7. Telegram From the Embassy in Turkey to the Department of State 1
1004. For Ball from Hare. Deptel 781.2 Immediately on receipt reftel I went see Erkin and we had very down to earth talk. In essence his line was similar that of Tuluy, maintaining GOT had agreed original proposals despite sacrificing very important points. Fact that Makarios had done opposite and that adjusted proposals drafted so as take his conditions into consideration necessitates GOT present its views in order regain balance. Furthermore GOT has Parliament looking over its shoulder and already under pressure for having been too supine. Paper giving GOT response would be given me and British Ambassador at two o’clock.3 He said most important points would be application of all treaty provisions (para numbered two of Embtel 1002)4 and reference to “Government [Page 13] of Cyprus”, existence of which GOT does not recognize, should just refer to Archbishop Makarios and Dr Kucuk by name (para numbered four of Embtel). I commented along following lines:
- 1)
- Revision of proposals made with Turkish interests in mind and represents no derogation of them.
- 2)
- GOT may have problems re proposals but so do we. Matter is urgent and if time lost discussing detailed points whole effort could collapse, including our own steps to be helpful.
- 3)
- Purpose of presenting revised proposals was to obtain GOT acquiescence in order present them to Cypriots. In so doing we of course expected GOT would make comments and observations as Greeks had done but I trusted these would not involve changes in document itself but would rather be for information and clarification.
- 4)
- Point re general validity of treaty provisions represents no substantive problem since it has been our view from beginning that proposals do not affect such provisions. We have so stated repeatedly and I could now say so again under authority of message from Ball.
- 5)
- Point re “Government of Cyprus” was quite another matter since, regardless of GOT reservations, we just could not put ourselves in position of challenging legal status of GOC. We recognize that GOC not functioning normally but that is practical, not legal, consideration. Fact that proposals had been submitted to Kucuk as well as Makarios was illustrative this point.
At end, Erkin said GOT reply would cover number of points, including proposed revisions of text but that point regarding general application of treaty provisions was most important.
Referring to my previous warning re danger of delay involved in redrafting, I asked whether these suggestions would be in the form of requirements for GOT acquiescence or as expression of what they would want if possible arrange. Erkin replied that we would be given paper and would be up to us what to do with it. I asked what this meant in terms of submission of proposals to GOC. To be specific, could paper go forward even if decided changes inadvisable? Erkin replied “What else can you do?”
This not too satisfactory but better than expected. At any rate your message afforded timely opportunity to get crack at Erkin and give him time do a little thinking before seeing him this afternoon.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 23–8 CYP. Secret; Immediate. Repeated to London. Passed to the White House, JCS, OSD, CIA, USUN, CINCEUR, and CINCSTRIKE.↩
- Document 6.↩
- The text of the note was transmitted in telegram 1005 from Ankara, February 9. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 23–8 CYP)↩
- See footnote 2, Document 6.↩