Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, The Near East and Africa, Volume VII

501.BC/9–546: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Acting Representative at the United Nations (Johnson)

secret
us urgent

Washington, September 5, 1946—4 p.m.

179. With respect to specific charges made in Ukrainian note we have following comments: (1) Allegation that Greeks have perpetrated border incidents presents but part of picture. As you know Greek Govt has made similar allegations against Albanians. Whether one side or other is primarily responsible for these incidents could only be determined following consideration by Council of evidence of conclusive nature which may be submitted by interested parties or result from an investigation if such were deemed necessary. Ideological differences between present Greek and Albanian regimes and Greek claims to Northern Epirus are among basic causes for friction which has developed. Accordingly an examination by Council of available evidence would seem to be only procedure by which essential facts regarding this situation could be ascertained.

(2) We have in past sought informally and orally to dissuade Greek Govt from pressing claim that state of war exists between Greece and Albania. We consider claim of doubtful validity. However, Greek Govt would now find graceful retreat from this position extremely difficult. Although we do not regard reference to this subject in Ukrainian note as a major point and feel that it is significant in relation to UN Charter only because it is manifestation that friction exists between Greece and Albania, we believe that the question of whether a state of war exists might be referred by Council to [International] Court for advisory opinion under Article 96 par. 1. Such a solution might be palatable to Greece even though an adverse opinion were handed down by Court since Greece would be positively demonstrating her good faith in Charter. Of course, Ukrainian complaint on this aspect Albanian-Greek relations would be groundless if state of war were found to exist.

(3) Ukrainian allegation that there has been persecution by Greek Govt of national minorities in Greece requires further elucidation. It is known that Albania has alleged 25,000 Albanians were driven from Greece. On the other hand Greece has complained of persecution of Greeks in Albania. At this moment obtaining a completely accurate picture on this controversial question would appear virtually impossible. Treatment accorded to national minorities by state in which they dwell would generally be matter essentially within domestic jurisdiction of state. We feel however certain practices with regard to national minorities, such as forceful expulsion, may have international implications of concern to UN.

Balkan minority problem is obviously friction laden and present phase is simply continuation of desperate situation in which those minorities have existed during modern history. If, as result of preliminary discussion, Security Council finds there are sufficient indications to warrant belief that Greece may have engaged in practices with regard to its national minorities which are of legitimate concern to UN, we would be prepared to support establishment of subcommittee of Council, one of whose duties would be to study material available in New York. Following report to Council of subcommittee consideration could be given to possibility and advisability of on the spot investigation to include interviewing of minorities who have allegedly gone into adjacent countries.

(4) Ukrainian reference to “unbridled propaganda” of Greek monarchist extremists as serving to convert Balkan peninsula into center of conflict is somewhat vague. Not only monarchist but center and left press in Greece is demanding that certain territory be ceded to Greece. Greece is not alone in its desire obtain certain territories. Press in Bulgaria, former enemy state, has been demanding cession of Western Thrace by Greece. We feel this demand equally as disturbing to Balkan situation as Greek demands. In any event we do not regard charge against Greek monarchist propaganda as being relevant to a complaint alleging a situation under Article 34 of the Charter.

(5) Charge against presence of British forces in Greece revives similar charge made by USSR against United Kingdom in January. We do not believe that any new facts have been presented to substantiate charge that presence of British troops is cause of a situation which endangers the maintenance of international peace and security. As you know USSR was originally invited to participate in observance of Greek election but declined to do so. So far as US knows conduct of British forces in Greece has been excellent. For your information US military and Dept believe that their continued presence is stabilizing factor and we hope that UK will not commence an early withdrawal following plebiscite which we have understood is their intention.

U.S. cannot divest itself of certain responsibility for the welfare of the Greek people and could not appropriately urge the Council to treat superficially charges about the situation there.

(6) We do not believe that we should at this stage support dismissal Ukrainian complaint regardless of motivation. In our opinion our policy should henceforth be as follows:

(a) Support of principle of full discussion of Ukrainian complaint by Council and of right of Ukrainian and Greek Representatives to participate in such discussion if they so desire.

(b) Support submission of question of whether state of war exists between Albania and Greece to Court for advisory opinion in event Council discussion does not solve question.

(c) Since Dept is at present pessimistic about results to be obtained from Council discussion of matter, we should be prepared to support or recommend establishment of subcommittee, similar to that set up for Spanish question, (1) to examine evidence in New York and report to Council, and (2) subsequently to conduct on the spot investigation if Council deems such necessary. Terms of reference of committee must be carefully drawn up so that investigation will be sufficiently broad to determine what countries are responsible and to what degree for unstable situation.

Repeated to Paris as Secdel.⁶²

Clayton

62. This telegram was repeated as Secdel 823 (No. 4603 to Paris). In telegram Secdel 822 (No. 4602 to Paris), September 5, 1946, 4 p.m., Mr. Clayton informed the Secretary of State that had time permitted, Secdel 823 would have been sent to him for approval because of its importance. Mr. Clayton noted that the Department had tried carefully to follow Mr. Byrnes’ policy. (740.00119 Council/9–546)