Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

501.BC Greece/5–747: Telegram

The Secretary of State to Mr. Mark F. Ethridge, at Geneva

secret
us urgent
niact

Washington, May 7, 1947—5 p. m.

313. For Ethridge. Dept agrees with ur 56,¹ that it is necessarily handicapped considering draft conclusions summarized your 57² in view of absence of complete background which you have. However on basis your summary Dept concerned regarding certain points needing clarification before US is finally committed in Commission. Following are principal points causing anxiety here.

A. Conclusions:

1. There seems to us to be serious inconsistency between conclusion in Section III that there was no evidence of aggressive intentions and conclusions in Section I. We doubt necessity for Section III.

2. Heading of Section V “Responsibility of Greek Government” and conclusions V, (3), (4), and (5) give appearance of responsibility on part Greek Govt comparable to that of northern neighbors. In Dept’s view responsibility of northern neighbors for border violations established in Section I is direct. On other hand in our view persecution of and discrimination against Greek citizens by Greek Govt are only remotely connected with border violations. There should be clearcut distinction between general conditions in countries concerned which make possible or serve as pretext for frontier violations, and actual direct causes and responsibility for such violations. We doubt validity of such general internal conditions as legally acceptable evidence of cause or responsibility for border violations. Nor do persecution and discrimination by Greek Govt in any way lessen primary responsibility northern neighbors for failure to respect frontier.

3. It is obvious that commission has taken into account internal conditions in Greece to far greater extent than those in northern neighbors. Dept feels that criticism internal affairs of Greek Govt with no mention of nature and practices govts in northern States gives biased impression of realities. In our view, it is doubtful that border disturbances on such a large scale would ever have arisen if northern neighbors had not attempted to extend their own totalitarian systems to Greece.

4. If draft conclusions have not yet been distributed to other delegations we think it preferable they be withheld pending further discussion with Dept.

B. Recommendations:³

1. Recommendations 1(A) does not contain limitations of Deptel 200⁴ to Athens that terms of reference continuing commission should be limited to problems directly connected with border violations and threatening frontier situations. Neither does it appear to us to be in harmony with Dept’s wish not to broaden terms of reference in such manner that any member continuing commission could use commission to delay or forestall US aid program (Deptel 139 to Geneva⁵). Dept still believes that terms of reference of continuing commission should be limited to pacific settlement of disputes connected with or arising from frontier violations and disturbances.

2. Same comments apply to your recommendation 1(D).

3. Reference recommendation 1(E) minorities and refugees are not necessarily the same and it is doubtful if minorities would be within competence of IRO.

4. Dept’s views on Salonika in connection your recommendation 3 perhaps need further elucidation. Deptel 216 to Geneva⁶ approved statement in Commission report concerning free port facilities at Salonika but not recommendation. Our view is that any SC recommendation to Greece to negotiate with Yugoslavia and Bulgaria on free port question would appear to place onus on Greece and would not recognize realities of situation which are (1) existence at present time of Yugoslav free zone, (2) existence of Greek free zone whose facilities were in past offered to Bulgaria and (3) primary responsibility of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia and not Greece for lack of full utilization Salonika free zones previous to war. Dept therefore believes that Commission report could profitably include some statement that development and better utilization of free zone facilities might contribute to mitigation of certain disagreements between three countries concerned and therefore improve frontier conditions. If necessary to include free zone question in form of recommendation, it might take form of suggestion that appropriate technical agencies of UN should assist Greek development and operation free port facilities available to neighboring countries, together with statement of reasons why such facilities have not been adequately utilized in past by Yugos and Bulgars.

5. Question of amnesty most perplexing as Greek Govt extremely sensitive this point and also in difficult position because large and influential part Greek public strongly opposed to any policy of appeasement of rebellious bandits. Greek Govt has been informed on several occasions of Dept’s view that amnesty recommendation is not within competence of Commission. We hope that approach to Greek Govt in Athens (Deptel 298 May 5 to Geneva⁷) will be successful. If Greek Govt refuses, however, Dept would not wish, in view inclusion amnesty recommendations in draft you have circulated, to be in position of opposing amnesty recommendation in final report in event majority favors its inclusion. Dept strongly hopes that such situation may be avoided.

C. Your telegrams 53 and 59⁸ being considered urgently. Dept concurs seriousness of refusal northern states permit admission subsidiary group.

Sent Geneva 313; rptd Athens 600, London 1992, New York 205.

Marshall

1. Identified also as telegram 227, May 4, 4 p. m.; it advised that there was “No question that report as whole, including majority conclusions, will unequivocally demonstrate that northern neighbors have been actively assisting Greek guerrillas.” (501.BC Greece/5–447)
2. Identified also as telegram 228, May 4, 6 p. m., from Geneva, not printed.
3. See telegram 214, May 2, from Geneva, p. 838.
4. Dated February 20, p. 821.
5. Dated April 14, p. 833.
6. Dated April 25, not printed.
7. Not printed.
8. Identified also as Nos. 215, May 2, and 235, May 5 from Geneva; neither printed.