Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVI, Cyprus; Greece; Turkey

221. Telegram From the Embassy in Turkey to the Department of State¹

Ankara, January 28, 1966, 1652Z.

858. NATUS. Embtel 841.² FonMin Caglayangil summoned me to his residence Jan 28 for first exploratory talk on elements of possible solution to Cyprus problem. Turkmen from FonOff Cyprus Bureau also attended. FonMin said he had wanted to see me before leaving for RCD meeting in Pakistan and hoped to see me upon return. Meanwhile he wished express Turkish desire to find logical, just solution acceptable to all parties and give us Turk aims and viewpoints:

• First: Turkey wants to study what initiatives are possible in UN, how to evaluate present situation, what are mediation prospects, how would Greeks and Greek Cypriots act.
• Secondly: Turkey interested in what are available alternatives in seeking basis for settlement satisfactory to all. Legally, London-Zurich treaties are valid, GOT agrees, however, that treaties not eternal but maintains that principles continue exist. Principles on which Turkey must insist re Cyprus are: (A) no unilateral annexation; (B) acknowledgement of existence of two communities; (C) no domination of one community by the other; and (D) both communities must participate in administration.

Turkey can negotiate on alternatives (federation, cantonal system) but not on basic principles. In answer to my questions, FonMin said he did not wish to go into details of cantonal or other system, all of which can be studied later. Could include “municipal autonomy” or other features. FonMin continued GOT has no complaint against treaties but it is Greeks and Greek Cypriots who want to amend them. Let them make proposals. Turkey is willing to amend treaty provisions if proposed alternative solution at variance with treaty but acceptable to all parties because it is logical and just. Our aim is to find such alternative.

I asked FonMin if he had adopted independent Cyprus as basis of solution and was no longer considering double enosis formula such as Acheson plan. He replied double enosis does not injure principles outlined above. Any solution including double enosis, federation, cantonal government, a base (by which, I believe, he meant Turk base on Cyprus), might fit in with principles.

I said US not committed to any particular solution, nor did it even have a favorite one. We only desired an agreed and permanent one. Asked FonMin whether two communities had co-existed without much irritation under Ottoman and British rule. He replied they had never lived together without irritation and conflict, but problems always of local nature until possibility of enosis and independence gave rise to increased conflict. Noted that it useful to discuss Cyprus problem now before situation heats up again, referred to GOT interest in own economic development and to Cyprus issue hanging over GOT like Sword of Damocles. Said Turk-Greek bilateral relations must be improved and added, after Turkmen’s intervention, that these relations cannot improve outside context of Cyprus problem. Observed that Turkey had raised no claim on Dodecanese, but Greek unilateral annexation of Cyprus would upset Turk-Greek balance established by Treaty of Lausanne, and Turkey would be strategically surrounded.

Re UN mediation, FonMin said he had no personality in mind. Voiced strong opinion that institution of mediation should be one in which Mediator seeks find middle ground and bring opposing parties together. Said Mediator could not also be arbitrator and judge, like Galo Plaza. I raised as my personal idea possibility of Bernardes discreetly expanding his activities and functions on Cyprus without benefit of official nomination or publicity. FonMin said only that GOT did not want Mediator with preconceived ideas. Turkmen commented that Latin Americans do not have feel for European problems and tend see things in Latin American context. Probably thinking of Bernardes as well as Galo Plaza, he added that person who had been engrossed in island scene might not see larger Turk-Greek picture. FonMin said this problem would not arise if European were Mediator. Then he warned that enosis by force or apparent independence views of eventual enosis would not be peaceful solution but would lead to guerrilla warfare, sabotage, etc.

FonMin remarked that UK Ambassador told him of his return to London for consultation on Cyprus with FonOff and colleagues from Athens and Nicosia. FonMin said he thought UK would then consult with us and hoped that US and UK not reach any firm position without consulting Turkey. I replied that any US–UK consultations that might occur would certainly be exploratory. He then asked whether it true that US Ambassadors in Athens and Nicosia had made proposals re Cyprus to respective governments. I said I sure they could not have done so because US has no solution to propose on Cyprus issue.

Comment follows by septel.

Hart

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 27 CYP. Confidential. Received at 8:09 a.m. on January 31 and repeated to London, Paris, Athens, Nicosia, EUCOM and USDOCO South for POLAD, Istanbul, Izmir, and Adana.
2. Telegram 841 from Ankara, January 26, reported that a statement by Caglayangil comparing Cyprus and Austria did not represent any change in Turkey’s position. (Ibid.)