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

316. Telegram From the Embassy in Greece to the Department of State¹

Athens, November 23, 1967, 0330Z.

2330. Ref: Ankara 2501.² For the Secretary from Tablot.

1. With all respect, another way to stop war is for Turkey not to start it. I do not now comment on specific plan suggested reftel, which I assume being studied in Ottawa, London, and Washington, but rather on general idea that only way to keep peace is for Greece to meet Turkey’s terms within hours.

2. For full week now Turkey has been bullying Greeks to accept capitulation on an issue that all sides now believe could be resolved by negotiation not under gun. In process, Turkish actions and demands have engaged maximum energies of USG, British, Canadians, NATO, and now UNSYG. Virtually total resources of major Western powers and international organizations created since World War II to provide alternatives to war for settlement of international disputes are now available to Turkey and Greece. If wrongs have been committed by Greek and Cypriot forces (and they have), Turkey has access to full panoply of international machinery for redress. If in these circumstances it nonetheless concludes that its case can be carried only by its own military power, case must be weak indeed. Especially as in present circumstances Turkey has no treaty justification for military action in another sovereign country, since Article 4 of Treaty of Guarantee which Turkey usually cites authorizes unilateral action only in absence of common or concerted action, which certainly is now occurring and could be complete if Turkey itself would join.

I well understand Turkish rationale for present course is “Turkish honor.” When in history of aggression has national honor not been reason advanced for military attack on another country? One week ago Greece through Grivas-led Cyprus National Guard attack had lost any claim to international support of its position. Today I suspect Turkey by its tactics has raised doubts in many governments about justness of its cause. Has not time come to make this fact plain to Turks?

Knowing importance of our interests and delicacy of current relations with Turkey, I am full of admiration for way Ambassador Hart has been handling task which substantially more difficult than mine here. Nonetheless, I hope instructions given Vance Mission will permit him to make forceful case to GOT that this dispute must now be committed to international machinery designed to deal with threats of war. Against this, who can argue that there is excuse for escalation to war actions whose inescapable result would be killing of many more Turk Cypriots than have yet been casualties of communal strike on Cyprus, not to mention anticipated Turk and Greek casualties and other costs?

Talbot

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 27 CYP. Secret; Immediate; Limdis. Received at 1221Z and repeated to Ankara for Vance, Nicosia, London, Ottawa, USUN, and the Mission to NATO.
2. Telegram 2501 from Ankara, November 23, suggested that the Greek Government inform Turkey of its interest in a speedy and effective mutual demilitarization. (Ibid.)