767.68119/8–1546: Telegram
The Ambassador in Turkey (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 16—8:30 a.m.]
874. When I saw Secretary General FonOff this morning he read me draft proposed reply Soviet note on Straits.61 He made clear this draft not yet approved by Government and represented mainly his own views. However, from my experience when Erkin drafts paper on foreign relations it generally represents views Turkish Government. Furthermore in later conversation FonMin he referred this draft as expressing his views.
Draft discusses at length and reviews facts Soviet complaints violations Montreux Convention during war. Gist of reply is complaints are not directed against legal basis convention but against technical provisions relating to specification naval auxiliaries, et cetera, which permitted frauds by Axis powers notwithstanding entire good faith Turkish Government. Turkey can not admit that complaints this nature be pretext for rejection convention as whole or for calling into [Page 839] question responsibility Turkish Government. Draft points out these minor infractions due fraud did not endanger security USSR and Turkey proved good faith as guardian Straits.
Draft then states Turkish supposition date of note means USSR requesting revision Montreux Convention and points out provisions article 29 USSR failed comply with but indicates Turk Government, considering also views American Government regarding revision Straits regime, does not intend raise difficulties regarding holding international conference comprising all signatories Montreux Convention less Japan to consider requests revision regularly formulated in accord terms Montreux Convention.
As to matters substance, draft states first three Soviet points more or less similar US proposals for revision Montreux Convention concerning which Turk Government indicates agreeable in principle consider them as basis discussion at international conference with presence US. This, however, would not be case points 4 and 5. [Point] 4 proposal new regime on new bases drawn up only by Turkey and Black Sea powers excluding others. This would mean abolition Montreux Convention which remains in effect by its terms until 1956 and ignores rights other signatories. Turkey could not consent to this and even less agree to discussion in conference in which such powers not represented. Point 5 means nothing less than organization defense Straits against menace from Mediterranean by Turkey and USSR. This gives rise grave objections from international and national points of view. From national viewpoint acceptance would mean grave prejudice to security and sovereignty Turkey respect of which is condition sine qua non of Turkish participation in conference for revision Montreux Convention. Such proposal would suppress role of equilibrium and liaison played by Turkey at Straits and reduce Turkey to position tributary state basing so-called security Black Sea powers on annihilation Turkish security. From international viewpoint Turkey finds difficult understand apprehension Soviets which motivated proposed new security system. Turkey cosignatory with USSR San Francisco charter believes new conception security is that all states under guarantee forces UNO of which USSR and Turkey are members. Consequently in case Russia fears attack on Straits, Turkey believes question should be referred to UNO to which organization Turkey remains strongly attached.
Draft ends with statement copy note being sent signatories Montreux Convention as well as US who Turkey hopes will attend any conference for revision Montreux Convention.
To make certain I inquired whether correct interpretation foregoing in sense Turkey declines conference at which points 4 and 5 [Page 840] would serve as basis discussion. Erkin said this was correct interpretation draft and he was convinced it represented views Turkish Government. He stated attitude National Assembly yesterday when PriMin referred to Soviet note made it clear Turkey could never agree participate in conference at which such points affecting Turkey’s sovereignty and independence might be subjects discussion. In later conversation with PriMin we [he?] repeated this note.
Repeated Paris 50, Moscow 92, London 129.
- In telegram 871, August 15, 2 p.m., from Ankara, the Ambassador reported that the Turkish Foreign Minister had stated that final approval of the reply to the Soviet note would be held up pending expression of U. S. views (767.68119/8–1546).↩