Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Western European Integration and Security, Canada, Volume VII, Part 1

53. Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission at the European Coal and Steel Community⁰

April 1, 1959, 4:50 p.m.

Luxco 301. 1. State–AEC–ExIm Bank Euratom Program Committee extensively reviewed recently concluded meetings Brussels with particular attention present state US–Euratom relations and prospects for future. Conclusion group is that while we must take in account normal organizational difficulties of new Community and be sensitive to Euratom’s special status as novel political entity, nonetheless successful implementation of program requires objective analysis of situation.

2. Consensus AEC ExIm Bank participants is that to considerable extent last year’s spirit of cooperation in pursuit of joint program has faded, at least for moment. Agreed that atmosphere improved latter stage recent meetings as reflected Ecbus 252.¹ Felt that difficulties in large part are result unsatisfactory organization on Euratom side. Expect Hirsch to change this situation materially. AEC–Exim reps believe however that major deficiency is fact no senior Euratom staff officer appears have been assigned clear-cut responsibility for joint program. This has led in number of important instances to uncoordinated conflicting policy statements by various Euratom division heads, viz: (1) difference of opinion expressed by Vogelaar and Consolo on points at issue in loan agreement² (2) different attitudes and approach Stijkel and Gueron regarding administration and contractual procedures for R and D program and reactor program despite fact same approach necessary for orderly administration.³ Also concern expressed about decisions being made and unmade as result individual officers going directly to one or several Euratom Commissioners.

3. It should be stressed that above appraisal is not intended as carping criticism of Euratom but stems from sincere desire US side improve situation which unless remedied could have serious implications for success joint program.

4. Floberg and Hall will wish discuss foregoing problems with Hirsch in course April 14 and 15 meetings. Agencies appreciate your comments on paras 1 and 2 (and subsequently those of Hirsch) and also recommendations on steps US might take to end of most effective management of joint program. Believe important, if you agree with above assessment, that foregoing be discussed by you with Hirsch to lay groundwork for frank and fruitful Hirsch–Floberg talks.⁴

Herter

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 840.1901/4–159. Confidential. Drafted by Schaetzel and approved by Farley who initialed for Herter. Repeated to Brussels.
1. In this telegram, March 23, Butterworth reported from Brussels on discussions between U.S. and EURATOM officials on the mechanics of cooperation in the transfer of nuclear information and technology. (ibid., 840.1901/3–2359)
2. The EURATOM representatives objected strongly to the lien provisions of the draft loan agreement as well as to specific choices of wording. Butterworth summarized these objections in Ecbus 312, March 12. (ibid., 840.1901/3–1259)
3. Butterworth reported EURATOM objections to wording in the AEC draft which would have a serious impact on the nascent European nuclear equipment manufacturing industry in Ecbus 172, February 11. (ibid., 840.1901/2–1159)
4. The meetings took place April 14–15 in Brussels. The Mission at the European Communities in Brussels reported the substance of the talks in Ecbus 304, April 18. (ibid., 840.1901/4–1859)