Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Western European Security and Integration, Volume IV

220. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, February 8, 1957¹

Washington, February 8, 1957

SUBJECT

• EURATOM and Related Questions

PARTICIPANTS:

• The Secretary
• Admiral Strauss
• Mr. Elbrick
• Mr. Bowie
• Ambassador Butterworth
• Mr. Smith
• Mr. Timmons
• Mr. Cleveland
• Foreign Minister Spaak
• Ambassador Silvercruys
• Mr. Rothschild
• Mr. van der Meulen
• Mr. Armand (at the conclusion)
• Mr. Etzel (at the conclusion)
• Mr. Giordani (at the conclusion)
• Mr. Kohnstamm (at the conclusion)

1. The Secretary welcomed Mr. Spaak,² and stated his encouragement at the progress which had been made at the Brussels talks and his hope that they would concluded soon. Mr. Spaak said that he hoped and believed so; the only major question still outstanding concerned the inclusion of overseas territories in the European Common Market. He had every hope that this would be successfully dealt with at the proposed meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Six countries in Paris on February 19. The Secretary also reiterated his pleasure at Mr. Spaak’s forthcoming assumption of his duties as Secretary-General of NATO, which Mr. Spaak said would take place after the Spring Ministerial Meeting of NATO in Bonn. In this connection, the Secretary remarked that he might not be able to attend that meeting; Mr. Spaak indicated his regret, but the matter was not pursued further.

2. Mr. Spaak said that the purpose of his visit was to raise two questions with the United States Government in relation with the EURATOM negotiations which were now nearing completion. The first concerned the attitude of the United States towards the EURATOM Treaty in its present form, with particular reference to whether the Treaty provided an adequate basis for future cooperation between the United States and EURATOM. The second concerned the Belgian interpretation of certain articles of their present bilateral agreement with the United States in the light of the EURATOM Treaty, with particular reference to the ability of Belgium to make available Congo uranium to her EURATOM partners.

3. With respect to the Treaty, Mr. Spaak made clear that he was not speaking for the Six, but that the Belgian Government and he personally wished to assure themselves that there was nothing in the present text of the Treaty which would pose on obstacle to fruitful relations between the United States and EURATOM; if there were, he felt it important that he and the other negotiators should be warned in time so that they could make any necessary adjustments in the Treaty, as he felt that the future relationship with the United States was one of the indispensable elements of EURATOM’s success. Mr. Spaak continued that while the Treaty was not entirely what he had at first intended, because the negotiators had to take account of the French political problem on the question of military uses, it was in his opinion a good Treaty, and he felt it provided a sound basis for cooperation. The Secretary replied that he had not himself been able to study the Treaty, and that he understood that our picture of it was incomplete because of the rapidly-moving changes which had been made during the past few weeks. The Secretary (and later Admiral Strauss as well) assured Mr. Spaak that we would do our best to give him a reply on this point as soon as we could. Mr. Spaak said he would appreciate this, and hoped that it would be possible shortly, as the final decisions on EURATOM were scheduled to be taken at a ministerial meeting in Paris on February 17 or 18.

4. At several points in the conversation Mr. Spaak reiterated his view that the decision to permit military uses of atomic energy (or rather not to forbid them) was unfortunate but politically indispensable. He pointed out that the maintenance of at least a theoretical possibility to engage in the weapons program was the price which had to be paid to the moderate Right in France for their support of EURATOM and also of the Common Market. He said this decision had been arrived at reluctantly by M. Mollet, who as we knew was opposed to a military program and had initially favored a renunciation of military uses by the Six countries. Mr. Spaak pointed out that under the Treaty military uses would be subject to the same strict control and inspection as civil uses, up to the point of the actual fabrication of a bomb. His hope was that provided the treaty did not formally prevent the French from engaging in military production, they would not in fact carry out a military program, in particular because of the very high cost involved. As long as Mollet was in power, he was sure that the French would not get seriously into an atomic weapons business.

