Secretary’s Memoranda of Conversation, lot 64 D 199
Minutes of a Meeting Held in the Office of the Under Secretary of State, Friday, November 12, 1954, 11:10 a.m.
Present:
- For Belgium—
- Foreign Minister Spaak1
- Governor Ryckmans
- Baron Silvercruys, Belgian Ambassador
- Mr. Rothschild, Aide to the Prime Minister
- Mr. Julien Goens, Belgium Scientific Attaché
- For the United Kingdom—
- Sir Robert Scott, British Minister
- Mr. E. E. Tomkins, First Secretary, British Embassy
- For the United States—
- Under Secretary Hoover
- Chairman Strauss, AEC
- Mr. John A. Hall, AEC
- Mr. Gerard C. Smith, S/AE
Admiral Strauss opened up by referring to the superb cooperation which the Belgians had given to the United States in connection with the raw materials for our weapons program. He then analyzed the paper entitled “Principles to be Incorporated in a Memorandum of Cooperation with the Belgian Government,” a copy of which was left with Mr. Spaak.2
Sir Robert Scott then associated his Government with the tribute paid by Admiral Strauss to Belgian cooperation. He in turn submitted an informal paper to Mr. Spaak, stating that the United Kingdom agreed in principle with the basic points in the United States memorandum.
Mr. Spaak asked if it was contemplated that there would be two agreements, a Belgian-United States agreement and a Belgian-United Kingdom agreement. Admiral Strauss replied in the affirmative, adding “even if the agreements were identical.”
Governor Ryckmans asked if it was contemplated that the agreements would be given publicity. Admiral Strauss replied in the affirmative, pointing out that an exception should be made for such parts of the agreements which might be sensitive from the point of view of United States or United Kingdom security, or Belgian internal considerations.
Governor Ryckmans then pointed out the difficulty of keeping production figures secret in view of taxation and budgetary tie-ins which perforce have to be public. Admiral Strauss stated that he recognized this difficulty, but thought our policy should be to make it as difficult as possible for the Russians to obtain an evaluation of Belgian Congo production.
Governor Ryckmans then asked how the United States proposed to treat the question of Belgium’s future needs in the event that the uranium was not needed any longer for free world strategic defense.
Mr. Hall answered that it was proposed that the United States, for the term of the new contract (ten years), sell Belgium its requirements for uranium metal and enriched material. Mr. Strauss [Page 1557] then explained, for Mr. Spaak’s benefit, what constituted enriched material. It was pointed out that this offer to sell enriched materials was a sharp change from past United States policy and was a very valuable right which Belgium would have for ten years, regardless of whether or not Shinkolobwe production continued.
Mr. Speak pointed out the Belgian internal political situation requiring that the Belgian negotiators provide for the contingency that the day might come when Belgian uranium was not needed for strategic purposes and Belgium had stripped itself of its uranium by sales to the United States and the United Kingdom.
Governor Ryckmans pointed out that while recognizing the importance of the United States offer to sell enriched material, it only covered annual requirements of Belgium for actual power reactors and research reactors, and that what Belgium wanted was reemption rights for larger quantities to stockpile against the day that its mine would bottom-out. He argued that Belgium had two choices, (1) to retain a part of current production for Belgian stockpiling, or (2) to permit that part to be stockpiled, in the United States, in weapons form, subject to a right of reemption in Belgium.
Mr. Spaak asked if this matter could not be covered by a clause in the contract to the effect that Belgium’s obligation to supply uranium under the contract would cease in the event of a disarmament treaty.
Governor Ryckmans pointed out that unlike normal armaments, uranium in weapons form also constituted a great investment for peacetime uses.
Admiral Strauss pointed out that it should be kept in mind that not only was Belgium getting current payment for its uranium sales, but also was getting the security which American weapons strength offered.
Sir Robert Scott pointed out the significance of the access to United States and United Kingdom technology which this contract would offer the Belgians, even if Shinkolobwe bottomed-out during the life of the contract.
Mr. Spaak indicated that he felt two provisions would be desirable: (1) a provision permitting the Belgians to buy back some percentage of production under the contract in the event that it was no longer needed for strategic purposes, and (2) a provision that a disarmament treaty would justify a renegotiation of the contract.
Governor Ryckmans pointed out the possibility that Belgium’s right to buy enriched material for its needs should be greater in the event that no reemption right for stockpiling purposes was agreed upon.
[Page 1558]Sir Robert Scott pointed out that the provision for annual review of Belgian requirements seemed to protect Belgium against the contingency which was giving it concern.
Governor Ryckmans pointed out that in a few years state central banks may be buying uranium as they now buy gold, and he pointed out how awkward it would be if Belgium, a prime producer of uranium, did not have at such time a right to buy back some of its uranium.
Mr. Hoover pointed out that Belgium should consider the value of the saving in investment accruing to Belgium by the United States offer to enrich Belgian uranium and supply the enriched material to meet Belgian needs.
Admiral Strauss again emphasized the value of a continuing call which Belgium would have under the proposed contract on United States enriched material. He mentioned that no other nation was in such a preferred position.
Mr. Spaak asked if the United States and the United Kingdom could now sell uranium.
Admiral Strauss answered in the affirmative, but pointed out that as a matter of practice, requests from abroad for uranium had been referred to Belgium, citing the recent sale to the Swiss. Mr. Spaak said that he had heard of a recent Norway case which was handled differently. Mr. Strauss stated flatly that the United States was not selling uranium to anybody, adding that the present statutory authority to export uranium was drawn to permit United States participation in the President’s pool.
Mr. Smith suggested that possibly the Belgian concern might be met by a provision giving them the first refusal on any uranium which the United States might sell abroad in the future.
Mr. Spaak suggested that his Government study carefully the two memoranda and meet with the United States and the United Kingdom in the very near future.
Mr. Strauss suggested that members of the staff of the three countries involved see if something could be worked out to meet the Belgian point about stockpiling for its “future needs.”3
- Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak was in the United States to represent Belgium at the Ninth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.↩
- No copy has been found in Department of State files.↩
The source text is accompanied by an additional memorandum of conversation, prepared by Gerard Smith and dated Nov. 12, which reads:
↩“After the meeting with Foreign Minister Spaak, Mr. Hoover, Mr. Strauss, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Smith remained in Mr. Hoover’s office. Mr. Strauss suggested that Mr. Hall and Mr. Smith attempt to draft a provision for the proposed contract which would provide for a complete review of the contract in the event that a disarmament program was adopted.”
Note:
“Mr. Smith was later advised that, at a luncheon on November 12, Adm. Strauss again spoke to Mr. Spaak about this matter and suggested the following provision: Should the circumstances of world utilization of atomic energy be substantially altered during the life of the Agreement, the three governments will undertake to reexamine the bases of this arrangement. Mr. Spaak is reported to have expressed the belief that such a provision would solve his parliamentary difficulties at home.” (Secretary’s Memoranda of Conversation, lot 64 D 199)