124.663/4–1550: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Legation in Romania
priority
niact
130. Urtel 176, Mar 14.1 We observe one month has passed without reply our note verbale Rum FonOff re official visas and staff despite request for reply within fortnight, ur subsequent informal representations to FonMin this regard (urtel 217 Mar 272) with particular ref ur request Mar 10 re Gantenbein (urtel 182, Mar 153) and FonMin’s assurance forthcoming answer.
Rums’ evidently calculated delay may be prolonged indefinitely as you suggest (urtel 257, Apr 154) with increasingly serious consequences for leg, detriment our prestige and encouragement their further harassments if we appear resigned Rum discourtesy in failing even reply our inquiries re their unfriendly behavior.
Moreover, re stoppage USIS activities and nature Rum response our inquiries this regard (urtels 134, Mar 2; 153, Mar 6; 208, Mar 23; 218, Mar 27; 258, Apr 155) which will be subj separate Tel,6 since retaliation against Rum info activities in US might have disadvantage appearing run counter our consistent support principle freedom of info and cultural exchange, it is considered preferable at this time take alternative action which we have long contemplated, i.e., closing Rum NY commercial office.
In light above considerations it seems questionable whether possible disadvantage leg’s situation re visas, staff etc., resulting such action outweighs disadvantages our inaction while Rums compound indignities with impunity (urtel 132, Mar 1).
[Page 1059]Accordingly subj ur views, we propose notify Rum leg here soonest as fol: US Govt regards activities Rum NY office (Deptel 54, Feb 24 and urtel 1327) unauthorized extension leg consular functions; no agreement asked or given for a Rum consulate NY; US Govt maintains no office Rum other than at Bucharest, and Rum Govt stated it will permit exercise consular functions by US officers only within leg (urdes 205, Mar 188), We wld request immed cessation public business NY office and final closing office within two weeks from date our note. Wld further inform Rum leg we have under review, in light Consular Convention and reciprocity re our consular rights in Rum, their continuing exercise any activities in US of consular nature in absence presentation consular comms by Rum officers performing such functions and receipt exequaturs.
For urinfo it appears since Rum Mission reestab in 1946 no Rum officers have performed consular functions with benefit exequaturs. Re Crivilescu who has subsequently departed US, Rum Leg notified us May 1948 he performing consular functions and invested with title Vice Consul as well as Attaché; view then contemplated appt Consul replace Stanescu we accorded Crivilescu provisional recognition. Apparently third Sec Ion Nitescu only Rum officer currently performing such services extensively.
Effort to find appropriate basis for completely preventing gift parcel collections by Rum leg (urtel 132) being explored with Treasury and others. Grounds under considerations this end are (1) propriety collection Rum customs duties in US in dollar exchange, (2) reciprocity such fin transactions in Rum and US, (3) consular activity not confined protection Rum interests US. Threat of stopping these remunerative collections implied by proposed note, on grounds consular reciprocity, might provide leverage obtain Rum compliance Consular Agreement extent recognizing our officers. Also proposed démarche wld appear leave us freedom action re extent to which we might subsequently desire limit Rum leg activities pending reciprocal compliance Consular Convention light Rum restrictions our consular rights.
Dept desires urgently ur views re above proposal. Possible alternative wld be simultaneously with notification Rums re closing NY office inform them we not agreeable continuation henceforth any consular activities US without presentation consular comms by Rum leg personnel and receipt exequaturs. Wld state we prepared grant exequaturs accordance Convention if Rum Govt willing honor Convention with full and gen reciprocity by issuance exequaturs US consular personnel presenting comms in Rum. Ur views also desired whether such approach (which more consistent with appeal to Consular Convention) [Page 1060] more likely bring Rums to terms or result further restriction our consular opportunities to material detriment US interests.9
- Not printed; see footnote 3, supra.↩
- Not printed; it reported that during a conversation with Romanian Foreign Minister Pauker that day, Minister Schoenfeld had sought her views on his note of March 14. The Foreign Minister stated that a reply was in preparation, but she would not give even an approximate date when it could be expected (866.181/3–2750).↩
- Not printed. It reported that on March 10 Minister Schoenfeld took up the visa question with Madame Ana Toma, Secretary General of the Romanian Foreign Ministry whom he found grumbling and unresponsive. Schoenfeld concluded that there was no mistaking the generally hardening attitude by Romanian authorities on the problem of the Legation staff (866.181/3–1550).↩
- Not printed.↩
- For telegram 134, March 2, from Bucharest, see p. 1052; the other telegrams under reference here are not printed.↩
- Regarding the exchange of notes with the Romanian Government over the closing of the USIS office in Bucharest, see the editorial note, infra.↩
- Neither printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
-
In his telegram 274, April 22, from Bucharest, not printed. Minister Schoenfeld concurred in the action proposed by the Department (124.663/4–2250).
In a note delivered on April 25 to the Romanian Legation in Washington, the Department of State requested the Romanian Government to close its establishment in New York City operating under the name of Office of the Romanian Commercial Attaché and its affiliated Office of Packages for Romania. The note expressed the view that the activities of the office in question was an unauthorized extension of the consular functions of the Romanian Legation. For the text of the note, released to the press on April 26, see Department of State Bulletin, May 8, 1950, p. 735.
↩