982.542/8–2550: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State 1
1218. Substance of Deptel 10132 discussed with Foreign Office today which showed us text reply3 British Embassy Ankara instructed [Page 1303] in June to make to similar question posed by Turks. British, reply expressed opinion that controlled minefield falls into same category of weapon as coastal battery and if laid in Straits “would not constitute infraction of Montreux Convention nor … of right of innocent passage through territorial waters”.
This conclusion described as only valid if absolutely no risk of accidental detonation; however, “it should be possible entirely to obviate the risk”. Opinion also noted “Public opinion is notoriously sensitive to dangers to shipping, whether actual or potential and particularly where shipping lanes and straits are concerned. In spite of characteristics of a controlled minefield, freedom of passage might be restricted by the knowledge of existence and Turks might find selves involved in all kinds of political and legal controversy”.
However, British reply to Turks cited “good practical reasons” why Turks “should refrain from laying a controlled minefield in the Straits unless and until they think there is an imminent danger of war”. Reasons advanced were (a) heavy wear and tear on underwater portions minefield which Admiralty believes in Straits would very soon be destroyed by current; ((b) no point in laying sooner than necessary as this can be done very quickly if leads to water’s edge laid in advance.
Rumbold,4 head of Southern Department considers that Foreign Office legal opinion does not differ from Department’s opinion5 except for “nuance and refinement” quoted in last two sentences paragraph 2 above. Rumbold suggests Department and Foreign Office instruct their respective Ambassadors Ankara to blend and reconcile any apparent divergence in the two legal opinions and explain to Turkish Government US and UK views as to legality are identical.6
Embassy understands that competent US naval experts do not consider British “good practical reasons” as valid. Re paragraph 2 Deptel,7 CINCNELM informs us that Turkish General Staff does not [Page 1304] propose to lay any type other than ground mines while convention is in force.
- At the request of the Department of State, this telegram was repeated to Ankara.↩
- Dated August 24, not printed; it requested the Embassy in the United Kingdom to discuss with the British Foreign Office the divergent views of the United States and the United Kingdom regarding the legality under the Montreux Convention of the Turkish proposal for a controlled minefield at the Black Sea entrance to the Bosporus in order to learn the basis of the British position and exchange views on how a common position might be reached (982.542/8–2450).↩
- Reference is to the British aide-mémoire of June 19 (enclosure to despatch 113, August 29, from Ankara, 681.8229/8–2950, not printed).↩
- Sir Horace Anthony C. Rumbold.↩
- Presumably a reference to the position stated in Mr. Fisher’s memorandum, May 15, to Mr. Jernegan, p. 1260.↩
- Department’s telegram 114, August 30, to Ankara, not printed, authorized the Embassy in Turkey to follow the above-mentioned suggestion of Mr. Rumbold (782.022/8–3050). The Ankara Embassy file copy of telegram 114 bears the notation: “Done. W[adsworth]” (Ankara Embassy files, lot 57F72, box 2, 322.2 Straits 1950–52).↩
- Paragraph 2 of the Department’s telegram 1013, August 24, to London, not printed, read in part as follows: “Turk Gen Staff proposes lay moored and ground mines at depth of 20–30 fathoms near Black Sea entrance to Straits. Mines wld be controlled from harbor entrance post constituting part of harbor entrance defense system. When not energized mines wld constitute no menace to navigation and field cld be crossed at any point without requiring pilotage. Moored mines that broke loose wld be sterile and wld not endanger passing vessels.” (982.542/8–2450)↩