Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXXIII, Organization and Management of Foreign Policy; United Nations

453. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State ¹

London, February 7, 1964, 1 a.m.

3783. Embtel 3780.²

1. I had lengthy session this evening with Sandys, Caccia and others to go over Sandys redraft (see reftel) of our package proposal on Cyprus. We again agreed on operating arrangements that once US and UK agreement is reached, our respective Embassies in Ankara and Athens should discuss redraft with GOT and GOG. Thereafter, following their acquiescence, it might be presented to Makarios and Kutchuk.

2. Meanwhile, Sandys suggested meeting with Kyprianou be held tomorrow as scheduled, but without attempting to give him any piece of paper at that time. Purpose of meeting would be to elicit Kyprianou’s reaction. Sandys thought some slight advance on Kyprianou’s previous position might be gotten out of him. At that meeting, however, Kyprianou will be given no indication of what is being considered by US as next step. Once clearance is obtained from US, UK, GOT and GOG, he might be given agreed paper later in day or following day. Time of meeting tentatively set for noon tomorrow. In accordance my telecon with Burdett, I suggest Dept discuss with Gore or Greenhill desirability postponing Sandys meeting with Kyprianou. If he still decides to go through with it, unless Dept objects, I think I should attend. It might be useful hear what Kyprianou has to say, and my presence might serve to restrain Sandys a bit.

3. With respect to Brit redraft, Sandys described his efforts as a “tidying up” operation. Following points deserve specific mention:

A. By beginning para 1 of covering document (i.e., “International Force for Cyprus”) with phrase, “It is agreed etc.”, Brits believe need for para 2 of our text sent Depcirtel 1438³ is obviated.

B. Para 2 of covering document lifted, with slight revision, from Annex A (Depcirtel 1416)⁴ of our package.

C. Brits believe para 6 of covering document will be acceptable to Makarios, though GOG might conceivably be slightly unhappy not to have an absolute assurance from Turks re no intervention.

D. Sandys prefers omit bracketed para after para 6, but has no objection if Dept desires include it.

E. In Annex A, Sandys would like to omit para 1(C), which he considers restrictive rather than helpful and which he expects will be difficult to negotiate.

F. Having in mind our objection to any commitment re protection of external security of Cyprus, Brits have redrafted para 5 of Annex A to limit such obligation to those who already have it, namely signatories of treaty of alliance with Cyprus. By thus citing treaty obligation, Sandys hopes make clear to Makarios that he is not losing anything by accepting proposal. Caccia noted, however, that Brits would not regard Turk intervention under treaty of guarantee of aggression.

G. Re para 9, I made very clear to Sandys that we cannot accept anything that smacks of Security Council approval (as opposed to “take note of”) for peace-keeping force. Caccia indicated FonOff shares this view. Present wording also refers to “consensus” rather than “resolution”.

H. Annex B is same as earlier Brit draft sent Embtel 3678⁵ on which we await Dept’s views. On their part, Brits owe us their views re our SOF supplement sent Deptel 4772.⁶ Until US–UK agreement reached, this annex should remain in suspense and not be shown to Greeks or Turks.

I. Sandys believes Annex C, i.e. mediator’s terms of ref, should be as simple as possible. He has attempted meld our earlier draft with FonOff/CRO working level draft. He believes bracketed phrase following para 2 of Annex C might be deleted, but is agreeable to retaining it if Dept so wishes.

4. Sandys is disturbed over possibility of any delay and is as anxious as we are to move forward. I also taxed Sandys on Pickard’s giving text of unapproved talking papers to Makarios. Sandys made no comment.

Action Requested.

1. I shall appreciate having Dept’s urgent comments on Sandys’ redraft. If redraft is acceptable or once any minor changes have been worked out, we should inform HMG that US Ambassadors in Athens and Ankara may as next step urgently concert with their Brit colleagues to obtain GOG and GOT concurrence.

2. It will also be helpful to know what Dept has said to Gore or Greenhill about Sandys’ scheduled meeting with Kyprianou tomorrow. In event meeting takes place and Dept has no objection to my attending, I shall appreciate having any specific guidance for that meeting.⁷

Bruce

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, RG 59, POL 23–8 CYP. Confidential; Immediate; Priority. Received in the Department of State at 9:10 p.m. February 6. Repeated to Paris for USRO, Nicosia, Athens, Ankara, and USUN. Passed to the White House, JCS, OSD, CIA, CINCEUR also for POLAD, CINCSTRIKE also for POLAD.
2. Dated February 6; it contained the text of the Sandys’ counter proposal. (Ibid.)
3. Dated February 5; it contained the U.S. draft of an adjusted proposal for a peacekeeping force. (Ibid.)
4. Dated February 2; it contained the text of the British proposal for an international force on Cyprus. (Ibid.)
5. Dated February 2. (Ibid.)
6. Not found.
7. In telegram 1459 to London, February 7, the Department of State provided changes in the suggested wording of Sandys’ proposal. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 23–8 CYP)