidium member Vasil Bilak for a two and one-quarter hour discussion. Also present on the U.S. side were the Ambassador, NSC Director for East European Affairs Dobriansky, EUR/EEY Director Wenick, D Executive Assistant Grossman, and DCM Schmidt. Bilak, who is responsible for foreign affairs, ideology, and media within the CPCZ, was accompanied by CPCZ International Affairs Department Director Michal Stefanak, Deputy Foreign Minister Johanes, Jan Lajka of the Office of International Policy of the Party’s Central Committee, and an interpreter. Bilak welcomed the Deputy Secretary to his office in the Central Committee building, noting that it was the first meeting of its kind, and said that he wanted to express satisfaction that Mr. Whitehead was visiting Czechoslovakia. It was no secret that long-term efforts to improve bilateral relations were lagging. Bilak said that never in history had there been animosity between the people of Czechoslovakia and the United States; on the contrary, there always had been warm relations which in large part were based on the fact that at least three million people had emigrated to the United States from this country. To illustrate the number of family connections between the two countries, Bilak described his own family in which he said he could count the graves of more relatives in the U.S. than in his own country. His father’s sister and all 11 brothers had emigrated to the U.S. and his own father had traveled there five times, marrying there and working in the steel mills of Pittsburgh. Thus, Bilak said, he still has American cousins, a number of whom have served in the U.S. Army. He noted that the two countries also were allies in World War II. At the same time, Czechoslovaks always had close relations with the Russian people, and at the end of the war they had” chosen a new orientation” in order to “save the country’s independence”—a step which somehow produced unfriendly reactions toward Czechoslovakia.

6. Bilak said Czechoslovakia had thought relations with the U.S. would improve with the settlement of the claims/gold problem, but nothing had happened. The Czechoslovaks had been told to “make gestures” and one was made by permitting a collection of Judaica to be exhibited in the United States. However, no return gesture was made by the other side. Nevertheless, Czechoslovakia continued to welcome every initiative to try to bring relations closer. While each state, whether large or small, sets its own standards which should be respected, it was essential to increase mutual understanding. For this reason, he said, the Deputy Secretary’s visit was welcome, and it was hoped relations could be moved forward. Ambassador Niemczyk had come with good intentions to support such work, and, perhaps, with efforts by both countries, at least small steps could be achieved.

7. In reply, the Deputy Secretary acknowledged the close ties Americans have with Czech and Slovak people and said that the problem was not between people but between the two governments. This was a result of the very close relations which Czechoslovakia has with the Soviet Union and its very distant relations with us. We were not attempting to change Czechoslovakia’s relations with the Soviets but, at the same time, we would like to bring about changes in its relations with the U.S. Our concerns regarding Czechoslovakia, Mr. Whitehead said, have mostly to do with its human rights policies and practices. This included the GOC’s treatment of dissidents, its restraints on religious practices, and its restraints on the freedom of people to travel and to emigrate. It may appear to some that the U.S. places too much emphasis on human rights, even to the point of interfering in Czechoslovakia’s internal affairs. He explained that the Americans’ strongly held views on human rights grew out of the history of their country and the emphasis and the importance we place on the freedom of individuals, as exemplified in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It is both our tradition and our heritage to believe that people should live their own lives without the interference of governments. We also believe that the chances of peace are greatest when human freedom is respected, and that the prospects of war increase when government leaders take away the freedoms of their citizens.

8. Bilak assured the Deputy Secretary that it was possible to speak frankly about any issue. The Czechoslovak side was willing to discuss mutual differences and would only ask that we refrain from interference in its internal affairs. He described how Czechs and Slovaks had over the centuries been “spared no war” and had suffered under domination of the Hungarians and Hapsburgs, and then responded to Mr. Whitehead’s observations:

— Czechoslovakia’s close relations with the Soviet Union were based on historic ties and on strong economic links. Czechoslovakia now received 90 percent of its non-ferrous metals, 90 percent of its oil, 99 percent of its natural gas, and 80 percent of its iron ore form the Soviets. The Soviet Government treats Czechoslovakia better than does the United States, and Czechoslovakia responded in kind. It was no coincidence, he said, that there was an old proverb which said that things would never be good here “until a Russian Cossack lets his horse drink from the Vltava.”

— There are differences between our governments because Czechoslovaks and Americans have “chosen different paths”. Czechoslovaks respect the history of the United States and think Americans have a right to speak with pride about the U.S. Constitution, now celebrating its bicentennial. But do Americans think our constitution or that of the Soviets is worthless and theirs “more wise” because it was created 200 years ago rather than by the present generation?

