Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Eastern Europe; Soviet Union; Eastern Mediterranean, Volume VIII

760.5/7–2754: Telegram

No. 354
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom¹

top secret
niact

Washington, July 28, 1954—6:52 p.m.

582. 1. Consider most desirable subject coordinating political decisions governing NATO and Balkan Alliance not arise in NAC Polto 148.² Should it be brought up Turkish position Ankara’s 128³ should be strongly supported.

2. UK suggestion of Greek and Turkish statement authorized by Yugoslavs on cooperative and concerted planning between Balkan Alliance and NATO London 476⁴ appears to us to be met by Turkish submission (last substantive paragraph before numbered points in Polto 156⁵). We believe this statement in Turkish submission also should satisfy French desire for assurance along these lines Polto 476. Consider it would be extremely difficult obtain express Yugoslav authorization exchange confidential letters as French suggest and even express authorization for statement UK desires. Believe undesirable request these further assurances at NAC meeting as condition precedent, as such action might arouse Yugoslav suspicions, affect Trieste situation or invite Yugoslavs seek NATO assurances. Suggest way handle matter if UK and French still insist raising point would be have secret notation that action of NAC welcoming Balkan Alliance taken of course on assumption that Yugoslavia Greece and Turkey intend cooperate concert military planning between Balkan Alliance and NATO.

3. Reference Italian desire obtain SHAPE statement harmonization military plans. NATO and Balkan Alliance possible (Rome’s 340 and 282⁶), Standing Group has forwarded to SGLO its comments on Alliance, stating it has consulted SACEUR in developing this position. Department informed SACEUR submission to Standing Group raised number detailed points and considerations which would have be met in accomplishing harmonization military planning of NATO and Balkan Alliance. Standing Group statement intentionally does not refer to these detailed points and Department believes it would be desirable avoid having them raised and hence hopes Standing Group statement will be accepted without need for further SHAPE statement. If further SHAPE statement needed hope it can avoid raising new problems along these lines. USRO should advise UK, French, Greeks and Turks foregoing on very confidential basis.

4. We have no objection Yugoslav language Article 2 Ankara’s 126.⁷

Dulles

1. Drafted and signed for the Secretary by Wolf and cleared in EE, NEA, WE, L, EUR, GTI, and Defense. Repeated for action to Paris and for information to Athens, Ankara, Belgrade, and Rome.
2. Polto 148, July 26, reported that the U.S., U.K., and French representatives to the NAC had decided to make independent statements at the meeting of July 29. The latter two representatives had been instructed to point out the difficulties of coordinating political decisions between the use of NATO and Balkan Pact military forces. (760.5/7–2654)
3. Telegram 128, July 27, reported that the Turks were prepared at the NAC meeting to emphasize the necessity of political coordination between NATO and the Balkan Pact. (760.5/7–2754)
4. Not printed. (760.5/7–2754)
5. Polto 156, July 27, transmitted a Turkish communication to the NAC distinguishing sharply between collaboration of the Balkan Pact with NATO and the inclusion of Yugoslavia in NATO. (760.5/7–2754)
6. Dated July 27 and July 22, respectively, these telegrams reported that the Italians were prepared to accept the Balkan military agreement so long as provisions were made for the coordination of planning between NATO and the parties to the agreement. (760.5/7–2754 and 760.5/7–2254)
7. Telegram 126, July 27, transmitted the draft text of a new article II which was more consistent with the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty than was the original Yugoslav draft. (760.5/7–2754)