740.5/2–2252: Despatch

The Ambassador in Portugal ( MacVeagh ) to the Department of State
secret
No. 606

Highlights conversation morning 21st between full Turk delegation and NEA Rep follows:

1.
Referring to proposed amendment for inclusion as separate numbered para at end TCC resolution,1 text of which being sent by telegram,2 FonMin sought clarification expressing idea now that Turkey is member NATO Turkey expects participate on full and equal basis with other members NATO and therefore favors multilateral approach to NATO problems. He stressed particularly Turk’s expectation participate fully with other NATO members in strategic planning. Military members Turk delegation echoed latter thought.
2.
FonMin originally thought suggestion in proposal that Greece–Turkey be invited to consider with NATO applicability TCC findings and recommendations as inconsistent with multilateral approach. Both countries on admission automatically required work with NATO on such matters. Therefore seemed superfluous. NEA Rep explained this incorporated because obvious unfamiliarity Greeks–Turks with TCC reports, in which Turks acquiesced, and indicated proposed amendment would record NATO’ expectation that both countries wld participate on full multilateral basis with other members NATO. Amendment also pointed up fact that Greece–Turkey had not been considered by TCC. By implication, this served to indicate Greeks–Turks not [Page 118] being required this time pass on TCC findings and recommendations. Further, under customary NAC procedure, Govts do not vote in sense of filing ballot. Instead, Chairman asks NAC Reps for comments. If comments do not require substantive changes, resolution considered accepted. Turks considered explanation satisfactory.
3.
Turks in beginning expressed qualms re suggestion they participate annual review pursuant Article 17(b) (ii) of draft TCC resolution. They thought this clause too limiting as it might imply Turks would have to be invited in each individual instance to participate in a specific NATO activity. NEA Rep explained that this amendment in no way limited Turks participation in NATO activities but was specifically incorporated in TCC Resolution because of all-inclusive nature TCC activity. Turks accepted this.
4.
Turks wondered whether references to “NATO bodies” or “agencies” in any way qualified participation by governments. NEA Rep indicated governments fully represented on appropriate NATO bodies and agencies mentioning specifically NAC, CD, MC and MRC. Hence, governments seemed be adequately represented. Turks expressed reassurance.
5.
NEA Rep raised question Turk views re NATO reorganization, particularly re headquarters question. Turks said they inclined go along with US idea establishing headquarters in Paris. They consider this desirable for psychological reasons, indicating establishment headquarters in Paris should have beneficial effect in countries on continent. Before departure from Ankara, Brits handed Turks aide-mémoire requesting Turks support Brit position re retention certain NATO bodies London. Turks indicated this obviously for purposes “pride”. They thought more important put vitality in NATO and simplify NATO operations than satisfy prestige requirements any individual state. Although their views not yet firm as they wish hear all sides, they reiterated inclination go along with US.

Lincoln Macveagh
  1. The amendment under reference here, circulated to the North Atlantic Council as document C9–D/17, is quoted in footnote 8, p. 153. The Temporary Council Committee resolution was discussed at the fourth meeting of the Council, see Secto 59, Feb. 23, p. 150.
  2. Telegram Secto 37, Feb. 22, from Lisbon, not printed. (740.5/2–2252)