795.00/12–2151: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Secretary of State
priority
2850. Embtel 2817, December 20.1
Cabinet yesterday approved alternate wording quoted Deptel 2973, Dec 18. Statement, of course, is subj discussion with other interested govts as to wording, timing and method of handling.
In this connection, Pearson, Canadian FonSec, has queried use of word “aggression”, suggesting in its place “major breach of armistice” as less irritating and more restrictive in its comitment. Likely he will raise this point with US Govt in near future.
Ltr to above effect addressed to me being sent Eden for signature.2
-
The text of this telegram read as follows:
↩“Eden told me last night that he was agreeable to alternative wording quoted Deptel 2973, December 18 but that official govt reaction wld have to await Cabinet consideration which he promised arrange as soon as possible.” (795.00/12–2051)
-
On December 22, the Department informed the Embassies in Paris, The Hague, Ankara, Athens, and Brussels of the approval of the British Cabinet subject to the mentioned conditions. The Department also indicated that the Greek Government had reported it would be happy to associate itself with the statement at the appropriate time. (Telegram 3641 to Paris, 832 to The Hague, 546 to Ankara, 3019 to Athens, and 917 to Brussels; 795.00/12–2251)
The Turkish Government expressed its agreement with the statement on December 24 (telegram 568, December 24, from Ankara; 795.00/12–2451).
↩