Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, General; the United Nations, Volume I, Part 2

Department of State Atomic Energy Files

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Achilles)

top secret

[Washington,] December 10, 1948.

Subject: Defense of the Belgian Congo

Participants:	M. Roger Taymans, Counselor, Belgian Embassy
	Mr. T. C. Achilles, Chief, WE
	Mr. W. J. Galloway, WE

In a conversation with M. Taymans who called yesterday afternoon at his request, Mr. Achilles stated that the Department had received a telegram from the Embassy in Brussels setting forth views expressed by M. Spaak concerning the inclusion of the Belgian Congo in the area to be covered by the North Atlantic Pact.¹ Mr. Achilles understood that M. Spaak had referred to the 30th Parallel North Latitude as being the southern limit under consideration in the military conversations in London and had expressed his concern that this limit included North Africa without providing for inclusion of the Belgian Congo, whose strategic position is of vital importance to all parties concerned, particularly to the United States, as well as to Belgium. He had further stated that he anticipated difficulties in explaining to the Belgian Parliament why the North Atlantic Pact included part of Africa but made no mention of the Congo.

Mr. Achilles stated that the United States did not consider that the North Atlantic Pact could possibly cover the Congo. Although United States thinking favored the Tropic of Cancer in preference to the 30th Parallel as the southern limit of the land, sea, and air space of the North Atlantic, it did not favor the inclusion of any African territory in the area defined by the Pact. If this latter view prevailed, the difficulties foreseen by Spaak would be lessened.

Mr. Achilles went on to say that the defense of the Congo was foremost in the minds of United States officials and that the National Military Establishment had been approached informally on this subject by the Department of State. The National Military Establishment attached the highest importance to the Congo’s remaining inviolate, as did the Government as a whole, but we did not see that any specific reassurance could be given at this time. The great interest of the United States in the integrity of the Belgian Congo was self-evident and was far more fundamental than any specific assurances.²

M. Taymans thanked Mr. Achilles for his expression of the above views and promised to convey them to the interested Belgian officials.

1. Telegram 2087, November 29; for text, see vol. iii, p. 298.
2. Achilles added the following in a letter to Taymans dated December 10: “We have discussed this question further with representatives of the National Military Establishment who have indicated that, if the Belgian Government should desire to convey to the National Military Establishment any specific views concerning the security of the Congo, they would be glad to exchange views with any representative M. Spaak might wish to send. This would not, of course, imply willingness on the part of the United States to undertake any specific commitments.

   We have advised Ambassador Kirk of the foregoing with the request that he bring it to the attention of M. Spaak.” (Department of State Atomic Energy Files)