5. The Secretary asked Mr. Spaak where the ownership problem stood. Mr. Spaak replied that the Treaty did not mention ownership. With respect to ownership of material obtained from the United States the EURATOM Commission would be in a position to retain title. The same would be true of materials produced in common enterprises. The case which was not covered was that of a private institution which produced plutonium in a reactor; as it stood at present, such a company could hold the material, dispose of it to EURATOM or sell to friendly countries outside the Community. In explaining why he had not supported the French in their desire to provide for complete ownership by EURATOM of all fissionable materials, Mr. Spaak maintained that the French themselves had created the dilemma when they insisted on the right to engage in military uses. This had created a practical difficulty, as it was hard to conceive of EURATOM’s holding title to material which had been fabricated into a bomb. Mr. Smith commented at the Secretary’s request that in the United States our whole philosophy of internal control over fissionable material was based on Government ownership and that to us it was unconventional to think of a different concept of holding material. While we did not take a firm position that we could not cooperate with EURATOM unless the Treaty provided for common ownership, we would certainly be happier if it did so. With respect to the practical problem which Mr. Spaak had mentioned in connection with a possible French weapons program, Mr. Smith asked whether it would not be possible to have EURATOM retain ownership up to the point where control of fissionable material passed from its hands into those of WEU. Mr. Spaak appeared to find this an interesting idea, but did not comment directly upon it.

6. With respect to the Belgian bilateral, Mr. Spaak asked whether Belgium would be free after 1960 to make her entire uranium production available to EURATOM. Secondly, he was interested to know if we had any objection to Belgium’s making available to EURATOM before 1960 the remainder of her material after the Union Minière had fulfilled its obligation to the Combined Development Agency under the agreement. Mr. Spaak pointed out with respect to the first problem that if the United States wished to continue purchasing uranium after 1960 it could of course have discussions directly with EURATOM. At the Secretary’s request Mr. Smith replied that while this was a matter to which the Atomic Energy Commission would have to speak, he believed that there should be no insuperable difficulty. He pointed out that the problem of availability of natural uranium was principally a short-term, one after which the supply could be such more plentiful; the Canadians anticipated fairly soon a production of natural uranium much greater than that of the Belgian Congo. Following Admiral Strauss’ arrival, Mr. Spaak repeated the question. Admiral Strauss indicated that EURATOM requirements for enriched uranium under the program which the “Wise Men” had in mind would in any case be so large that they would require quantities of enriched material from the United States which would have to be based on other sources over and above Congo. He therefore did not think that we would find Mr. Spaak’s suggestion objectionable.

Following the meeting with Mr. Spaak, Messrs. Armand, Etzel, Giordani and Kohnstamm joined the meeting. The Secretary said that he hoped they had found their stay in Washington a fruitful one. Messrs. Giordani, Etzel and Armand each replied that they had, and thanked the Secretary and Admiral Strauss. Mr. Etzel indicated that he felt they had made great progress in their task as a result of their conversations here. The Secretary said he was happy to have had the opportunity to discuss the EURATOM Treaty with Mr. Spaak. He hoped that the Six countries would be able to move ahead on the project and thus mark the beginning of a new era in this field of development. Admiral Strauss agreed, and expressed his personal pleasure at having had the opportunity to meet with the three “Wise Men” and Mr. Kohnstamm. Mr. Spaak commented that he had thought the communiqué² excellent, and asked when the three intended to make their report. Mr. Giordani replied that as a result of the talks they had had here, the AEC had offered the close cooperation of some of its technical people. The “Wise Men” felt it would not be wise to make a report without having all the material they could gather. They hoped to able to start soon on the report itself, and to have it ready for submission by the end of March.³

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 840.1901/2–857. Confidential. Drafted by Cleveland.
2. Foreign Minister Spaak was in Washington for a 2-day visit, February 8–9, to discuss matters of mutual concern between the United States and Belgium.
2. For text of the communiqué, issued on February 8 by the Department of State, the Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and the EURATOM Committee, see Department of State Bulletin, February 25, 1957, p. 307.
3. Telegram 2233 to Bonn, February 12, also sent to the Embassies in the other five ECSC countries as well as London, reported on the 5-day visit of the EURATOM Wise Men to Washington. (Department of State, Central Files, 840.1901/2–1257) Telegram 2272 to Bonn, February 16, also sent to the Embassies in the other five ECSC countries as well as London, summarized the discussions held during Spaak’s visit to Washington. (Ibid., 840.1901/2–1657)