Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

Department of State Atomic Energy Files

Memorandum by Mr. R. Gordon Arneson to the Secretary of State

top secret

[Washington,] December 14, 1950.

Subject: Belgian Atomic Energy Negotiations

While you are in Brussels,¹ the Belgian Foreign Minister, Mr. Van Zeeland, may very well bring up the subject of the American-Belgian-British atomic energy discussions. At this stage of the negotiations, we feel it is up to the Belgians to make the next move. Therefore, it should not be necessary for you to take any affirmative step other than to listen sympathetically or perhaps clarify our present thinking on one or two points.

Background

The following summarizes the background and present status of these negotiations:

1. Last Spring, Anglo-American-Belgian agreement was reached on a Joint Communiqué and Annex, setting forth the substance of the Uranium Agreement of 1944, and outlining the technical assistance the United States and the United Kingdom were prepared to give Belgium in keeping with Section 9a of the Agreement. Due to the royal question in Belgium, however, discussions were suspended on certain unresolved subsidiary points, including that of a suitable financial contribution, agreement on which Mr. Van Zeeland had conditioned the release of the Joint Communiqué.

2. At the end of September, Mr. Van Zeeland informed you that the Belgian Government was now agreeable to reaching a settlement of American-Belgian-British atomic relations on the basis of the Joint Communiqué, which it was proposed should be released following the receipt of American-British reaction to:

(a) An increase in the Congo uranium export tax of no more than 175 francs per kilo (roughly $1.75 per lb.), the proceeds from which would be devoted to the support of a Belgian atomic energy program and such related industrial developments as were considered advisable.

(b) Construction by the Belgian Government of a plant in the Congo to reduce uranium ores to a stage no further than green salts.

3. We replied to the Belgians that:

(a) We could not give a sensible opinion on the export tax in the absence of a more detailed description of the Belgian atomic energy program, although on the face of it, the tax seemed excessive.

(b) Furthermore, the determination of a reasonable tax appeared dependent upon a more detailed examination into the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed Congo reduction plant.

We, therefore, proposed that Belgian atomic energy liaison officers (provided for in the Joint Communiqué) be sent immediately to London and Washington for further consultation on these points as well as to facilitate Belgian access to CPC technical data (also provided for in the Joint Communiqué) about to be declassified regarding certain American-British-Canadian research reactors.

4. In October, Mr. Sengier of Union Minière came to Washington to discuss with the CDA means of speeding up an increase in Union Minière’s uranium production. As a result of these talks, a price increase of 50¢ was granted Union Minière to offset the added cost of working the mines at a higher but less economic pace of operations to assure the desired increase in production. It was assumed that the Belgian Government would be informed by Union Minière of this price adjustment, inasmuch as the Belgian Ambassador here stated that Mr. Sengier had advised him of the increase.

5. In the middle of November, we proposed to Mr. Van Zeeland that the Joint Communiqué, on the contents of which there is full agreement, be released on December 1, even though agreement had not been reached on Points (a) and (b) under 2 above. Our thinking was that since an understanding on these points might take some time to achieve, Mr. Van Zeeland would at least be able to respond to parliamentary pressure for information re the Congo uranium situation, and, secondly, that the CPC research reactor declassification announcement of November 24² provided a logical development with which to identify the release of the Communiqué.

6. Mr. Van Zeeland turned down this proposal rather brusquely. He did, however, send Professor M. deHemptinne to Washington and Professor Ledrus to London as liaison officers.

7. More recently we have been informed that Mr. Pierre Ryckmans is being appointed head of a proposed Belgian Atomic Energy Commission.

8. Mr. Van Zeeland also recently expressed shock to Ambassador Murphy that an increase in price had been granted to Union Minière without prior coordination with the Belgian Government. In reply to this surprising remark, Ambassador Murphy stated that he was unable to understand the Foreign Minister’s cause for surprise, since the world price of all metals has increased and Union Minière is faced with financing increased production, which is expensive. (As indicated under 4 above, the real reason for the price increase was based on this latter factor.) The Ambassador pointed out that the CDA was thus in a position to justify a price increase for uranium, whereas an increase of the uranium export tax without supporting figures justifying such an increase, was another matter.

9. Mr. Van Zeeland replied that he feared unfavorable political repercussions if an increase for Union Minière and not for the Government became known. However, he would attempt to hold the line until Mr. Ryckmans was installed as head of a Belgian Atomic Energy Commission and could develop a program which would provide a breakdown of supporting figures of atomic energy expenses.

10. The Belgian liaison officer, Professor deHemptinne, has stated that, pending the official appointment of Mr. Ryckmans, he had no official views to express on the export tax or the Congo plant. He has, however, received advice and newly declassified data from the AEC concerning three possible types of research reactors around which the Belgians may wish to build their atomic energy program. The Commission advised Professor deHemptinne that it would give sympathetic consideration to making available to the Belgians at an appropriate time the materials needed for a reactor, e.g., purified uranium, enriched uranium, graphite or heavy water, depending upon which type of reactor the Belgians might choose to build. We consider that such an offer would involve assistance of genuine value to the Belgians. For his part, deHemptinne appears well satisfied with the results of his visit here. He is returning to Brussels on December 16.

Recommendations

1. That you do not broach the subject of uranium with Mr. Van Zeeland. If, however, the latter raises the question, you inform him that the United States and the United Kingdom are agreeable to the release of the Joint Communiqué whenever the Belgians concur. We would also be happy to have further consultations on the subject of the export tax and the Congo reduction plant at any time the Belgians name.

2. If Mr. Van Zeeland should complain again about the price rise granted Union Minière, it is suggested that you emphasize: (a) the fact that this rise is to cover the additional expenses Union Minière must bear in meeting the stepped up uranium production schedule we feel is called for in view of the gravity of the international situation, (b) that the American Government has had no reason to believe that the Belgian Government was not being kept informed by Mr. Sengier of the CDA–Union Minière price developments, and (c) with reference to the proposed export tax, it has always been your understanding that the Belgian Government has desired that consideration of this question should not disturb in any way the existing contractual relations between Union Minière and the CDA.³

Mr. Perkins, who is familiar with the course of these negotiations through his participation in them, concurs with the above recommendations and will be available to advise you on any additional points that may arise. A copy of this memorandum is being furnished Mr. Perkins and Ambassador Murphy in Brussels.

R. Gordon Arneson

1. Secretary Acheson attended the Sixth Session of the North Atlantic Council, Brussels, December 18–19.
2. On November 24, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission released a statement indicating that the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada had adopted a revised declassification guide which permitted the publication of certain information necessary to the design, construction, and operation of specified low-power nuclear reactors used for research purposes. For text of the press release, see Department of State Bulletin, December 25, 1950, p. 1020.
3. In telegram 1028, December 21, Murphy reported that Foreign Minister Van Zeeland did not raise the question of uranium during the Secretary’s visit (855A.2546/12–2150).