Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Eastern Europe; Soviet Union; Eastern Mediterranean, Volume VIII

760.5/7–2954: Telegram

No. 355
The United States Permanent Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Hughes) to the Department of State¹

top secret

Paris, July 29, 1954—8 p.m.

Polto 171. Subject: NAC Discussion Balkan Alliance, July 29.

I. Discussion opened by formal statements of Greek and Turkish representatives. Greek statement contained nothing new. Emphasized Yugoslav attachment to West and importance Yugoslavia to defense Greece. Stated alliance committed Yugoslavia to be on our side if attack made on other NATO power without formal commitment to Yugoslavia by NATO. Stated no question of Yugoslavia in NATO as Yugoslavia, for own good reasons, did not want this.

II. Turk statement significant in emphasis placed on need take promptly further steps for complete integration between Balkan alliance and NATO of legal and organic character similar to that established between EDC and NATO by special protocol and arrangements for joint sessions. Stated these steps believed by Turkish Government to be necessary and prepared to initiate work on them immediately after signature alliance in cooperation with NATO partners. Expressed certainty all obstacles to such arrangements could be overcome and that these assurances would give confidence and sense security to Yugoslav leaders.

III. Turk statement also expressed desire have Italy join Ankara pact and military alliance. Stated cause on attachment new members designed specifically this purpose.

IV. Each permanent representative except Iceland, then made statement, highlights of which follow:

1. All expressed approval action Greece and Turkey had taken in organizing new alliance and considered it would represent substantial strengthening NATO security.

2. Most expressed appreciation for manner in which NATO being consulted.

3. Canada, Norway and Denmark wished emphasize their governments did not understand that alliance, or discussion of it taking place in Council, would in any way involve automatic, formal or implied extension present NATO obligations of NATO members generally.

4. Norway and Denmark reserved right their governments, basis report this meeting, ask for additional Council session.

5. Italy, France and Belgium emphasized importance Article 2 not going beyond Article 5 of NATO. Appreciation expressed for statements in documents circulated that objective alliance was to have procedure like Article 5. Belgium pointed out if was the case, would be better follow language Article 5 more closely as different language apt lead to different interpretation or some misunderstanding. Greek and Turkish representatives agreed consider point further, but emphasized again their intentions. Point made by three Dels supported by number other Dels in general terms.

6. Doubts expressed by Italy, Belgium and France as to clarity present draft Article 7. Felt Yugoslavia not sufficiently committed provide balanced arrangement. Belgian Del suggested idea in Greek paper of confining objective of consultation to keeping aggression out of geographical area of Balkan alliance was very restricted target and best leave out statement as to geographical limits. British supported these comments as did one or two others. Greeks and Turks agreed consider Belgian language carefully and felt might possibly be acceptable. Turk emphasized answer to general problem raised re Article 7 lay in his proposal for mutual exchange guarantees similar to EDC.

7. Many Dels called attention importance establishing promptly close political and military relations between Balkan alliance and NATO. France and UK specifically endorsed Turk proposal for exchange EDC–type guarantees. Italy expressed great sympathy and also urged SG work closely with Balkan alliance to insure integration military plans of Balkan alliance into present strategic concept of NATO for use Greek and Turkish forces. US and Belgium emphasized while problem close coordination existed, exact means needed careful study and legal and formal arrangements not necessarily best answer. Canada, Norway and Denmark indicated would want study carefully proposal for exchange of guarantees and did not want to be committed at this time.

Dutch suggested Greece and Turkey should undertake special responsibility for keeping Council informed of political intentions Yugoslav Government. Turk replied would try do so but hoped that as result completion of proposals he had made, these could be learned directly in joint meetings Balkan alliance and NATO Ministers.

SGLO speaking at request US, while endorsing arrangement in terms NATO security, expressed hope Greeks and Turks would find it possible to keep NATO fully informed of military planning. This assurance was given.

French made, not too precisely and without pressing, suggestion for immediate exchange of letters between Yugoslavia on one hand and Greeks-Turks on other giving assurance of military and political cooperation between Balkan and NATO alliance. Turkish answer not specifically joined in by Greek, to all this was to emphasize again essential character of formal and organic link as result of exchange of guarantees and arrangements for joint Council meetings.

Turkish representative attempted follow-up on Ismay’s summary of conclusions by seeking authority say to Yugoslavia that Council had both approved alliance and authorized Greece and Turkey to initiate discussions with Yugoslavia looking to such a formal link. This last not accepted by Council.

8. Italy emphasized importance alliance to her in view her Yugoslav border and geographical location in relation other alliance partners. Felt could only operate well if good relations on those common borders. This recognized actually by Greeks and Turks who expressed warm appreciation for Italian position generally.

Hughes

1. Repeated for information to Athens, Ankara, Belgrade, Rome, and London.