Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

780.5/12–1451: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Turkey ¹

secret
priority

Washington, December 14, 1951—8:26 p. m.

522. I. Turk Chargé Esenbel called on Acting Asst Secy Berry today to inform Dept of Turk concern over divergence in tone and substance between proposed US and Turk notes on one hand and Brit and Fr notes on other in reply Sov note Nov 24 re MEC. Esenbel expressed view Brit and Fr drafts did not take “counter-offensive” tone which his Govt felt most desirable. He made same points Acting SecGen Turk FonOff made to Amb Wadsworth Dec 14 (Ankara’s 534 Dec 14² to Dept, rptd London, Paris and Moscow). He expressed strong hope Brit and Fr notes cld be amended to bring them more into line with US and Turk notes.

II. Dept informed Esenbel that it was our opinion that there was substantial accord between four Powers and no difference in prins between four notes. While there were some differences in tone, four notes did contain substantially same prins. In addition each note contained separate and individual points of strength not contained in other notes. Effort was also made to point out to Esenbel how most of prins in Turk note were covered in Brit and Fr notes even though in different language and in less detail. Esenbel was also reminded that there had originally existed some differences of opinion between Fr and Brit Govts on one hand and US and Turk Govts on other as to manner in which Sov note shld be answered. At time of receipt of Sov note Dept had impression UK and Fr did not wish go into any gt detail but simply wished reject contentions Sov note firmly and without equivocation. Dept said that it had felt orig Brit draft was not sufficiently strong and had therefore made five specific recommendations to Brits, all of which had been incorpd in revised Brit draft. Finally, since US was generally satisfied with all of notes and Turk Govt was satisfied with US note, this seemed be matter between Turk Govt and Brit and Fr Govts. We did feel, however, it was of greatest importance that there be complete accord between all four Govts before notes were presented to Sov Union and Turk views wld be studied most carefully and sympathetically.

III. Brit Emb Wash has informed Dept UK considers its present draft quite adequate and sees no necessity for any further change. Recipient missions are aware Fr views as rptd by Emb Paris today (Paristel 3555 Dec 14, rptd Ankara 84, London 956, Moscow 107).³

IV. While Dept is of opinion that notes as they now stand constitute entirely adequate replies, and is further of belief that there is consid merit in having differently worded and constructed replies in that it will make clear that responses are those of individ Govts concerned and not “dictated” by any one Govt, we nevertheless believe that Turk views shld be given careful consid partic in light of Turkey’s position in ME and vis-à-vis USSR. Whatever changes in present UK, Fr and Turk texts can be worked out between three Govts to bring greater harmony will undoubtedly be entirely satis US. Embs Ankara, Paris and London shld so inform respective FonOffs.

V. We share opinion Fr FonOff that it wld be wise delay presentation notes and that it wld not be desirable ignore their views in view fact Turks are newly acting in close concert with UK, Fr and US. However, as matters stand now we doubt whether it will be poss iron out differences by Monday, Dec. 17. Date presentation is in our opinion not as impt as attainment of gen agrmt. Therefore, Emb Moscow shld not present US note until four Govts concerned have attained this agrmt and four Embs Moscow have been given green light. At that point it might be best for Embs in Moscow to determine exact date, giving us forty-eight hours notice if poss.

Acheson

1. Drafted by Kopper, cleared in substance by NEA and EE, approved and signed for Secretary Acheson by Kopper. Also sent priority to Moscow as 417, London as 2932, and Paris as 3507.
2. Not printed; it reported a conversation between Ambassador Wadsworth and Turkish Acting Secretary General Ustun in which Ustun complained that while the Turkish and United States draft replies to the Soviet note of November 24 were “firm in tone, solid in substances”, the French and British drafts were not. Wadsworth added, inter alia, “In short Turk Govt view is that, if US holds to its text, Turk will hold to its on condition Brit and Fr approach our position”. (780.5/12–1451)
3. Not printed.