740.5/8–2550
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Secretary of State
Subject: Turkey’s Desire to Adhere to the North Atlantic Treaty; Inadequacy of ECA Fund Allocations to Turkey
| Participants: | The Secretary |
| The Turkish Ambassador | |
| Assistant Secretary McGhee |
Mr. Rountree, GTI The Turkish Ambassador called upon me at his request at 11:45 a. m., August 25. This was his first appointment with Departmental officials following his recent return from Ankara.1
The Ambassador said that he wished to discuss two matters which were of urgent concern to the Turkish Government. The first related to Turkey’s desire to adhere to the North Atlantic Treaty; the second to Turkey’s requirement for more economic aid than it is now scheduled to receive.
Ambassador Erkin reviewed in some detail his previous approaches to Departmental officials concerning the question of Turkish adherence to the North Atlantic Treaty. These discussions began before the Treaty itself was concluded, when the Government of Turkey had urged that the proposed membership be extended to that country. The contention that this would not be inconsistent with the anticipated geographical arrangement was based upon the fact that Italy and North African territories of European powers were to be included. Notwithstanding the Turkish appeal, the pact excluded the eastern Mediterranean countries, and Turkey’s subsequent requests were rejected on the basis that the United States wished, before extending its [Page 1301] commitments, to await completion of the organizational stages of the arrangement as constituted.
The Ambassador said that notwithstanding his persistence in representing the Turkish Government’s point of view, he had appreciated the position of the United States and in his reports to Ankara had emphasized that position to the extent that the Foreign Minister under the previous government had recommended that he be recalled;
During his recent stay in his country, the Ambassador said, he had observed a growing feeling among Turkish leaders and the people that Turkey should be included in the European collective security arrangement. The Korean development, which occurred during this period, intensified this feeling to the extent that the question is now a major issue in Turkey. The Turks feel that they could contribute materially to the collective strength of Western Europe and, on the other hand, believe that Turkey’s inclusion would enhance its own security. The Ambassador said that in Europe today there are three important organizations: the OEEC, the Council of Europe, and the North Atlantic Treaty. Turkey is included in the first two, and her exclusion from the latter on a geographical basis would, in his opinion, be inconsistent.
The Ambassador said that his government had informally explored this question with a number of the treaty countries, and that Italy, France, and Canada had indicated that they would support Turkey’s admission if the United States agreed. He understood that the question would be discussed between the United States, British and French representatives in the New York meetings in September,2 and urged that the United States take a favorable position which would result in Turkey’s inclusion.
I thanked Ambassador Erkin for reviewing the past history of the matter and outlining the views of the Turkish Government. I assured him that the Turkish request was receiving serious consideration by the United States Government and that we intended to discuss it with the British and French in September. I said that there are, of course, important military considerations involved in our decision, and these are being reviewed currently in collaboration with our military authorities. I could not, therefore, indicate at this time what our position will be, but that he could be assured that we recognize the importance which the Turkish Government attached to the decision.
The Ambassador said that while he would not go into details at this time, he wished to mention that the fact that Turkey’s requirements for economic aid are considerably greater than has been provided for in the proposed allocations of ECA assistance. He said that [Page 1302] with the funds scheduled for Turkey the country cannot carry out its minimum essential development program and at the same time maintain an adequate level of security forces. While this matter is being pursued with ECA, he hoped that the State Department would lend its support to the efforts of the Turkish Government to obtain more favorable consideration.
Mr. McGhee pointed out that the ECA appropriation for this year had been very substantially reduced by the Congress, and that reduction will be reflected throughout all participating countries. He said that we wished to adhere to the fullest possible extent to the recommendations of OEEC,3 upon which Turkey is represented, in allocating the funds available. It was pointed out that Turkey, a country unravished by war and thus unlike other European countries, had been receiving very substantial sums under the European Recovery Program. During the first year of the program’s operation, he recalled, it was difficult to justify even a token allocation of funds to Turkey, and these annual allocations had grown to the point where Turkey has been receiving very substantial benefits. Both Mr. McGhee and I assured the Ambassador, however, that the Department would study the subject carefully and render to the Turkish Government whatever assistance it properly can in dealing with the Economic Cooperation Administration, which of course has primary responsibility in the matter.
The Ambassador thanked me for permitting him to discuss these matters, which are of great importance to his Government, and departed.
- Ambassador Feridun O. Erkin was away from Washington during the period June 16 to August 15 for a vacation and consultations in Turkey.↩
- For documentation on the Tripartite Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of France, United Kingdom, and United States, New York, September 1950, see vol. iii, pp. 1108 ff.↩
- For documentation on OEEC participation in economic planning in Europe, see vol. iii, pp. 611 ff.↩