— Regarding respect for human rights, the U.S. emphasizes individual rights whereas Czechoslovakia stresses collective rights. Bilak cited the Gabriel case (a child custody case dating from the late 1960’s) as an example of how certain human rights, e.g., maternal rights, are not respected in the U.S. Bilak derided the term “dissident,” noting with heavy sarcasm that the person who invented this “noble word” was very clever, and that perhaps Czechoslovakia should begin using it to describe the mafia and drug dealers in the United States. He said we should not think that the Czechoslovak side was “completely illiterate;” it was known just how much monetary support was being given to such persons in Czechoslovakia by “various anti-communist centers.” Each nation must protect itself and, like a mother who sometimes is even overprotective of her child, socialism was being protected here. He warned that people should not “poison the well” in Czechoslovakia. By the same token, the founding of opposition parties was not allowed since they would not strengthen Czechoslovak society.

— As for religious freedom, Bilak said he believed there were many states which did not have as extensive religious freedoms as those in Czechoslovakia. He gave an account of the religious scene, noting that 18 denominations were recognized with equal rights, certain sects were not allowed, the constitution guaranteed everyone the right to worship God in a way they deemed appropriate, and the church and state were not separate, e.g., all clergy are paid by the state. He noted efforts to preserve church buildings and claimed there were no complaints regarding religious education. Referring to the long-standing problem of vacant bishoprics, Bilak claimed that the GOC wants to reach agreement with the Vatican in order to fill the positions. According to him, the Vatican was maintaining two preconditions: that the new bishops be faithful to the Vatican and that they be of good moral standing. The GOC agreed with these conditions but had added two more to them: the new bishops must be “tolerant to the state,” and the “illegal church,” which he said consisted of 20 “illegal bishops,” must be disbanded. He also complained that while the Vatican opposes the participation of Czechoslovak priests in the organization “Pacem in Terris,” at the same time in Poland it was supporting the involvement of priests in political organizations.

— Bilak defended the GOC’s record on freedom of movement on economic grounds. He said that some 9–11 million Czechoslovaks travel abroad each year. While the government would be glad to see more travel abroad, it did not have sufficient hard currency resources to make it possible and did not think that borrowing for that purpose made economic sense. He implied a more forthcoming attitude concerning former Czechoslovaks who wished to revisit their homeland, commenting that they were not considered “enemies of the state,” although it was necessary that they first adjust their citizenship status. On divided families, (“certain humanitarian cases”), he hinted that either the Foreign Minister or Prime Minister might have something to say. As far as his own view, Bilak said, he personally would have no objection to resolving certain cases in which persons wished to emigrate to the U.S. to join their families. In some cases, he claimed, it was only the local authorities which stood in the way of resolution. In general, Czechoslovakia had seen several waves of emigration in the past, and it certainly would have no trouble with the departure of a few people. However, he did refer to the need to protect against the drain of talented young people who wished to leave on economic grounds.

— Regarding bilateral trade, Bilak noted that Czechoslovakia did not enjoy MFN because of “discriminatory reasons,” and asked rhetorically why China should be treated differently. Furthermore, Romania was being treated differently because of its foreign policy; this amounted to interference or pressure. He also complained about the existence of COCOM, saying it would only result in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union producing its own highly sophisticated technology. History will prove, he said, which system is stronger—but it can only be proven in times of peace.

9. Using two water bottles and glasses to illustrate his point, the Deputy Secretary contrasted the U.S. and the group of friendly nations aligned with it in the Western world to the Soviet Union and its tightly linked allies. The U.S. and its allies have similar beliefs, but also have disagreements, whereas the Soviets and their allies hardly ever disagree—at least in public. For example, he said, they always vote with the Soviet Union in the UN. He noted that Hungary, with its mixed economic system, has moved slightly away from the Soviets, and Romania with its foreign policy differences has also moved somewhat away. Now the Poles have also begun to move slightly away from the Soviets. In our view, the Deputy Secretary said, Czechoslovakia is still very close to the Soviet Union; in fact, we see no differences. We think it would be in the interests of the Czech and Slovak people to move themselves somewhat away. We recognize the historic, geographic, and economic links the country has with the Soviets, but we would welcome some differences. If there is a willingness on the Czechoslovak side, Mr. Whitehead said, we are willing to respond. For us, it is important that it be understood what would be required, namely, some recognition of our concerns in the field of human rights. It was important to develop and maintain a dialogue on such issues; we recognize the right of each country to have differing views, but if better relations are to ensue, the GOC must also recognize our viewpoint.

10. The Deputy Secretary urged that the dialogue between the two governments be extended. While the two governments probably will not be able to agree on major changes, it should be possible to find some steps which can be achieved. In fact, we have already embarked on that process, as reflected by the following:

— Negotiations on a new civil aviation agreement appear close to completion.

