Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume V

640.6031/10–1349: Telegram

The Chargé in Belgium (Millard) to the Secretary of State

secret

Brussels, October 13, 1949—noon.

1367. At luncheon for Assistant Secretary Allen¹ October 10 Baron de Gruben SYG of Foreign Office² expressed himself in terms of unusual vehemence to chief of Embassy Political Section with regard to ECA relations in general arid current negotiations on east-west trade in particular.

On latter question De Gruben stressed four points:

(1) Belgian Government accepts in principle US view on necessity for control of east-west trade to prevent certain materials and products entering USSR or area within its control. However, fact must be squarely faced that word “control” is a euphemism and that what US actually seeks other governments to agree to—is to prohibit certain lines of trade with USSR and satellites. This said De Gruben amounts to form of economic blockade. It is grave issue, and one which must be settled by governments and at highest level. De Gruben said plainly that he felt these matters should not be discussed by ECA experts either American or foreign in technical detail without questions of principle first having been agreed upon by governments.

(2) Belgian Government while accepting principle enunciated above could not promise to embargo certain products to USSR unless it was absolutely certain that all other OEEC participants and US applied an equally rigorous embargo. He said former ECA Minister here³ had strongly implied that Belgium was holding out alone of all OEEC governments in not giving its word not to send products on A and B lists to Soviet Union, but that this criticism ignored fact that certain other governments which had been glib in giving promises were not carrying out those engagements in practice. De Gruben said that without mentioning names he could cite specific case of Soviet orders for tankers which Belgians had declined to bid on but which an unnamed OEEC country was in fact building for USSR. In other words there should be 100 percent compliance by western states with any agreement for control of east-west trade.

(3) Next Belgian requirement dealt with nomenclature. Not only were there numerous and conflicting lists of exports to be banned but also in case of Belgium because of its wide tariff specifications, it was exceptionally difficult to place export controls into effect on one product without at the same time banning export of other products which were not on our A or B lists. For example, in single category of electrical machinery, while seeking to forbid export of Belgian equipment which might be of strategic value to Russians at same time innocent items such as electric irons or adding machines might be prohibited.

(4) Finally, and De Gruben stressed this with great emphasis, he thought there should be a full-time committee made up of OEEC countries plus US which would place agreements for control of east-west trade and would afford a forum where complaints could be voiced. When asked if such mechanism not attract undue attention, De Gruben said that it could be informal and could be under OEEC guise but that it was imperative that US participate.

Since De Gruben is diplomat of old school reticence such vigor in his remarks reveals very definite depth of feeling in Belgian Foreign Office oil this question. De Gruben said significantly that he had not had an opportunity fully to brief Van Zeeland before latter’s talk with Secretary on east-west trade⁴ but that Foreign Minister had now been brought entirely up to date on ECA matters.

Embassy officer, having in mind Paris telegram Repto 6590, September 28 (repeated Brussels Repto 384⁵ and Deptel 1180, October 7, repeated Paris 3834⁵), said he was glad to reassure Foreign Office that ECA in Paris and Washington, as well as Department welcomed high level diplomatic exchanges on these problems and that he would find in Embassy and local ECA mission fullest cooperation to arrive at a meeting of the minds.

Following are ECA comments:

“De Gruben’s position not new to this mission. He was opposed to Belgian participation east-west trade controls program throughout September conversations with Van Zeeland this subject. Concerning four specific points, following should be noted:

(1) Concerning desirability agreement by governments, see Kenney letter September 28 to Harriman⁶ re discussions by ECA experts. Belgian Government asked for discussions with US technical experts as necessary preliminary to implementing agreement reached September to control items in Anglo-French list.

(2) In first September conversation De Gruben asked frequently what other countries were doing this regard and in subsequent conversations full information was furnished what action agreed to by other countries, whereupon it stood out quite clearly that Belgium was only important participating country which had taken no action.

(3) ECA technical expert began discussions with Belgian experts yesterday to clarify questions of nomenclature and procedure.

(4) This confirms recommendation in Kenney letter above referred to that whole operation can best be handled on high-level multilateral basis.” (End of ECA comment.)

From Embassy standpoint we feel that this problem can be negotiated out. We are convinced that if ECA will agree to multilateral approach and to some form of committee mechanism such as suggested by De Gruben other objections would rapidly be ironed out. It would be helpful therefore to have an Immediate insuration [instruction?] of ECA policy on this point.⁷

Sent Department 1367, repeated Paris 235 for Harriman.

Millard

1. George V. Allen, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. On October 27, President Truman appointed Allen Ambassador to Yugoslavia.
2. Baron Hervé de Gruben, Secretary General of the Belgian Foreign Ministry.
3. Presumably the reference here is to James G. Blaine, the former Chief of the ECA Mission in Belgium.
4. See the draft memorandum of conversation, September 16, p. 139.
5. Not printed.
5. Not printed.
6. The letter under reference here has not been further identified. W. John Kenney was Chief of the ECA Mission in the United Kingdom from July 1949.
7. Telegram 1256, October 28, to Brussels, not printed, replied that the Department of State was confident that Embassy and ECA Mission efforts would substantially improve the Belgian attitude on trade controls and was anxious that a full, clear exposition of American views be made to the Belgian Government prior to the November 14 meeting in Paris of Western European representatives. The Department of State and the Economic Cooperation Administration continued to feel that a multilaeral approach to trade control problems was desirable as long as it resulted in increased effectiveness in controls (640.6031/10–1349).