Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIII, Western Europe Region

195. Telegram From the Embassy in Belgium to the Department of State¹

Brussels, August 19, 1966, 1536Z.

850. NATUS.

1. Perusal of Paris 2209 and 2266,² the latter reporting on a lunch-eon session at which assembled acting PermReps went to work on their Belgian colleague to convince him that GOB “not doing right by SHAPE”, compels me to refer addressees’ attention to Brussels 763 and 765³ in which I reported a conversation with PriMin Vanden Boeynants re SHAPE relocation.

2. In particular I wish to refer to Vanden Boeynants clear warning of serious consequences should Belgium’s allies support at govt level positions expressed to date by SACEUR and other military officials and which in Belgian eyes are not essentially based on military considerations.

3. I also wish to highlight PriMin’s statement to me that he and Belgian FonMin Harmel, in conversation held in PriMin’s office on Saturday, June 4, had clearly and unequivocally informed NATO Secretary-General Brosio that while Belgium willing to host SHAPE, Brussels and immediate Brussels area would be excluded as relocation site.

4. I believe the GOB can be faulted for not having offered more than one site for SHAPE and for having demonstrated a rigidity, and perhaps an inordinate stubbornness, following early reports of SACEUR’s dissatisfaction with Casteau site. The Belgians likewise have, I think, tended to minimize communications problems related to the establishment of SHAPE in the Casteau area, and not adequately to recognize this as a valid military consideration. I understand de Kerchove in his discussions at Paris today will indicate that the GOB would be prepared to offer a second site but that this could not be in the Brussels or other urban areas. If, in fact, the Belgians do put forward an alternative site to Casteau, I believe it would be out of recognition that their position has been unduly rigid.

5. I might add that, in my view, the rigidity which Belgium has shown in sticking thus far to the Casteau site for SHAPE can to a degree be related to a feeling within the govt that its views on the location of other headquarters (AFCENT and EUCOM) are not being given serious consideration. They believe events are justifying their fear that the military preference will in each case be supported from the political side.

6. What I do not quite understand are the suggestions emanating from meetings in Paris that, in refusing to agree to a location for SHAPE in the Brussels area, the Belgians are in some way guilty of bad faith and are being arbitrary and politically weak-kneed. The PriMin’s unequivocal statement to Brosio should have made clear to all concerned that the Brussels area was out. FonMin Harmel made this point also in reporting to Parliament following the June NAC Ministerial on Belgian agreement to host SHAPE. The Embassy has consistently reported this as a fact of life here.

Knight

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, NATO 17–1. Secret; Limdis. Repeated to Bonn, The Hague, London, Paris for Crawford, Rome, and Luxembourg.
2. Telegram 2209, August 17, reported that the relocation of NATO had become a political rather than technical issue within the Alliance. Telegram 2266, August 18, summarized a meeting of Permanent Representatives at which the majority took the Belgian Representative to task for not being more forthcoming on the question of relocating SHAPE. (Ibid.)
3. Both these telegrams, August 12, reported complaints by Belgian officials about the manner in which the relocation of SHAPE was being handled, especially by the military. (Ibid.)