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

74. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, June 24, 1964, 10:30 a.m.

SUBJECT

• Cyprus Problem

PARTICIPANTS

• The U.S Side
  • The President
  • The Under Secretary
  • Ambassador Labouisse
• The Greek Side
  • Prime Minister Papandreou
  • Foreign Minister Costopoulos
  • Alternate Minister of Coordination Andreas Papandreou
  • Ambassador Matsas

The President welcomed the Prime Minister for a discussion of a matter which he knew was of deep concern to both of them. The President stated that he had no desire to impose our will on anyone; we have no formula. However, he is worried that our friends differ among themselves, and he hopes very much that, rather than fighting, they can get together for talks which will lead to a solution.

The President referred to the recent threatened move by Turkey and the action he had taken in an effort to forestall it, saying that he was following the teaching of Isaiah: “Come let us reason together”. The President had asked the Turks not to act without talking with us and with Greece. After an exchange of communications, Prime Minister Inonu had agreed to come to Washington for talks.

The President then went on to say that he had not presented to Inonu any formula or recommendation re a particular solution but that he had urged as strongly as possible that the Turks sit down and reason with the people of Greece. The President stressed that statesmen should get together and reason. He had told Inonu that if the Turks would agree to talk with the Greeks, the United States would provide the arrangements and facilities, including an outstanding American citizen, Mr. Dean Acheson, to assist.

The President said that he knew that Prime Minister Papandreou felt very strongly in the matter of Cyprus—that he knew the Prime Minister’s viewpoint, and that Papandreou felt justified in it. The President added, however, that he hoped very much that Mr. Papandreou would agree that discussions be held with the Turks. He specified that he was not proposing talks on the Prime Minister or even Foreign Minister levels, but rather between duly authorized representatives of the two countries. He felt that the meetings should be secret and should be held in the immediate future, and he suggested they be held with the assistance of Dean Acheson at Camp David. The Prime Minister indicated that he had a high regard for Mr. Acheson.

The President went on to say that the Secretary General of the UN wanted the United States to help, in fact, he was anxious for us to do it within the spirit of the UN. There was no proposal to go around the UN.

The President said to Papandreou that he had told Inonu that he wanted history to remember him as a statesman who would reason and not as a warrior. While Inonu had accepted this line of argument, the President did not know how long Inonu could keep his people behind him.

If the Prime Minister of Greece could designate someone who has his confidence who could meet with the Turkish representative and Mr. Acheson, President Johnson was sure that this could be arranged very quickly. There was everything to gain and nothing to lose by trying to reason. The alternative could be very bad and bloody, and we would want no part of it; we cannot be in a position of fighting our allies. The President went on to say that we have exercised our very best efforts to prevent a disaster. He pointed out that anyone can start a war, but confidence, patience and wisdom were needed to prevent one. He said, therefore, he wanted to have meetings started during the next week and he was sure that all people would welcome this. He emphasized that he was not asking that anyone yield any right, but only that they try to reason.

The President then referred to the vote which had just taken place on the foreign aid bill² and said that he could lead the American people if the people think he is doing all possible to prevent bloodshed and work with the UN. But the people are worried about growing tensions between Greece and Turkey and they do not want this to continue. He was sure that if we three try to reason this matter out, it will help a great deal.

He said to Papandreou that if the latter would cooperate and search for peace, he will have the approbation of the UN and of the people of this country; the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. If we cannot cooperate in this search for peace, the President will have to tell the American people what to expect, and he added again we cannot be in a position of fighting an ally. Under the circumstances, the President said what we want to ask is that talks be held in search of a solution and we do not think that this is an unreasonable request. He expressed the hope that before July 4 he could get Inonu to designate a representative and Papandreou to do likewise. They, with Mr. Acheson, could explore the roads to a solution.

The President continued that, with the help of Mr. Acheson, we can develop plans which will help both our allies down the years and he then referred to the need for economic development of both countries instead of wasting their resources. The President ended by saying that if the American representative recommends a plan for promoting peace and prosperity, he was sure the American people would follow along.

The Prime Minister then spoke. He said that we were before a very critical situation and we needed to avoid war. He wanted to explore what was the best procedure, for he thought that there was confusion between what we called absolute and relative questions.

He said that the two world wars could have been prevented if the leaders of those times had acted properly. He said that for this reason he expressed great appreciation for President Johnson’s interest in the Cyprus matter.

On the question of procedure, Papandreou asserted that the procedure suggested by President Johnson would lead to war—“if an understanding does not come about through Mr. Acheson, war will result”. He also asserted that we all have a common aim of avoiding war and this was why he could not accept the viewpoint put forward by Mr. Stikker that when an issue is between two members of NATO, NATO must be neutral. Since the arms of the NATO powers are for use against the enemy, is it possible that NATO would permit their use against an ally?

Papandreou stated that the Greeks have responsibility for bringing about peace on the island by influencing the Greek Cypriots; the Turks have a similar responsibility with respect to the Turkish Cypriots. This, he said, was his first point: differences should be settled only through peaceful means.

Papandreou went on to say that as the points of view between Turkey and Greece differed so widely, nothing could be expected from the meeting proposed by the President and consequently the extremists on both sides would contend that there was nothing to do but to fight. “When the presupposition is that no war will take place, we can then talk with safety.”

Papandreou said that he was prepared to go personally to Cyprus to insure calm and then there would be no excuse for a Turkish landing.

The Prime Minister asserted that he was not thinking just as a leader of Greece but as a leader belonging to a country of the Free World. This led him to the discussion of intervention, saying there were two arguments to be discussed—one legal and one substantive. On the legal side, the right of intervention had been lost when Cyprus entered the UN—there was no longer any basis for intervention. On the substantive side, there was an argument that both the Turks and Greeks must be satisfied. This, he alleged, was false. “Turkey does not lose anything. A century ago it sold Cyprus, so what valid right does it have?” He argued that security was the only basis for negotiation and he agreed that Turkey must be offered security. This, he said, is why he had put forward “NATOfication” as the most desirable solution of the Cyprus problem.

He alluded to other possible solutions, saying that in the case of partition, the non-Turkish part of the island would become Communist.

Concerning the possibility of Greece giving up something to Turkey as part of a solution, Papandreou said that Greece wanted nothing in Cyprus—its position was “merely that through democratic principles the majority can rule and the minority can be protected.” He put the question “if Greece does not take anything, why should Greece give?” He asserted that the question of enosis was a matter for the Cypriots; that self-determination would be good for Cyprus and for the Free World.

Returning to the proposal for a meeting, Papandreou said he was afraid that a confrontation of the two points of view at the present time would lead to war. Instead of this confrontation, talks should be carried on by the Mediator and, meanwhile, peace on the island should be maintained in order to avoid provocation.

Papandreou then repeated his argument that NATO should not permit NATO-furnished arms to be used by either Turkey or Greece to fight one another.

Papandreou concluded by expressing the view that if the meeting should be held with Mr. Acheson, the latter would have to report no agreement at the end of ten days.

President Johnson asked why Mr. Acheson would have to report no agreement if the two parties entered the discussions in good faith.

Mr. Ball interjected here to say that we cannot be sure that the Turks will not move. He suggested that we explore this whole matter further at luncheon.

1. Source: Department of State, Ball Papers: Lot 74 D 272, Papandreou and Inonu Visits. Secret; Exdis-TUG. Drafted by Labouisse and approved in U on July 29 and in the White House on July 30. The meeting was held in the President’s office.
2. On June 10, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 11380, the 1965 Foreign Aid Appropriations bill, by a vote of 230 to 175. The bill authorized a total of $2 billion in assistance.