In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Document No. 37: Summary of Discussion at Conference of Warsaw Treaty Deputy Foreign Ministers, February 17, 1966 ——————————————————————————————————————————— As the previous document description indicates, Warsaw Pact officials at the deputy minister level carried out some of the most crucial work involving such highly contentious issues as Warsaw Pact reorganization. This deputy foreign ministers’ meeting, held in Berlin, was a forum for hashing out the various political counter-proposals presented by the East European member-states. Hungarian and German records of the session also exist, but the Polish version is the most informative. Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Leonid Ilichev opened the session with a speech that acknowledged the need to improve Warsaw Pact organization. On one of the key issues of debate—whether to create a secretariat and in what form—the Soviets favored its establishment as a permanent body but wanted to limit its role to handling technical matters, such as preparing for meetings, rather than deliberating over substantive political issues—the function filled by NATO’s Secretariat. The Romanian presentation made for a fascinating counterpoint. Emphasizing the principles of sovereignty and noninterference, Deputy Foreign Minister Mircea Maliţa invoked the danger of the PCC becoming a supranational organ that would usurp the powers of national governments (implicitly in favor of the Soviets). He argued that the current requirement that participation at PCC meetings should be at the very highest levels was too inflexible and had led directly to the elimination of Albania as a member because of its government’s refusal to send party leader Enver Hoxha. (Romania wanted the Albanians to be reinstated, so that it would gain another ally against the Soviets.) In these and other respects as well, Romania’s views contradicted those of other East European members. Eventually, the Soviets, East Germans and Poles caucused in an attempt to break the deadlock created by the Romanian representative. But the move fell short, and the meeting failed to produce the unanimity necessary for passing a concluding resolution. ____________________ […] I. The point of the talks was to strengthen and improve the structure and mechanisms of the Warsaw Treaty. In the first phase of talks, the Romanian delegation already disagreed with this formulation of the session agenda. It [Romanian delegation] requested limiting [the formulation] to “exchanging ideas on the matter of improving methods of consultation between member-states of the Warsaw Treaty,” arguing that it [Romania] is authorized only to discuss matters involving the work of the Political Consultative Committee. […] 212 II. The PPR delegation presented the view […] that in accordance with specifications established during the meeting at Comrade Premier’s [Józef Cyrankiewicz’s], we did not bring up the concept of establishing a Treaty Council and reducing the Consultative Committee to the role implied in its name. However, we presented a view […][infavorof]establishingapermanentCounciloraCommitteeofForeignMinisters, which would convene not less than twice a year. […] The Ministers Council or Committee would convene as needed at the minister’s or deputy’s level, would be a support institution for the Consultative Committee, and would have a consultative character. […] III. The stance of Romanian delegation: 1. The party and government leaderships of all states are responsible for their own foreign policy, therefore we should respect the principles of sovereignty and equality and not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. 2. Consultation, based on the rules specified in the Treaty itself, is a proper form of cooperation between member-states of the Warsaw Treaty. 3. The system of consultation within the framework of the Political Consultative Committee should be improved, especially when it comes to steps which may involve the interests and obligations of other member-states of the Treaty. Because of that, the Romanian delegate reminded [us] that matters as important as the introduction of missiles to Cuba, a program of universal and complete disarmament , and lately the draft of a treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons required prior consultation. Consultations do not limit the rights of states to take initiatives in foreign policy. […] 4. […] 5. […] 6. The Romanian delegation opposes the establishment of a rigid frame of reference for the Political Consultative Committee and defining its statute or regulations. 7. In the past, the Political Consultative Committee has exceeded its competences as a consultative institution. It has done so by making decisions on certain political and military issues. […] The representative of Romania, in his presentations, consistently repeated the view he presented previously. It was obvious that he had been given very in...

Share