92. Telegram From the Mission in Geneva to the Department of State1

236. From Acheson and Jernegan for Talbot. Ref: Deptel 244.2 Your telegram raises question whether (a) Sunalp and Turks and (b) Greeks believe we are suggesting a Turkish right of intervention similar to that provided in present treaties. Taking “(b)” first Nikolareisis in candid talk yesterday raised this very question and asked a change in our memo pouched to you (Geneva’s A–44)3 to make clear that Turks military presence after enosis would be only to defend their own mainland and to help Greeks defend Cyprus against foreign attack. Before enosis Turkey would have additional right to prevent a change of regime that would [Page 199] bring about a Communist state on Cyprus. We are counting on Nikolareisis and our memo to make this clear in Athens.

Turning to “(a)”-(Sunalp), he undoubtedly wants to use base for protection of Turkish minority, which is not conferred in haec verba by present treaties. His method of discussion is to confuse all desirable uses of base, jumping from one to another to avoid being cornered. With the able help of our General and Colonel we have pretty well got him pinned inside the Karpas Peninsula as a base for military purpose of housing and training a military force to protect Turkey and Cyprus from foreign foe. From there we will go on to limit his other desired purposes both before and after enosis; but always aware that whatever is said on paper, Turkish military presence will be a deterrent against abuse of the minority and will be used as a corrective if large-scale abuse should occur. Sunalp does not suffer from incapacity to understand our position but from unwillingness to accept it. We shall watch out, however, that we do not give him ground for a plausible claim that he misunderstands.

Tubby
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 23–8 CYP. Secret; Exdis-TAG.
  2. Telegram 244 to Geneva, July 25, requested that Acheson seek clarification of Turkish views regarding enosis and their rights of intervention in relation to the sovereign base question (Ibid.)
  3. Document 90.