782.022/8–3150: Telegram
The Ambassador in Turkey (Wadsworth) to the Secretary of State
149. ReEmbtel 125 August 22 and Deptel 101 August 25.1 British Ambassador2 has given me copy his aide-mémoire dated June 19.3 In our view it should not be read by Turks as expressing view that laying of controlled mine field would be incompatible with principle of liberty of passage in peace time or otherwise violation of Montreux Convention. Opening paragraph expresses opinion that, as legally such a field (if laid with absolutely no risk of accidental detonation) falls in same category of weapon as coastal batteries, it would not constitute infraction of the convention or of general principle of right of innocent passage through territorial waters.
2. Confusion in Turkish interpretation may have arisen from ensuing comment that, in view sensitiveness public opinion to actual or potential shipping dangers, freedom of passage “might be” restricted [Page 1305] by simple knowledge of field’s existence and consequently that Turks might find themselves in violent political and legal controversy.
3. Then commenting on technical aspects of project aide-mémoire suggests as practical reason for deferring action unless and until war be thought imminent, that under water installation would soon be destroyed by currents. It adds that actual laying of mines could be quickly accomplished if proper shore preparations (e.g. laying of leads) be made.
4. Admiral Ginder comments that British reply was written before Korean war. He recommends urging Turks proceed with project since delivery time of materials plus time for completion of installation would probably require 6 to 8 months. He considers two months required for actual laying of mines. He realizes that continued maintenance of underwater installation is required. General Arnold concurs. We would appreciate Department’s early instructions.