Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

124.663/5–2250: Telegram

The Minister in Romania (Schoenfeld) to the Secretary of State

confidential
priority

Bucharest, May 22, 1950—6 p. m.

375. Urtel 164, May 19.¹ Mme. Pauker received me at 1 p. m. today. I was accompanied by Williams. At that time I handed her note embodying our position on official visas. I explained very briefly we did not accept principle but we accepted fact. She read over note and after pause said: good.

I told her there were couple of points I desired to clarify. Did Rumania proposal of staff of 10 include Chief of Commission or was he in addition. She indicated he was additional. I then said: Total of 11 including him. She confirmed this.

I said my second point related to pace of reduction. We had two buildings. One housed consular section and service attachés. Other housed chancery. We proposed to consolidate into one building and release other. This involved considerable work. I hoped we might be allowed some leeway in pace of reductions so as to accomplish this work in orderly fashion. We expected to effect it during course of June. She indicated favorable disposition toward this suggestion.

Mme. Pauker referred to final paragraph our note re prompt granting visas for replacements. She said it did not specifically state this should be reciprocal. I said I could reassure her on that point. We would act on their visas without delay. (We plan to go ahead on pending cases if Department concurs. Please advise.)

I then said I hoped there might be some over-lapping. I trusted it would not be necessary to wait until persons had actually left before visas for replacements could be granted. On this point I asked whether Gantenbein visa² could be issued at this time. Mme. Pauker said she could not give answer at the moment. She would consult government and communicate result.

I then passed to question of travel restrictions. I said as I saw it she was advocate of reciprocity. She agreed. Continuing I told her my government desired me to say that because of progressive restrictions imposed on American Legation, Bucharest, Washington was reviewing situation Rumanian Legation there. (Mme. Pauker gave me a quizzical glance.) I added that since Rumanian Government had imposed severe travel restrictions on us in contravention international comity and US-Rumanian Consular Convention, Washington had decided apply similar restrictions on Rumanian official personnel in US. Mme. Pauker said Rumanian restrictions were non-discriminatory. They applied to all. (I suggest Department frame its system with eye to this point.) I pointed out there was no doubt of difference of treatment Rumanian officials in US and American officials here. I added Washington intended inform her Ministry and Rumanian Legation Washington shortly precise nature of such restrictions. I added US Government would be guided in application by current treatment here.

I expressed hope restrictions here would be eased. I said I could not see value of all harassments. I regretted to tell her that due to them no single member of my staff had left without resentment. She said she realized these things affected a person’s attitude.

I went on to say there was one other question that gave me concern. This was question of housing. I cited certain cases of direct action by Rumanian authorities. She agreed they were undesirable. (I shall report details in separate telegram.) I suggested these questions should be discussed between Legation and Foreign Office. I was sure if they were taken up with Williams Foreign Office would find him entirely reasonable.

I then recapitulated main points staff of 11 with Chief of Mission, reasonable time to consolidate into one building, prompt issue of visas, intended travel restrictions and Gantenbein visa and commended Williams to her as Chargé d’Affaires.³

Mme. Pauker asked about my plans. I told her I was reporting to Washington for consultation. I had hoped to leave in February. Due to developments here I had been obliged to postpone my departure. Early in May Washington had ordered me to report for consultation without delay. My future movements would depend on result of my consultation.⁴

Schoenfeld

1. Supra.
2. Regarding the visa case of Legation Counselor-Designate Gantenbein, see footnote 5, supra.
3. From June 1950 the Legation in Romania adhered to the limitation of its American staff to 10 members, exclusive of the Minister. Delays and obstructions by the Romanian Government in the processing of visa applications for replacements for American staff members continued throughout the remainder of the year and was the subject of continuous negotiation between the Legation and the Romanian Foreign Ministry. Documentation on these problems is basically included in the file 124.66.
4. Minister Schoenfeld departed from Bucharest on May 24 and Third Secretary Williams assumed charge of the Legation. Schoenfeld did not again resume his post in Bucharest. In January 1951 he was named Ambassador to Guatemala. Counselor of Legation James Gantenbein was finally granted a visa by the Romanian Government, and upon his arrival in Bucharest in August, he assumed charge of the Legation.