DEPARTMENT OF STATE Memorandum of Conversation
DATE: August 29, 1951
SUBJECT; US-Czechoslovak Relations
PARTICIPANTS: The Secretary Mr. Vladimir Prochazka, the Czechoslovak Ambassador Mr. Jan Vinar, First Secretary, Czechoslovak Embassy Mr. Vedeler, EE
COPIES TO: G - Mr. Matthews E - Mr. Schactzel EUR - Mr. Perkins ER - Mr. Reinhardt Mr. Bonright Mr. Riggs P - Mr. Barrett Amembassy Praha H- Mr. McFall HICOG Frankfort
The Ambassador of Czechoslovakia was summoned to my office today at 2 p.m. I began the conversation by referring to my statement during his courtesy visit on August 23 that I desired to see him immediately after presentation of his credentials for a full and frank discussion of the Oatis case. I also alluded to the President's remarks to the Ambassador yesterday on the present state of relations between the US and Czechoslovakia.
I said that relations between the two countries had never been at such a low point since the war as at the present time. He must have been here long enough to sense the tension surrounding the issues between the two Governments. He could plainly see evidences of the great indignation of the American people at the actions of his Government. The deterioration of relations existing from these acts had already progressed a long way and would continue unless steps were taken to halt it. The Czechoslovak Government had not yet taken such steps. In this situation the US was proceeding to stop exports to Czechoslovakia, as Ambassador Briggs had indicated in Prague, and this measure would go into effect at the end of the month. If nothing was done to improve the situation the US would also be obliged to take it into account with the British and French when renewal of the Czechoslovak permit to overfly Western Germany came up for consideration at the end of this month.
I said that these difficulties poisoning our relations could and should be removed. We on our side did not wish to see the present trend continue. Whether it might change for the better was consequently up to the Czechoslovak government. Whatever its conception of relations with other countries, its interest would be not to let the present worsening proceed unchecked. There was thus an opportunity at hand to do something
- 2 -
constructive in the interests of both countries and I hoped he might become the architect of better mutual relations.
If that were to be brought about, I continued in taking up the Oatis case, the Czechoslovak Government must stop the arbitrary and unjust imprisonment of American citizens and show a change of attitude by release of Oatis and Hvasta. The conduct of the Czechoslovak Government in the Oatis case was incomprehensible to the American people and the intensity of the feeling about the matter was clear in the resolution adopted by Congress, with which he was already familiar, and the other resolutions on this subject introduced in Congress. The treatment of Oatis by Czechoslovakia was utterly inconsistent with every standard recognized by other countries as governing the position of an accredited foreign journalist. Oatis had committed no offense; he had only gathered and reported news as journalists are doing daily in almost every country of the world. Accusations were made without grounds, he was tried without legal counsel of his own choice, he was condemned without evidence to support the charges, he was sentenced to an effective term of five years imprisonment without any valid legal basis and he has never been allowed a visit of friend or official representative. Our notes seeking permission for such a visit and a copy of the indictment and sentence have gone unanswered. This absence of any pretense of justice in condemning a man for doing the usual work of a journalist and the failure to answer our notes can only mean that the Czechoslovak Government has intended an act of provocation against the US.
I said that the Evasta case displayed a similar lack of good will on the part of the Czechoslovak Government. This man has served in the war as a member of the US armed forces and then returned to Czechoslovakia as a student. But being a foreign student made one an object of suspicion to the Czechoslovak Government and he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He has virtually completed this term, yet the sentence was extended to ten years.
I said that it was not customary to imprison journalists for working as journalists and students for being students. If the Czechoslovak Government considered that their conduct in these capacities was not satisfactory, the proper course would have been to expel them from Czechoslovakia and that is what we sought now.
Ambassador Prochazka inquired whether a demand was being presented and whether the President had spoken in this sense yesterday. If so, the Ambassador was not authorized to discuss it. He wished, however, to express views on the points: (1) The condemnation of the trial of Oatis as a "shara" trial was a criticism of Czechoslovak courts and judicial procedure, representing an intervention in the internal affairs of his country. Oatis was under Czechoslovak jurisdiction, had been tried by the Czechoslovak law not for the activities of a journalist but for activities transgressing those of a journalist, and had been found guilty and punished in accordance with the Law for the Protection of the Republic. Three was consequently no ground for complaint
- 3 -
under international law against the proceedings. (2) Pressure was being exercised against the Czechoslovak Government in this case and it would not take any action under political or economic pressure. He said he may not have expressed the appropriate shades of meaning in English; if he had not made himself understood, he would be glad to answer any questions.
I replied that I understood perfectly his meaning. He meant that any kind of action taken under any kind of law by one state against the citizens of another state conformed to international law. That was not the kind of international law I was used to, or the kind commonly accepted. I knew very well the charges of "espionage" made against Mr. Oatis and the type of "trial" that was held in his case. It was useless to make such an argument as this. In regard to his other point, the Czechoslovak Government could only expect that when it committed a provocative act against the US there would be a strong reaction here.
Ambassador Prochazka then remarked on the campaign of pressure in the economic field, indicating that this was a systematic propaganda effort for which the US government was entirely responsible. I declared that no campaign was involved. On the contrary, nothing was more spontaneous on the part of the American people than the strong feeling to which they had given expression and their strong desire for the release of Oatis.
The Ambassador then complained about discriminatory treatment of Czechoslovakia in economic matters, referring to recent steps which interfere with trade between the US and Czechoslovakia. I indicated that any action taken in the economic field by the US since the imprisonment of Oatis was a mutual and inevitable consequence of the unjustified conduct on the part of the Czechoslovak Government. If it did this kind of thing, it must expect other governments to recognize the provocation and take steps accordingly. Claiming that our alleged discriminatory attitude was manifested ever since February 1948 in restrictions on trade with seeming hostility toward the regime itself, the Ambassador was informed that while export controls have been in effect for more than three years, they have been applied to all the countries associated with the Soviet Union. We were determined to withhold, and are fully justified in withholding, the export to those countries of items essential to our own security. The US had treated all these countries on the same basis; if Czechoslovakia had joined with them, this was something for which the US could not be held responsible.
Finally, the Ambassador said that he could see no purpose in discussing the merits of the Oatis case. I agreed it was not useful to pursue the issue of merits further, adding that all we wished was the expulsion of Oatis and Hvasta from Czechoslovakia and their return to the US. If this could be arranged, the growth of tension might be stopped and a basis laid for the improvement of relations. If nothing was done, the situation would steadily worsen.
- 4 -
The Ambassador said he would report these views to his Government. I expressed a desire that he do so and that after he had received a reply he communicate with the Department so that we might discuss the matter again. I reiterated that the US did not with the present trend to go on and if there was to be a change it was now a matter for decision by his Government. The conversation lasted thirty minutes and as he arose to leave I handed him copies of the text of the Concurrent Resolution of Congress on the Oatis case to which I had previously referred.
After his first remarks, obviously prepared in advance, the Ambassador paused from time to time in finding replies to make. He defended the action of the Czechoslovak Government in the Oatis case without display of fanatical zeal and gave some impression that his Government is feeling our counter measures and might be inclined to a solution of the Oatis case if it could be worked out without the appearance of Czechoslovakia yielding to the pressure of the US.
EUR;EE:HCVedeler/ml 8/30/51