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

81. Telegram From the Embassy in Greece to the Department of State ¹

Athens, July 2, 1964, 8 p.m.

18. Ref: Deptel 06.² I transmitted President Johnson’s letter to PriMin Papandreou today at 1 p.m. As I arrived Papandreou was conferring with Defense Minister Garoufalias and Cypriot leaders Georkatzis and Illiades who excused themselves, leaving us alone.

During reading of President’s letter, PriMin’s expression was serious even grim. After having read letter he commented, “more of the same.” Everyone in Washington, he said, applied pressure on him to negotiate as though negotiation were the magic formula, but he had not heard one specific suggestion in Washington as to what he is to negotiate about, or what US would consider an acceptable solution. Because of danger of armed Turkish intervention, Greece is urged to make concessions. But what concessions is Greece to make, what rights are Turks giving up which require that they be compensated by Greece. Greece asks nothing from Cyprus. This is not basically a Greek-Turkish problem. There are questions of principle involved, one of which is independence, self-determination and integrity of Cyprus.

I am told, he said, that I must negotiate because if I do not negotiate the Turks will resort to armed intervention. The US has exhausted its efforts to restrain Turks and responsibility for the peace thus rests upon Greece. Mr. McNamara pointed out to me how powerful Turkish military forces are, but Greece cannot act under pressure of ultimatum. We did not accept an ultimatum from our enemies in 1940,³ and it is very difficult for us to accept an ultimatum today from our friends. How can a nation (US) maintain its position as the leader of free world unless it has a policy? How can it fail to continue to support principle of self-determination? How can US fail to say to Turkey—or to Greece for that matter: “the arms which you possess are arms which we have given you for the purpose of self-defense. We (US) will not accept that our arms be used in an aggressive manner, risking the danger of war, perhaps a small war, but one which could escalate into a large war.” How can Greece’s NATO allies fail to tell the Turks that they do not accept aggressive actions which may precipitate a war. Greece can accept a political struggle; Greece can accept debate in the UN and in NATO; but Greece cannot accept a policy which justifies the use of force.

Papandreou said de Gaulle had agreed that Cypriot right to self-determination must be respected and that Turkish threats of armed intervention were unacceptable. Papandreou gave no intimation that de Gaulle may have been alluding to right of both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities to self-determination.

I replied GOG would be making a serious error in interpreting Washington’s analysis of current situation as an ultimatum, and I asked whether he did not have feeling that although there may be serious differences of view regarding tactics, US and GOG were, in fact, moving in same general direction. Prime Minister did not answer directly, but excused himself for bluntness of his statement and promised that he would reply tomorrow (sic) to President’s letter.⁴

I inquired whether press reports that Nikolareizis (Greek Ambassador to Belgrade) would be sent to Geneva were correct. He confirmed this and added that Nikolareizis arriving in Athens tomorrow to report to him prior to going to Geneva. I said that I was confident that Washington would be very much gratified by his decision to send such an experienced diplomat to Geneva.

Comment: Papandreou made no effort conceal his disappointment at failure Greek position evoke greater understanding and sympathy in Washington, as well as certain irritation at what he considers implied US threat to stand aside in event of new Turk decision intervene militarily. Papandreou’s Washington visit has probably produced some bruises which will be slow in disappearing. Although he spoke with obvious [garble—agitation] he was not abusive or discourteous.

I think we should consider appointment Nikolareizis as gesture in our direction even though it may not presage immediate substantive changes in GOG position.

Anschuetz

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 23–8 CYP. Secret; Immediate; Exdis-TUG.
2. Document 80.
3. Reference is to the Greek Government rejection of an ultimatum from Italy.
4. Papandreou replied to this letter on July 6, defending Greek policy. A copy of that letter is in the Johnson Library, National Security File, Memos to the President—McGeorge Bundy, Vol. 6.