Eisenhower Library, Eisenhower papers, Whitman file
No. 383
The British Ambassador (Makins) to President
Eisenhower
Washington, September 20, 1954.
Dear Mr. President: With reference to the
message to you from the Prime Minister about Cyprus which I sent to you
on September 18,1 I enclose the factual
note referred to in that message.
Yours sincerely,
[Page 711]
[Enclosure]
British Factual Note
Cyprus
The strategic importance of our continued sovereignty in Cyprus in
relation to the stability and defence of the Middle East is
described in the paper prepared by the Chiefs of Staff which has
already been handed by the Ambassador to General Bedell Smith.2 The paper
makes it quite clear why the suggestion of a leased base does not
provide the answer on the strategic point. Confidence in the United
Kingdom’s willingness and ability to fulfill its treaty obligations
in the Middle East is an essential element in the building up of any
effective defence in the area. The free world cannot afford a power
vacuum on N.A.T.O.’s southern
flank.
- 2.
- The international airing of this question has already done
enough harm to Anglo-Greek and Greek-Turkish relations. During
the recent N.A.T.O. exercise,
“Keystone”, Greek and Turkish officers could scarcely be brought
to talk to each other. A decision on Cyprus at the United
Nations might well put a strain on Greek-Turkish relations which
they could not bear.
- 3.
- The only people who can profit by this controversy are the
Communists.
- 4.
- This is not a question of self-government in a colony but one
of transferring one, indeed two, ethnic groups from one
sovereignty to another. To allow the United Nations to discuss
Cyprus on the pretext of self-determination would open the flood
gates for the pursuit of territorial claims everywhere. If, for
instance, some Communist power proposed United Nations
intervention in favour of self-determination for the so-called
free Thais in Siam, would the United States abstain? There are
dozens of other areas all round the world about which there
could be endless squabbles. China, for example, could claim
large bits of Northern Burma and India on grounds of history and
racial affinity.
- 5.
- It is not at all certain what the Cypriots themselves want.
Unilateral clamour is no evidence of a people’s will and in this
connexion it is legitimate to recall that by the time that
Hitler had shouted long enough, a very large number of people
thought that ninety per cent of Austrians wanted to be submerged
in the Third Reich.
[Page 712]
Nor can the church-run plebiscite of 1950, backed as it was by
threats of the withdrawal of Baptism and other church rites, be
regarded as an indication that Cypriots really want Enosis. Plebiscites anyhow are of the
political armoury of dictatorships. Democracies have other means
of determining a people’s will.
- 6.
- Our attitude is not entirely negative. We are determined to
develop normal democratic constitutional processes in Cyprus,
and when the Cypriots have had experience of running their own
affairs, Her Majesty’s Government have little doubt about the
judgment they will form in regard to where their true interests
lie. Cyprus has the highest standard of living in the Middle
East and the second lowest death rate in the world. We have the
impression that the long-standing boycott of any constitution by
Cypriot extremists both of left and right is largely due to
their fear that a constitution would provide a platform for
moderate opinion which at present finds no expression, except,
e.g. when British troops, recently arrived in Cyprus from Egypt,
were warmly welcomed by the people.
- 7.
- It is therefore very much to be hoped that even if the United
States Government do not share our interpretation of Article II
(7) of the United Nations Charter,3 and cannot accept our view that the
United Nations have no jurisdiction, nevertheless they would
oppose inscription on the practical merits of the case and
having regard to the interests of the free world.
- 8.
- There is no doubt at all that active United States support for
us would clinch matters in our favour. Even as things are our
enquiries all round the world show that the votes at the United
Nations are likely to be pretty evenly divided. If the United
States were to vote against inscription, the matter would not be
inscribed.
