Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western Europe and Canada, Volume VI, Part 1

840.00/3–1952

No. 23
The Secretary of State to Foreign Minister Van Zeeland¹

secret
priority

Washington, March 26, 1952.

My Dear Mr. Van Zeeland: I share your deep concern at the disturbing economic developments which you outlined to me in your letter of March 15.² It is particularly discouraging to find reappearing again problems which we had thought were well on the road to solution. I am nevertheless hopeful that a further deterioration in the economic situation in Western Europe can be avoided and that once again new impetus will be given to the upward economic trend which, despite setbacks, has characterized our joint efforts since the War. I fully agree with you that many of the difficult problems with which we are at the moment confronted, such as the extreme creditor and debtor positions of some countries in the EPU and the retrogression in trade liberalization, require more intensive international action. In this connection, I have given much thought to your suggestion for a meeting of certain Foreign Secretaries but I question whether such a meeting at this time would be the best means of making rapid progress on these problems. The areas where further joint action is required seem to me to be quite well delineated, and I am inclined to feel that at the present time it would be better to direct our efforts toward encouraging greater efforts through the existing organizational arrangements.

As you know, we are hopeful that at the OEEC Council meeting which begins on March 27 the necessary decisions will be taken so that that Organization can address itself more effectively to the problems of internal financial stability, of production, and of trade and payments liberalization. The recent decisions taken at Lisbon should result in a more effective NATO structure. The problem of the relationship between the two organizations is one which all our governments will have to consider carefully, but I believe need not prove to be too difficult once there is full appreciation of the fact that the two organizations are not in any sense competitive, but are necessary complements of each other.

I have read with great interest the memorandum, attached to your letter, setting forth a plan for facilitating the transfer within Europe of defense goods and a means for the pre-financing of defense production. I know these are important problems. However my preliminary reaction is that the type of obligation which this Government might be called on to undertake in connection with the international loan is something which it would be difficult for us to do and that it would in any case require action by the Congress. I am also uncertain as to the relationship between the clearing mechanism you propose and the EPU. I would suggest that a technical examination of your proposal should be requested of the new international staff of the NATO as a matter of urgency. Once this has been done it should be easier to determine the implications of the proposal for the governments concerned.

I very much appreciate your writing to me. I hope you will agree that our best course at the present time is to press for a solution of the current economic difficulties by renewed efforts within the OEEC and the NATO, although I very much regret that this course of action will not permit me to discuss these problems with you personally.

With warmest regards

Most sincerely yours

Acheson

1. Drafted by Camp and cleared with Perkins, Williamson, Kaplan (MSA), and Harriman (DMS). Transmitted to the Embassy in Brussels with instructions that it be delivered to Van Zeeland as soon as possible; the message was repeated to Paris and London.
2. Document 16.