955.7138/11–1750: Telegram
The Ambassador in Belgium (Murphy) to the Secretary of State
786. For Perkins. Your 624, November 13.1 On my return from Congo2 today I called on Van Zeeland and transmitted to him substance of your proposal regarding publication of joint communiqué December 1. He asked me inform you that:
- 1.
- He does not concur in proposal that joint communiqué be published December 1.
- 2.
- Your failure give him more specific encouragement re suggested increase of export tax is “unexpected and disappointing”.
He said that this constitutes his preliminary comment and that he will give me written statement as soon as he has had opportunity discuss matter with Belgian Cabinet.
Van Zeeland had clearly in mind second verbal assurance given him on subject of suitable US contribution (penultimate paragraph Deptel 243, February 22, 1950). Van Zeeland made no effort conceal his dissatisfaction. He referred also to assignment of technical liaison officer to Belgian Embassy, Washington, and said that it was all very well and good that officer should be there at given day to receive information which could be declassified to all the world on following day. He failed see how this provided Belgium with square deal or could be said protect Belgian interests.
I have informed British Chargé of Van Zeeland’s reaction and he will call on Van Zeeland tomorrow as instructed by London.
- Not printed.↩
- Murphy visited the Congo in November to evaluate defense conditions. He submitted his preliminary comments in telegram 916 from Brussels, December 8, 1950, not printed. While emphasizing the defensive value of the immense size and inaccessibility of the area, he recommended that “thorough-going steps should be taken to protect this important source [of] uranium and other minerals, especially cobalt. Present measures are definitely not adequate. It is believed that such measures can be taken at relatively small cost.” (855A.2546/12–850)↩