755.5–MSP/12–2251: Telegram
The Chargé in Belgium ( Millard ) to the Secretary of State 1
858. Toisa. In view of fact that Belg negots TCC 2 and elsewhere have cited Belg defense build-up as chief basis for Belg claim that Belg is appropriately sharing NATO burden, recommend Dept inquire urgently whether exact or approx figures regarding US contribution to Belg def build-up through MDAP end-item program and deliveries can be given Belg Govt officials on unclassified or confidential basis.
From reports thus far recd from Paris, Belg strength in TCC negots rested mainly on Belg’s considerable milit force build-up. Apparently also the Belg case based largely on the build-up of Belg milit strength was challenged from point of view of its being financially as much Amer as Belg accomplishment. Instead Exec Board TCC apparently generally disregarded this factor and returned to position that exercise was largely concerned with closing financial gaps.
In actual fact financial burden for programmed Belg milit contribution to NATO is approx equally shared by the US and Belg, i.e. the cost of programmed US end items under MDAP is somewhat larger than all milit costs as yet projected by Belg Govt.
Rptd instructions have prevented Emb from revealing total cost of MDAP aid.
Because costs borne by US through end-item programming and deliveries have never been made known to Belg Govt, few if any Belg Govt officials aside top milit leaders have any concept of magnitude [Page 290] US financial contribution to Belg def build-up. For this reason Belg Govt polit and financial leaders, at least in public statements and NATO negots, have present belief milit effort as almost purely Belg accomplishment, stand obviously over-valuing at least Belg financial contribution to build-up. In addition such leaders apparently do not understand legitimate interest of US in increased Belg financial contribution and do not understand failure US elements to be impressed by Belg effort.
Emb believes Belg officials ultimately, and perhaps soon, will be much more amenable to US objectives if informed of total cost of US end item program, and recommends Dept inquire into question of whether Belg officials may be given exact or approx figures. Emb believes accomplishment full US objectives TCC and other negots very difficult unless Belg negots may be made to understand above facts.
Furthermore, even if Belg Govt officials cld be made aware of these facts, Belg Govt, particularly present weak govt,3 will face difficulty in finding enough Parliamentary and public support to be able to provide increase in Belg effort that “burden-sharing facts” require unless these facts, at least in gen terms, can be given to Belg public. Belg negative TCC position has been strongly supported by all sectors Belg press on basis Belg is already well ahead of other NATO partners. If publication of true facts re costs can be made without impairing US security objectives, Emb believes that chances of mtg both NATO and UK objectives will be greatly enhanced.
Even if “burden-sharing facts” cannot be given public, Emb strongly recommends Dept exert pressure for authority release such facts to appropriate Belg Govt officials on confidential basis. ECA concurs, MAAG concurs subj to Def approval re release program figures to public.
- Repeated to London for Spofford, and to Paris for OSR and USDel TCC.↩
- Reference is to negotiations conducted in Paris in December based upon the results of the NATO Temporary Council Committee (TCC) studies of each NATO participant’s potential defense contribution as measured against its actual performance. For documentation on the formation and activities of the TCC, see vol. iii, Part 1, pp. 1 ff.↩
- This appraisal of the government of the Social Christian Party is in part explained by a brief discussion of the party’s leadership problems sent to London for Spofford, Paris for MacArthur, and to Washington as despatch 761 from Brussels, December 20. (755.00/12–2051)↩