Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Western Europe, Volume IV

840.50 Recovery/12–249: Telegram

The Ambassador in Belgium (Murphy) to the Secretary of State

top secret

Brussels, December 2, 1949—7 p. m.

1624. In accordance with Deptel 1399 November 30¹ accompanied by Nuveen and Bonsal I called on Van Zeeland today and after reviewing Department’s thinking presented him with text of message included in your 1400, 30 November.

After reading it carefully Van Zeeland said he found no difference of substance between Department’s approach and his own plan which was circulated 24 November.

Ockrent² suggested one minor amendment in 6th Paragraph which was agreed to subject Department’s approval,³ namely the sentence: “to work with Ministers of PC’s and officials of US Government in coordinating activities developing carrying out policies and measures to establish agreed ends”; would be amended to read: “to work with Ministers of PC’s and officials of US Government to help coordinate activities and develop policies and measures to accomplish agreed ends;” reason for this was stated be technical, legal one as US language seemed to contemplate transfer of executive authority.

Van Zeeland gave us outline of his conception of tactics to be pursued. He said invitation should go on out for meeting of Consultative Group to take place 20 December. In meantime governments of each of PC’s would have an opportunity to study suggestions outlined in his paper referred above. They also were aware of additional suggestions which Van Zeeland has made re improvement in practice operation of OEEC. He mentioned establishment offices, monthly meeting and suggestion meetings be reduced in size so Ministers would each be attended by only one assistant; meeting to be held around small table so more effective working atmosphere might prevail, et cetera.

I asked for his opinion re timing of Secretary’s proposed message to PC’s. He thought that as this was “hoten” message delivery of it should be deferred until 2 or 3 days before proposed meeting 20 December, when its leverage would be most effective, but that this would be flexible date depending on interim developments. He expressed view that Secretary’s message would be of greatest value. If he encountered unexpected difficulties in obtaining agreement by all countries to 20 December meeting, delivery of Secretary’s message might be suggested for earlier date.

I also asked for Van Zeeland’s opinion re necessity of modification of OEEC convention and he reaffirmed his previous statement that no modification is necessary. However to make assurance doubly sure he is obtaining opinion of well-known international jurist to support his view. He was aware of Bevin’s and Marjolin’s view that convention would require modification. He thought they could be brought round and mentioned that Cripps agreed modification is not necessary.

I told Van Zeeland that as I had had no contact with early development of plan and no opportunity for discussion with Spaak personally, I would be grateful for Van Zeeland’s estimate of Spaak’s current attitude toward it. Van Zeeland said Spaak was his candidate now as he had been in beginning; that he thought Spaak would be willing to accept position without being too fussy regarding a definition of his eventual jurisdiction. However, said Van Zeeland, if Spaak in end did not accept, objective should be pursued and next best man selected. He referred in this connection to his own offer to resign as chairman of Council of Ministers if Spaak accepts, and said he believed his offer had helped influence British not to oppose plan. It was apparent Van Zeeland had not recently discussed with Spaak latter’s availability. Spaak has been absent from Brussels almost continuously during past weeks but will call me on his return from Switzerland. It is our opinion Van Zeeland actually favors Spaak for place both because Spaak is ideally suited for it and also because to some degree at least it eliminates Spaak from Belgium domestic politics.

Murphy

1. Not printed; it asked Murphy to consult with Van Zeeland with regard to the proposed message from Acheson to the OEEC governments, as indicated in telegram 4139 to London, November 16, p. 448, the text of which was sent in telegram 1400 to Brussels.
2. Roger Ockrent, Secretary General of the Belgian administration for the European Recovery Program.
3. The Department of State agreed to the proposed change (Telegram 1419 to Brussels, December 5, 840.50 Recovery/12–249).