ATOMIC ENERGY


555


Energy Act'of 1946 could not give. The Belgians, therefore, expressed
considerable disappointment over the Memorandum of Conversation
which was presented to them on February 9, 1950 13 outlining the type
of unclassified assistance the United States and the United Kingdom
felt could be afforded Belgium under present circumstances.
  Belgian Foreign Minister Van Zeeland voiced this disappointment
in a personalmessage tothe Secretary of State 14 requesting the latter's
intervention in arriving at an agreement more favorable to the Belgian
Government.
  In reply, the Secretary explained the American position and pro-
posed a text for a Joint Communiqu6 summarizing the background:
of the talks and the maximum assistance which the United States and
the United Kingdom were prepared to render at this time.'5 After
presenting the message to Mr. Van Zeeland, Ambassador Murphy
informed him orally (1) that as soon as future developments or any
change in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 occurred which might make
possible further assistance along the lines proposed by Belgium, the-
United States would give sympathetic consideration to Belgian wishes,
and (2) that we would be willing to consider making a suitable finan-
cial contribution toward-Belgium's efforts in the field of atomic re-
search as soon as a more detailed program had been worked out.
   Mr. Van Zeeland was also informed that the United States and ther
United Kingdom were aware of the fact that he must answer an inter-
pellation on March 7th in the Belgian Senate regarding Belgian Congoý
uranium, and-that the Communique had been drafted with this neces-
sity in mind,.
   Mr. Van Zeeland subsequently accepted the Communique, subject
 to formal approval of-the Belgian Cabinet, and proposed publication
 time for March 7 at 10 a. m. Prior thereto, however, Mr. Van Zeeland
 requested that the, date- of publication be postponed until 'further
 notice, since additional time was required by the Belgian Cabinet for
 considering certain suggestions it wished to make in connection with,
 the Communique, even though the latter was acceptable in principle.,
 On March 7, therefore, Mr. Van Zeeland answered the Belgian Senateý
 interpellation by referring to Mr. Spaak's previous statement on this
 subject and promising a more detailed reply when-negotiations-were
 finally concluded.
   On March 10, the Belgian Ambassador in Washingoton conveyed
 to the Department certain points which Mr. Van Zeel-and wished the
 Secretary of State to agree to as a condition of final Belgian accept,
 "3Not -printed.
 1 Message of February 17, p. 528.
 '5 For Secretary Acheson's reply, see telegram 243 to Brussels, February
22Z
 p. 531.