740.5/10–3151: Telegram
The Ambassador in Belgium (Millard) to the Acting Secretary of State 1
616. Re Eur army—in reply to my questions Van Zeeland, who had been unable to receive me until today, gave me fol info: Benelux talk on Eur army was only an exchange of views and no decisions reached. He described these views as “parallel.”
He said for several weeks he had been urging, thus far without success, that the Mins of EDF countries shld meet to exchange views. Technical comites had been discussing details based on working paper on which, as he had explained at Ottawa, he reserved his position. Some of the recommendations arrived at in technical comites met with his approval; others did not.
He insisted that his position vis-à-vis EDF was not changed either one way or another. He is in favor EDF. He fully agrees on basic force units but wld not accept a Eur Def Min since this implied powers equal to that of Mins of EDF countries. He did not like the idea of an assembly as he considered that this wld waste time but if the others insisted he wld reluctantly consent.
He wants an EDF org analogous to NATO and Council of Eur, controlled by Mins. These Mins in turn cld appoint commissioners but there need not necessarily be one for each country.
He had instructed Belg reps on technical commissions to withhold further expression of views until he cld obtain consent of EDF Mins to an exchange of views between them.
Asked how Schuman felt on such exchange of views, he said he did not know as he had as yet recd no reply. He did not think there was necessarily any wide divergence of opinion between the various Mins but was most positive he wld not move further until such exchange of views cld take place. He did not foresee difficulty in arriving at mutually agreeable conclusions at such mtg, after which directives cld be sent to technical comites and the work cld proceed.
He said several times it is the method, not the objective, which he is against. Technical comites had proceeded too far without directives and he regarded this as putting cart before horse and running the danger of arriving at a point where govts wld be confronted with a take it or leave it situation with injury to whole scheme and embarrassment to all govts concerned not only to Belg.
Van Zeeland expects to proceed to Paris afternoon Nov 5 and hoped mtg cld be held that evening or on Nov 6; adding that mtg cld be informal if the Mins so prefer.
[Page 908]Asked re effect the Dutch position wld have on Belg, he said it wld be very difficult for Belg to go along without Dutch. He wld like to see Brit and Scandinavian countries included.
Except as stated above that in gen Belg and Dutch views were “parallel,” I was unable to draw out of him any specific statement regarding reported Belg fear that EDF might be expanded into polit and econ fields far beyond the original concept as mentioned in The Hague’s tel 28 October 30.2
Asked re chances of approval by Belg Parl of EDF, he said provided his major thesis of control by Mins wld be agreed upon, he regarded chances of passage in Parl as 6 or 7 to 10.
Asked reviews on whether the Belg constitution wld have to be amended, Van Zeeland said in his opinion, and it wld be position of his govt, EDF is neither provided for nor prohibited by the constitution and that Parl cld properly approve Belg participation in EDF. It wld be “hopeless” he added, to attempt amendment of constitution before passage of necessary legislation, but advocated such amendment later to clear up any doubts as to constitutionality of EDF and Schuman plan (latter reported separate tel).