Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Eastern Europe; Finland; Greece; Turkey, Volume X, Part 2

336. Letter From Acting Secretary of State Dillon to Secretary of Defense McElroy⁰

Washington, April 30, 1959.

Dear Mr. Secretary: The close cooperation between the United States and Turkey in defense matters has made it possible in recent years to undertake in that country a number of highly important military projects which have resulted in a steady increase in the numbers of American personnel assigned there. Thus there are now in Turkey American military personnel and their dependents numbering over thirteen thousand.

It is inevitable that the presence in any foreign country of so many Americans would involve difficult problems of community relations. In Turkey, however, the increasing number of incidents has caused me, and I am sure has caused you, very real concern, as has the disquieting rise in antagonism on the part of the Turkish public toward foreigners on their soil which has resulted from these incidents. While we have had, and continue to have, excellent cooperation on the part of the Turkish authorities, I am greatly concerned that if the situation continues not only might general Turco-American relations be impaired but, with particular reference to our military operations in that country, we might find ourselves in real difficulty in maintaining highly important facilities which we now enjoy.

I believe it would be wise for our Departments to give new and serious thought to how the problems which I have mentioned can be minimized. One of the difficulties has, I believe, been the absence in Turkey of a single United States military command. The result has been to have in Turkey units reporting to several separate authorities with consequent inability of any single commander on the spot to direct programs of discipline which might serve to avoid many of the incidents which have occurred. Perhaps the time has come when there should be implemented in Turkey the recommendation made in the Nash Report¹ for a single United States military command, irrespective of location, mission, or Service branch. It might, of course, be necessary to exclude from this command personnel assigned to NATO, but in that case perhaps directives and procedures could be closely coordinated between the two commanders concerned.

I believe that in studying this problem we should give earnest consideration to the possibility of reducing the numbers of American military personnel and their dependents now in that country. If plans for the stationing in Turkey of IRBM units materialize, there will be dispatched to that country substantial additional forces which inevitably will increase the community relations problem. It may be that a careful survey will disclose possibilities for substantial reductions in other projects which would, at least in part, compensate for the introduction of the new personnel. I earnestly hope that in the future additional personnel assignments will be made to Turkey only for most essential purposes where the advantages to our national interest clearly outweigh the obvious disadvantages of an increasing American community there.

Perhaps by undertaking a new and imaginative public relations program, deterioration of our community position might be arrested and a climate created in which our present access to facilities can better be assured. I have in mind in this respect the notable success of the SETAF unit in Italy.

In order that these and related problems bearing on our American community in Turkey may receive continuing consideration and coordination in Washington, I should like to propose the establishment of an inter-agency working group of interested agencies, with representation from the Department of Defense and, if you desire, the three Service arms, the CIA, USIA, and ICA, in addition to the Department of State. I propose that the Departments of Defense and State be represented on this group at the Assistant Secretary level, with appropriate levels of representation from the other agencies whose personnel programs also would be reviewed along with those of the Departments of Defense and State. It might be further desirable at an appropriate stage to arrange for consultation with the group in Washington by a representative or representatives from our mission in Ankara.

I should be grateful to have your comments on these observations and suggestions.²

Sincerely yours,³

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 782.5/4–3059. Secret. Drafted by Rountree.
1. Reference is to the December 1957 report by Frank C. Nash, United States Overseas Military Bases: Report to the President.
2. In a September 25 letter to Dillon, Irwin reported that the Department of Defense had studied the recommendations in Dillon’s April 30 letter, and concluded that most of the U.S. personnel in Turkey were already under two commands, that the number of U.S. personnel could not be reduced, and that the rate of incidents between U.S. personnel and Turks was the lowest in Europe. Under these circumstances, the Department of Defense could not agree to the establishment of an interagency committee, but would agree to the creation of an informal State–Defense working group. (Department of State, Central Files, 711.56382/9–2959) This study group began operations on September 29.
3. Printed from an unsigned copy.