711.67/46a: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the High Commissioner in Turkey (Bristol)
17. In a speech to be delivered today January 23, before the Council on Foreign Relations of New York, the Secretary is dealing with recent questions and negotiations and is devoting the concluding half of his speech to the consideration of Near Eastern questions. The Sections relating to the Near East are quoted below in full.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Greece.—The death of the late King Alexander of Greece was followed in December, 1920, by the return to Athens of Constantine. In accordance with the usual practice in the case of monarchial countries, the Greek representative in Washington tendered new letters of credence the acceptance of which would have constituted formal recognition of the new government. In view of the special circumstances which attended Constantine’s return to Athens, it was deemed important, before according recognition, to take into account not only the part that Constantine had played in the war but also the policy of the new regime with regard to the acts and obligations of its predecessor and the attitude of the associates of the United States in the war. With respect to Constantine’s attitude toward the engagements of the former Government, there was for a time an uncertainty whether Constantine considered the government of King Alexander as a de jure government. This was important, for if the Government of the United States had extended recognition it might have put itself in a position of acquiescing in a possible review of the acts of King Alexander’s Government which had borrowed substantial sums from the United States. It will also be recalled that none of the principal Allied Powers recognized Constantine subsequent to his return.
[Page 263]So far as the records indicate, these considerations controlled the policy of the United States Government during the period subsequent to Constantine’s return and prior to March, 1921. Upon the change of administration the question arose whether there was a sufficient reason for changing this policy and for taking a course of action different from that followed by the Allied Powers. Other considerations had intervened making affirmative action in the matter of recognition undesirable. Constantine developed a militaristic policy in Asia Minor, in which Greece was already engaged, by which he desired to justify his hold upon the throne.
Separate action by the United States at this time could hardly have been interpreted otherwise than as an expression of sympathy and support by this Government for this policy of Constantine and as an indirect participation in the politics of the Near East which it was desired to avoid. The wisdom of refusing recognition was indicated by the overthrow of Constantine when Greek military plans in Asia Minor failed, an overthrow which was attended by a complete revolution. It will be recalled that Constantine fled the country and that his prominent supporters and cabinet ministers were arrested and after summary trials were executed. The British Government, which previously had maintained a chargé d’affaires in Athens, although not recognizing Constantine, withdrew this representative, while the representatives of other powers, including that of the United States, took occasion to interpret to the Greek authorities the unfortunate impression which the execution of the Greek ministers had caused.
The régime which succeeded that of Constantine was frankly based on military power and did not regularize its position by holding elections. Meanwhile the negotiation of a treaty of peace between the Allied Powers, Greece and Turkey, was undertaken at Lausanne, and it seemed undesirable, pending the conclusion of these negotiations, for the United States to take separate action in the matter of recognition.
The situation has now materially changed. The Lausanne negotiations have been concluded, peace has now been ratified by Greece and Turkey, and elections were held in Greece on December 16, 1923. These elections, it is hoped, will result in the establishment of a government which will enable this Government to extend formal recognition. The fact that recognition has not been extended during the past three years does not indicate an attitude of unfriendliness toward the Greek people. What American agencies have done in assisting the refugees in Greece is clear evidence to the contrary, and this humanitarian work could not have been carried out more effectively even if formal relations had been resumed, thanks to the initiative of American agencies and the helpful cooperation of the Greek authorities.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .