212. Telegram From the Secretary of State to the Embassy in Belgium1
953. 1. Re Embtel 827.2 We have appreciated logic of Six Nations individually preserving “first option” over nuclear material produced [Page 506] indigenously or covered by bilateral arrangements in existence prior to EURATOM treaty coming into force. However, new Dutch proposal continuance bilateral procurement strikes at heart of one of original and central objectives of EURATOM, viz., that authority and responsibility of EURATOM over all nuclear material within Community would be complete thus providing assurance that this material would be under effective, common control, subject of course to whatever arrangements are negotiated between the EURATOM and U.S.
2. We appreciate negotiating difficulties of Six and are prepared to consider treaty on its merits. Yet, AEC and Department both concerned erosive process apparently going on Brussels Conference. Quite apart from degree to which emerging treaty may meet aspirations and hopes European supporters of integration, there arises narrower question whether compromises and reservations of national states may not so enfeeble EURATOM that it can not hope undertake type of major program outlined Wise Men Report (Luxco 1123).
3. Embassy Brussels should inform Spaak or Rothschild, in answer to their request for our views of our increasing concern over developments in treaty drafting, reminding them that U.S. offer to cooperate more liberally on a multilateral basis was conditioned on the Europeans creating an integrated Community with effective common authority and responsibility. Addressees should in their discretion inform governments at appropriate senior level that we have given these views to Spaak, making clear this was in response to his request for them.
4. Embassy The Hague in raising general problem outlined above should express our especial concern over recent Dutch proposal mentioned by Rothschild (Brussels 827).4
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 840.1901/1–2357. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Schaetzel and approved by Elbrick. Repeated for information to London, Paris, Luxembourg, Bonn, Rome, and The Hague.↩
- Telegram 827, January 23, reported a recent conversation between Rothschild and an Embassy officer. It reads in part as follows: “Embassy officer asked Rothschild point-blank if EURATOM watering down process had not gone so far as to make it likely there would be little real difference between EURATOM and OEEC approach to Nuclear Energy Organization. Rothschild strongly denied that whittling down process had been carried that far and pointed out while French had won concessions with respect military program and use their own uranium ores, they had taken strong stand against diminution EURATOM authority outside EURATOM internal framework and stringent controls would be applicable all parts program. He did not have to elaborate further.” (Ibid.)↩
- The reference should be to Colux 112, January 8, which summarized the proposed program of the “Wise Men.” (Ibid., 840.1901/1–857)↩
-
In telegram 153 from Luxembourg, January 25, Chargé William H. Christensen informed the Department as follows:
“I conveyed to Bech substance Department’s views to Spaak. He reiterated ‘full appreciation’ US position adding ‘it only makes sense’ for US to want to deal with integrated community. In expressing chagrin with Dutch proposal Bech remarked that other corrosion taking place and there appears to be tendency in favor of OEEC concept. He could not detail corrosive influences but remarked his Minister for Economic Affairs telephoned him today to predict that forthcoming Ministers meeting would achieve considerably less than what was hoped for as result of ‘reservations’ which were coming to fore recently.
“Bech greatly concerned over position in France and referring to recent 100 plus majority vote received by Mollet re common market in chamber stated that it represented ‘merely political majority and not European majority.’” (Ibid., 840.00/1–2557)
↩