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

88. Telegram From the Mission in Geneva to the Department of State ¹

Geneva, July 20, 1964, 8 p.m.

168. From Acheson. Erim and Sunalp reported to us this morning on their visit in Ankara, Erim discussing political aspects of problem and Sunalp expounding Turkish military point of view (although he wandered over into political elements at times).

Erim said he had given report to Prime Minister and Cabinet Thursday night. Reaction to this, as to his earlier reports on talks with me, had been one of disappointment. View of Turkish Government, he said, was that Greeks had no intention of making any concessions or negotiating seriously, because they believed that they would gain 100 percent of their objective by standing pat. Their military buildup on island would permit them to do this, defying threat of Turkish intervention, and to hold off until UNGA meets this fall, at which time they could either get two-thirds affirmative vote in support of their position for complete independence and self-determination or, if Turks took initiative, defeat any Turkish complaint against them. Meanwhile, there was continuing danger of Greek fait accompli bringing about enosis.

Erim said, however, that he had assured government of his belief in my good faith and that USG through me was making sincere effort to find way out. He thought I should be given chance to try. GOT accordingly had authorized him to return here and continue talks even though it shared his own pessimistic view of results to be expected. I thanked him for this tribute and assured him that I would not hold him here beyond moment when I became convinced there was no hope of agreement. Thought I might have good indications on this point when I next saw Greek rep after his return from Athens consultations. (Nikolareisis returned today and we have appointment to meet tomorrow at 17:00 local.) If I thought Greeks were clearly unwilling to continue discussions on basis offering some hope of success, I would feel obliged to tell Erim so.

I then asked whether they could tell me anything more specific about their consultations in Ankara. At this point Sunalp largely took over conversation. Said that Turk General Staff had been impressed by plan I had outlined in my memorandum (Mission tel)² and had given it very careful and sympathetic study. As he put it, they had looked at it “with their white glasses rather than their dark glasses”. He produced map of Cyprus which he said showed some of results of this study. It showed three boundary lines corresponding to three possibilities I had suggested:

1. A line crossing Karpas Peninsula about 2/3 of way in from Cape;

2. A line from Peristeria village on north coast running across to Boghaz on south coast and in effect enclosing whole peninsula; and

3. A line running from just west of Karavas (north coast west of Kyrenia) irregularly southeast through Nicosia and on to Famagusta and paralleling but running north of main Nicosia-Famagusta road.

Sunalp called his first line “Greek line” and seemed to dismiss it without consideration. Second line he argued would still be “unsatisfactory as giving Turkey too little territory and, from military point of view, too little maneuverability. Third line would enclose about 21 percent, 795 square miles of island area and would be acceptable from military point of view as well as providing minimum space for Turkish-Cypriots. This last boundary would give Turkey port of Kyrenia and also access to deep water port of Famagusta although this need not necessarily be Turkish port. They would be satisfied if it were NATO base, which Turkey could use in time of war.

Sunalp admitted that there were no great obstacles to construction of artificial port on Karpas Peninsula, provided we put up the money, and indicated a site around Boghaz as logical location. He also admitted construction of air strip was feasible but indicated as preferred site something in the neighborhood of village of Trikomo, which is outside second line. He continued to insist, however, on military necessity of having greater space for defensive maneuvering and argued that minimum Turkish military need would be for line taking in pass from north coast through Kyrenia range down to Lefkoniko as well as high part of ridge lying to west of that as far as Pentadaktylos Peak. This, he said, would give Turks flanking position against any enemy which might approach sovereign area across plain from southwest. Without it, Turk forces would be penned in narrow peninsula with no way of countering attack.

Sunalp and Erim were both somewhat vague in their justification for third line, and in course of conversation it became clear that they did not contend this was military necessity but rather was modification of double enosis proposal, based primarily on political considerations. Sunalp especially emphasized importance of holding Kyrenia as means of quick access to Turk-Cypriots in Nicosia in case of trouble. I got impression they probably would settle for boundary line which included pass north of Lefkoniko but stopped just west of it.

In course of conversation I raised question whether defense against major military attack from land was really important, suggesting that Turks themselves might well be able to forestall any such thing and in any case it seemed unlikely to occur. I got no satisfactory answer. I also indicated gently that I thought it would be very difficult to get Greek consideration of sort of thing they were proposing. At the end, however, I said I would not try at this time to discuss their presentation; first of all, I wanted to think about it and secondly I thought it would be a waste of time for them and for me to argue unless and until we found out that Greeks were willing to talk on basis I had suggested. I would be in touch with them again just as soon as I had anything new.³

After seeing Turks I had a talk with Mediator Tuomioja and summarized to him Turkish ideas. He had no particular comment. I told him I would be glad to meet with U Thant, who is back in Geneva, but would not want to take up his time unnecessarily. Tuomioja said he would report to SYG and let me know whether the latter wanted to see me.

Tubby

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 23–8 CYP. Secret; Exdis-TAG. Repeated to Athens, Ankara, London, and USUN.
2. See Document 86.
3. In telegram 166 from Geneva, July 20, Acheson further reported that during their conversation Sunalp had given a “‘remarkably frank” outline of Turkish plans for intervention. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 23–8 CYP) In telegram 172 from Geneva, July 21, Acheson reported on Turkish views on the defensibility of a base area also developed during this meeting. (Ibid.)