740.5/4–2751: Telegram
The Ambassador in Belgium ( Murphy ) to the Secretary of State 1
1728. Personal for Cabot. Van Zeeland asked me to call on him yesterday for discussion of Belgian defense effort. He said he wanted to understand more clearly American position and in what way, if any, Belgium was not meeting its commitments. He seemed genuinely concerned over criticisms which have come to his attention during recent weeks and about which he seems to have been kept reasonably well informed by Belgian Emb Washington. He also referred to my speech of Apr 16 before Flemish Econ Association (see despatch number 1328).2 He reviewed Belgian position including familiar topics of Belgian passage of 24-month draft bill, General Eisenhower’s satisfaction with Belgian forces program, his own scheme which was submitted to Council of Deputies in Jan looking to multilateral financing scheme for mil production3 and repeated Belgian statements made to Marshal Montgomery and others to effect that Belgium will meet its commitments and contribute its proper share to NATO collective effort.
I carefully reviewed factors entering into thinking as I understood it in Washington stressing obligation under which competent agencies of govt are to demonstrate to Congress in its consideration of mil assistance program, that European beneficiaries are doing their part. Van Zeeland’s arguments ran in well worn groove that Belgian commitments under MTDP4 and as member of NATO will [Page 274] be performed emphasizing lower costs for Belgian soldiers, calculation of certain budgetary items which differs from US and other countries, the existence of industrial potential which is more important than is case in some other countries is not an adequate reason for Belgium to bear a larger share than some NATO partners, etc. I told him that US in speeding its production of mil equipment at a rate which I gather from public press amounts to as much as 4 billion dollars of new orders monthly is not based on calculation of what other members of NATO are doing but on a more liberal calculation of what American national income can support. US not satisfied to await necessary collective decision in this respect. He said that Belgium cld not afford to authorize production of items which it might later find are not acceptable or needed. I pointed out that according to info given me by ISAC over 700 items have been approved by the standard group and that there was ample room for production of many items which cld be used both by Belgian forces as well as other members of NATO. Van Zeeland insisted that it was not possible for Belgium to do more on a national basis than it is now doing and that what is needed is a collective financing plan similar to what he proposed in Dec to Council of Deputies, NATO.5
Van Zeeland gave voluble assurances of his eagerness to promote Belgian defense preparations in a more expeditious fashion and asked for specific statement of US views as to what shld be done.
I informed Van Zeeland that I hoped to give him a memorandum shortly (what I had in mind is text which was under preparation in ISAC when I left Dept and which I understand wld be available about time of my return to Brussels).6 It wld be appreciated if Dept cld provide this statement as soon as possible. It wld have been most useful to have had it today.
- Repeated to London for Spofford, and to Paris for OSR and MacArthur (SHAPE).↩
- Not printed. The speech was generally critical of the Belgian defense effort.↩
- The Van Zeeland memorandum on this subject was summarized in the first meeting of the NATO Council Deputies on January 4 and circulated in that body as Council Deputies document D–D (51) 1. A copy of D–D (51) 1 is in the Department of State NATO Sub-Registry. For a summary and comment on the memo, see telegram Depto 385 from London, January 4, vol. iii, Part 1, p. 10.↩
- The Medium-Term Defense Plan was a 4-year schedule of NATO country contributions for the defense of Western Europe, approved by the North Atlantic Council Defense Committee in 1950. For documentation on the multilateral aspects of NATO organization and finance, see Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. iii, pp. 1 ff. and ibid., 1951, vol. iii, Part 1, pp. 1 ff.↩
- Reference is to the memorandum described in footnote 3 above.↩
- The memorandum referred to here, or at least its substance, is presumably the message transmitted on May 4 to Brussels in telegram 1466, infra.↩