— The new exchanges agreement is in place, covering the areas of education, culture, and science, although implementation should be speeded up to a greater extent.²

— The prospect of an agreement to exchange information on narcotics, an area which should have no political aspects whatsoever.

— The interest on the part of the U.S. in reaching a similar agreement to exchange information on terrorism. Our objective is to avoid the political aspects of this subject and discuss its criminal elements, which should enable us to begin to cooperate on the international aspects of terrorism.

— The completed but not yet ratified consular convention,³ which should be put into effect.

— On human rights, we have had a broad philosophical discussion; we should move to talks on specific cases.

— Our hope for the resolution of the five divided family cases currently on our list.

— In the economic/commercial area, we should discuss what can be done to increase trade even without MFN. And while we cannot eliminate COCOM, there is no reason why individual cases cannot be discussed.

In summary, the Deputy Secretary said, we have begun a number of efforts over the course of the last few months in the direction of greater cooperation. If Czechoslovakia is willing to continue in these efforts, we would be very receptive.

11. Bilak praised the Deputy Secretary for his candor, and said that were there more time for discussion, it might be possible to move from philosophic to pragmatic considerations. He said he had been working as a politician for 37 years, during which he had taken part in many international meetings, but never before had he encountered such a frankly expressed opinion that it would be better for Czechoslovakia to move somewhat away from the Soviet Union. The example Mr. Whitehead had graphically outlined with bottles and glasses had made them gasp, Bilak said. He said it should be understood, as he had learned as a young village boy, that “weaker people always look for stronger friends,” and that because Czechoslovakia is so small and the world so divided, it can play a role in world events only by having a great power as an ally. It is necessary to be realistic; the FRG is a close and faithful ally of the U.S. Why should Czechoslovakia not be equally faithful to the Soviets? He defended Czechoslovakia’s position within Eastern Europe by asking whether the U.S. really believed human rights were better respected in Romania than in Czechoslovakia, and by noting economic problems now being experienced by the Hungarians despite their different economic model. Bilak insisted that Czechoslovakia was not a “satellite” but rather a faithful ally acting on the basis of common interests with the Soviet Union.

12. Responding to the Deputy Secretary’s list of areas where progress might be made in bilateral relations, Bilak said the Czechoslovak side was in favor of cooperating with the U.S. in such fields as drug abuse, terrorism, S&T, health, and trade. He urged that such steps not be made dependent on political preconditions.

13. The Deputy Secretary raised the issue of “name-calling,” saying that he found this practice particularly reprehensible. While we undoubtedly would continue to disagree and to express our views freely, it could be done in other ways. The practice of name-calling had become quite rampant in UN forums, which did not contribute to the peaceful solution of problems. Bilak said Czechoslovakia did not favor such a practice, but he then claimed that in a speech in Vienna the Vice President had referred to Czechoslovaks as “savages” and “idiots.” It was not desirable to offend any nation, he said, and particularly not one which happens to be small in size. (Comment: During his meeting with Foreign Minister Chnoupek later in the day, Mr. Whitehead gave the Foreign Minister a copy of the speech Vice President Bush made in Vienna in 1983 and pointed out that Bilak’s charge was totally unjustified.)

14. In conclusion, the Deputy Secretary said he wished to reiterate for the Czechoslovak side the strong feelings of the U.S. concerning human rights. The U.S. will continue to speak out in favor of the rights of individuals wherever they may live, whether in the U.S. or Czechoslovakia, and will continue to speak out against unfair restrictions on individual freedoms wherever they occur. He stressed that the Helsinki Final Act spells out commitments on human freedoms which are not being universally respected. While we do not wish to impose our system on others, we believe that whichever system is chosen must be one which respects the rights of individuals. That, he said, is what the U.S. stands for and believes; we will continue to speak out as long as we have the breath to do so. Bilak replied that Czechoslovakia is prepared to discuss any and all issues. He said that Czechoslovakia supported such human rights as the right to work, to free education, to participate in the management of the state, and to free medical treatment, no matter what the cost might be. He said it was important to remember that the Helsinki Final Act has more than one basket. In closing, he expressed appreciation for the Deputy Secretary’s visit and his candid remarks and urged him to return. Bilak said he supposed that their meeting would “do no harm;” it was certain in any case that the two sides had clarified their positions.

15. Minimize considered for Moscow.

Niemczyk

1. Source: Department of State, Official Correspondence of Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead, July 1982–January 1989, Lot 89 D 139, JCW’s Eastern Europe Trip 1/27–2/7/87 Memcons. Confidential; Immediate; Limdis. Sent for information to Eastern European posts, Moscow, Rome, Vienna, and the mission to NATO.
2. Signed and entered into force on April 15, 1986.
3. Signed on July 9, 1973; entered into force on November 6, 1987.