501.BB Balkan/9–2449: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Cannon) to the Secretary of State
981. Athens 1854, September 16 just received here after servicing. I confess to much sympathy with Greek Government position and fully endorse Grady’s recommendations. We are also impressed by Moscow’s 2320, September 15 and would only observe that in supporting idea of separate frontier commissions we did not and do not believe they would map retreat from or even curtailment of UNSCOB. Moreover record will show this Embassy has been skeptical of conciliation projects and still feels we should give not one inch to projects which would enable Soviets to transfer to political field what they have failed to achieve by military intervention.
We should not like to see any unnecessary broadening of what seems basic issue in Greek problem, i.e. closing of northern frontiers to guerrilla incursions. Like Embassy Moscow, we would favor new attempts at political settlement (but of border issue only) through President GA and Chairman Committee 1 and it would appear (Department’s infotel September 2, 5 p. m.1) that UK favors similar procedure.
Soviet Union acting through Albania and Bulgaria may not permit agreement on basic issue of effective frontier conventions unless permitted to participate in over-all settlement Greek case including internal issues. However we recall nothing in history of western negotiations with Moscow to encourage belief that satisfactory solution of Greece’s internal problems may thus be achieved and in any event we wonder whether Moscow may not now be sufficiently worried over Albania’s shaky isolation to permit conclusion this key frontier agreement. Exclusion of Moscow at this stage seems to us well worth trying.
We believe Yugoslavia would be more disposed to cooperate with UN President and Chairman Committee 1 than with any group Soviet Union can use as propaganda sounding board although present Yugoslav [Page 427] concern over Albania may well oblige them to continue to press for Albanian-Greek frontier conventions prerequisite to Yugoslav-Greek agreement despite Bebler statement (see Embtel 898, September 82).
Since we do not now see anything incompatible between existence of UNSCOB (though emphasis in operations may be shifted), proposal for separate border conventions and in view stubborn opposition of Bulgaria, Albania and Yugoslavia to UNSCOB we wonder whether insistence on UNSCOB participation in border supervision is advisable or necessary under terms original GA resolution. At same time it is clear that notable lack of progress in achieving return of refugees and children from Cominform countries makes imperative continuation UNSCOB with emphasis on its activities these matters.
Sent Department 981, repeated Athens 63. Department pass Moscow as 129.