73. Telegram From the Embassy in Poland to the Department of State0

1071. Personal for Secretary from Ambassador. In view personal interest you have shown in PL–480 negotiations with Poles I am taking liberty of setting forth my views regarding them.

I am disturbed by increase in our new PL–480 proposals to Poles from 37.1 million dollars to 51.6 million together with lessened purchase requirements in view of absence of adequate quid pro quo. I do not think that US-Polish relations have improved in past year. In some respects such as MFN this has been our fault but for most part this has been deliberate choice of Polish Government, i.e., repeatedly expressed Polish position on Berlin, Rapacki visit to Cuba, refusal to accept Glenn capsule and Medicine-USA exhibit et cetera.1 On record we have certainly no reason to reward Poles for any cooperation they have given us.

We must bear in mind that any PL–480 sales are ipso facto help given to member of Soviet bloc and must therefore be justified by other positive considerations. We recognize that PL–480 can be properly and effectively used to increase sales of agricultural products. Although agricultural surpluses mean relatively little to United States, their receipt is vital to Poland and its plans for industrial development. I do not believe we should accept Polish view that criterion should be Poland’s commodity needs but should rather think in terms of how we can best further our policy objectives in our relations with Poland. Unless we keep Poles on short leash we lose leverage which PL–480 sales provide us.

I do not understand how Poland can undertake to repay us for additional $50 million worth of commodities if it is frankly unable to assume responsibility for paying a lesser sum of defaulted bonds. I am concerned that there is no end in sight to process of providing Poland with PL–480 commodities and this might ultimately lead to default.

It is possible Poles are so short of foreign exchange that they cannot buy grain they need, but it is to be remembered that they have been buying from other markets on relatively short credit terms. If they must purchase grain they can probably secure exchange for it by curtailing plans for industrial development. I believe the Poles are in more urgent need [Page 150] of grain imports now than they have been for past several years and will accept best terms they can get. I have distinct impression that Poles feel confident that we are so wedded to our “special Polish policy” that we can always be pressured into meeting their needs despite lack of Polish cooperation in furthering bilateral relations or Polish willingness to grant adequate quid pro quo in negotiations.

I have from time to time and most recently in Embassy telegram 988 of December 182 suggested other quid pro quos which we might request. (Incidentally, Department apparently has mistaken impression free market grain purchase discussed in Embassy telegram 988 is insignificant whereas fact is substantial quantities are purchased by the state on the free market.) Since offer described in Department telegram 7663 has been made, it cannot of course be withdrawn. If not accepted within reasonable time, however, I see no impropriety in making alternative offers involving other benefits to United States objectives.

I am anxious to know policy considerations under which it was decided to increase our original offer by almost 40 percent since I am concerned lest we use too much carrot and not enough stick. However, whatever misgivings I may have it is obviously essential that any discussions with Polish officials here be closely attuned to those in Washington and I should therefore be grateful for any policy guidance you may wish to send me.

In conversation with Winiewicz today I referred to very favorable offer we had made. He was noncommittal.

Cabot
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 411.4841/1–1163. Secret.
  2. The Polish Government had delayed granting permission for the display of the Glenn capsule, and the United States withdrew its offer. During the exhibition, U.S. officials repeatedly protested against police surveillance and harassment of U.S. delegation members.
  3. See footnote 2, Document 70.
  4. Telegram 766, January 3, outlined U.S. proposals for further discussions of a P.L. 480 agreement. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.4841/1–363)