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

611.82/12–1352

No. 471
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Ambassador in Turkey (McGhee)¹

secret

Ankara, December 11, 1952.

I called on the Foreign Minister at my request on December 11, 1952. The meeting lasted three quarters of an hour. There was present in addition only an interpreter.

I stated to the Foreign Minister that I had come, following my trip to the U.S., to wish him well on his forthcoming visit to Paris for the OEEC–NATO meetings. I also wanted to report on the general results of my visit to the United States. Since I understood he was leaving by train that evening, I would not take up much of his time.

I advised the Foreign Minister that my talks with the President, the Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense and others had been most favorable.² I had also had a long talk with Ambassador Erkin which was most satisfactory. I had had two press conferences and a number of opportunities to talk with American officials and private groups on the current situation in Turkey.

I said that I found everywhere a keen interest in Turkey and a knowledge of what was going on in Turkey. Everyone felt that the Turks had made excellent use of U.S. assistance and were a bulwark of defense in this part of the world. In my judgment, Turkish prestige in America was at an all time high.

I referred to the deficit which was indicated in the Turkish defense budget for the forthcoming fiscal year, and our appreciation of the fact that the Turkish Government has gone ahead with its request to the GNA for the full amount of the defense budget pending assurance as to the receipt of our aid. I had had many conversations on this subject in Washington, and although I could not make any commitment to the Foreign Ministers, I myself was optimistic that we would be able to assist the Turkish Government in bridging the gap.

I then referred to the decision of the Turkish Council of Ministers with respect to the opening of exploitation of Turkish petroleum resources to foreign capital. I stated that I had refrained from making any comment in the U.S. on this subject until after publication of the Turkish Government’s decree and the statement by the Minister of State Enterprises in the GNA on December 3. Following this I had, however, drawn up a release³ based on the decree and the statement by the Minister which had been agreed with the Turkish Embassy in Washington. I had in addition explained the announcement to the press,⁴ being very careful not to go beyond what the Turkish Government itself had stated.

The announcement had received excellent publicity in the United States and had evoked laudatory editorials in at least two of our leading papers, the New York Times and the Washington Star. I promised the Foreign Minister to send him copies of these editorials. I stated that copies of the press announcement had been sent to the petroleum press and to all U.S. oil companies, with the end in view of arousing the interest of U.S. companies so that they would come forward when the Turkish Government extended its invitation. I already had preliminary indications that several companies were interested.

I stated that I hoped that the Minister would consider that my actions had been constructive and that they would not embarrass the Government by any undue interest. The Minister replied that he considered my actions quite helpful and approved of the statements which had been reported from the U.S. press. He said that the Minister of State Enterprises would shortly make a clearer statement of the Government’s petroleum policy, apologizing for the recent statement as somewhat unclear. I replied that this should be helpful, as the statement was not quite as forthright as might have been expected for an announcement of a new policy.

I said to the Minister that although there were many other things I might discuss, I would not do so for the moment for lack of time, but asked him if there were anything he particularly had on his mind before he left for Paris. The Minister stated that he had two things, the UN action on Tunisia and the Palestine issue.

In the case of the Tunisian question, he stated that the instructions which he had given to Ambassador Sarper were that he should vote with the NATO countries if their action were unanimous. If the NATO countries are not unanimous, Turkey then is free to act as it thinks best, and if the U.S. votes favorably on a constructive resolution Ambassador Sarper is to support it. He asked what our action would be on the resolution. I replied that although I was not certain, my understanding was that we would support the resolution. In fact, it was my recollection that I had seen a press announcement that we had already done so.

The Foreign Minister then went on to explain the abstention of the Turkish representative on the Palestine vote. Although instructions had been sent to the Ambassador on Saturday, they did not arrive until Monday. Ambassador Sarper, therefore, was forced to abstain. He will, however, at the first opportunity, make a statement that Turkey is in favor of the position of the Arab countries. The Turkish decision in this case is based on the principle that decisions taken by the UN should be supported. This is not only as a matter of principle, but because the prestige of the UN is involved, as well as the confidence of the Arabs in the UN. In addition, the Turks interpret the recent Prague trials as being a prelude to an intensified effort on the part of the USSR to win the sympathy of the Arab States. The Foreign Minister felt it necessary for Turkey to do its part to counteract this effort.

I commented that although I was not familiar with the US position on the resolution in question, I felt sure, as stated in our previous discussions, that my Government would strongly approve any effort on the part of the Turks to gain the confidence of the Arab States and to counteract Russian attempts to isolate them from the West.

On departing, I told the Foreign Minister how disappointed the Secretary and other U.S. officials were that he had been unable to visit the U.S. for the GA as he originally planned. The Secretary looked forward to seeing him in Paris.

1. Enclosure to despatch 372 from Ankara, Dec. 13.
2. No record of these talks has been found in Department of State files.
3. Background information released to reporters at a news conference in the Department of State, Dec. 5. (Text in office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary in Charge of Press Relations, Department of State. Daily News Conferences, 1952, vol. VII, in the Office of Press Relations)
4. At a news conference in the Department of State, Dec. 5. For text, see ibid.