760.5/6–1154: Telegram
No. 344
The Secretary of
State to the Embassy in the United
Kingdom1
6811. Ref: London 5679.2
Since June 11 meeting centered on US views presume June 16 Working Group session will concentrate on British and French views. Following however may be useful US representative in connection questions raised in reftel:
Purpose paragraphs 6 and 7 Deptel 67073 was to point up possibility imbalance in obligations which might be incurred by Greece, Turkey (and indirectly NATO) on one hand and Yugoslavia on other through Balkan Alliance, depending upon actual terms alliance. Our principal concern is that Greece Turkey should, in drafting final terms alliance, bear in mind implications therein for NATO, inferences likely be drawn therefrom by individual NATO members, and advisability being prepared reassure NAC in detail [Page 653] that alliance does not conflict with major NATO interests. No comment on suggested committee of liaison paragraph 2 reftel in absence further information on what British French have in mind.
With respect question approach to Greeks Turks along line paragraph 8 Deptel 6707, in view approaches already made to Greece Turkey by US, UK, France relative to timing of alliance vis-à-vis Trieste negotiations, and cooperative attitude with which our démarche received, we believe US, UK, France should carefully avoid giving impression interference which might well be resented and jeopardize present opportunity we have for moderating development. UK, French representatives on Working Group should be informed that US views expressed reftel 64004 have been given informally to Greeks and Turks through Embassies Athens, Ankara (Athens telegram to Department 2880 [2881], London 104; Ankara to Department 1314, London 70.5) If UK and/or French suggest their governments might express similar views to appropriate Greek and Turk officials you might state we feel Greek, Turk Governments sufficiently aware this position and that further approach at this time might be undesirable. US believes next formal approach to Greeks and Turks should await occasion when US, UK, France are in position make concrete suggestions based on knowledge proposed terms of alliance.
Department reserving opinion on suggestion informal canvass individual NATO members prior NAC discussion. Believe answer this question may depend upon actual terms alliance and degree difficulty foreseen in NAC.
If personal views UK, French representatives mentioned reftel are confirmed at June 16 meeting, we apparently have meeting of minds on following points:
- 1.
- North Atlantic Treaty does not contain any absolute prohibition military alliance between NATO and non-NATO country.
- 2.
- NAT does not give NATO member right of veto such an alliance negotiated by another member.
- 3.
- Greek-Turk-Yugoslav military alliance inevitable and not likely be delayed indefinitely.
- 4.
- Balkan Alliance could, depending upon terms, have indirect effect extending NATO commitments.
- 5.
- Development alliance terms should be closely followed with a view to corrective action in event of (a) any possible conflict with NAT and (b) any possible imbalance of obligations especially relative to NATO implications.
- 6.
- Greece Turkey should present alliance plans in fullest possible detail to NAC sufficiently in advance of signature to give NATO partners feeling their views, if any, will be given friendly consideration.
Background material mentioned first paragraph Deptel 6707 air pouched special courier ETA London 2 or 3 pm Wednesday.
- Drafted and signed for the Secretary by Adair and cleared in BNA, EE, WE, L, and NEA/GTI. Repeated to Paris, Athens, Ankara, and Belgrade.↩
- Supra.↩
- Not printed. (760.5/6–1054)↩
- Same as telegram 3364 to Athens; see footnote 3, Document 342.↩
- Telegram 2881 is Document 342; telegram 1314 from Ankara, June 10, reported that Warren emphasized to the Turks the importance to NATO of any military commitments undertaken by Turkey outside of NATO. (760.5/6–1054)↩