Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XVI, Eastern Europe; Cyprus; Greece; Turkey

397. Telegram From Secretary of State Rusk to the Department of State⁰

Paris, December 15, 1963, 7 p.m.

Secto 8. Following summary of Secretary’s December 15 conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Erkin is uncleared, subject to revision and not for dissemination to foreign officials.

Erkin called on Secretary alone; Tyler participated on US side.

1. Turkish political scene. Describing political situation in Turkey, Erkin made three points: (A) He had urged Inonu to form coalition government composed of Justice and Republican parties but Inonu reluctant to form such coalition; (B) if present impasse continued, early elections might be required; (C) whatever new government formed, Turkish foreign policy would remain unchanged.

Erkin then raised following four topics with Secretary, speaking from paper which he left with Secretary and which will be pouched Department and Ankara: (A) NATO strategy; (B) NATO force planning exercise; (C) equipment requirements of Turkish army; (D) Turkish economic requirements as compared with her defense contribution. Also raised subjects Cyprus and Turkish-Soviet relations.

2. NATO strategy. Erkin said NATO military committee discussions on strategy (MC 100/1)¹ were based upon assumption NATO’s conventional forces should be raised to levels necessary to resist any Soviet conventional attack. Turkey, however, was concerned because it was unlikely that NATO could reach required force levels. Problem for Turkey was distinction between conventional and nuclear war. Turks understood that aggression against Greece or Turkey would be met with conventional forces but questioned whether conventional response would be adequate if Turkey attacked.

Secretary replied no one would accept injury to any NATO partner and alliance would respond with whatever weapons were required. Noted that attack on Turkey would lead to total war and emphasized there were no special geographic distinctions in NATO. Secretary recalled that NATO countries were still covered by Athens guidelines regarding use of nuclear weapons,² showed Erkin copy of Athens guidelines, and pointed out that these guidelines made no reference to limited war. Erkin commented that main thing he wanted was reassurance.

3. NATO force planning exercise. Erkin questioned whether this was appropriate time to undertake basic study of alliance defense effort in view of economic differences between US and Common Market, among Common Market countries and between EEC and EFTA. Secretary noted we were interested in review of NATO forces, in part, because of questions being raised in the US about equitable burden sharing within alliance. US was only country which had met its force requirements on central front. There was feeling in US that if others did not meet commitments why should US.

4. Turkish military and economic requirements. Erkin cited deficiencies in Turkish military forces, especially in Thrace, and observed that domestic economic requirements limited Turkey’s ability to increase its defense expenditures. Situation could force Turkey to reconsider her contribution to NATO and, for this reason, he planned to raise at NATO Ministerial meeting methods by which NATO as whole could provide assistance to Turkey.

Secretary, after observing that recent Turkish consortium had not been satisfactory, said we will continue to do whatever we could ourselves and would press our allies to do more. He urged Turkey also to press other NATO allies. In addition, Secretary agreed support Erkin proposal that Turkish requirements be studied by permanent council.

5. Cyprus. Erkin said Makarios’s proposals to amend Cyprus Constitution were highly unsatisfactory. Warned that if Makarios did not continue to respect Constitution, Turkey might find it necessary to request guarantor powers to intervene in Cyprus, either individually or collectively. Makarios’s proposal seemed designed to destroy Constitution, which recognized 2 separate groups on Cyprus, and instead to establish unitary state. If Makarios continued to press point, Turkey might be forced to ask for partition of island. Erkin urged US to make strong representation in Cyprus emphasizing to Makarios that his proposal endangered peace in area.

Secretary was noncommittal. Said US took position that guarantor powers were ones which could best resolve the Cyprus problem. US already had enough problems on its agenda without taking on the Cyprus dispute. However, he agreed to discuss Cyprus with Butler and Venizelos and to talk again with Erkin before conclusion of NATO Ministerial Meeting.

6. Turkey and USSR. Erkin said he had been invited to USSR and planned to go to Moscow in March if he was still Foreign Minister. He had made it clear to Soviets that there would be no point in discussing Turkish adherence to the Western Alliance during his Moscow visit because Turks had no intention of changing any of her commitments. Erkin told Secretary, however, that his trip to Moscow might be valuable if he could play some helpful role as intermediary between West and USSR.

Secretary did not respond directly to this point. However, he volunteered to send Ambassador Hare basic status report on East-West relations just prior to Erkin’s departure to Moscow, which he thought might be useful to Erkin during visit. Erkin expressed appreciation. During concluding discussion, Secretary briefly reviewed status of some of outstanding multilateral East-West problems—such as the proposed non-aggression arrangements and non-dissemination proposal—and also reviewed US-USSR bilateral negotiations.

Rusk

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL Tur. Secret; Priority. Relayed to the White House and repeated to Ankara, Athens, Nicosia, London, and Moscow. Rusk and Erkin were in Paris to attend the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting December 16–17.
1. MC–100/1 was a draft document of the NATO Military Committee outlining the long-term threat analysis facing the Alliance.
2. Reference is to the NATO communique of May 6, 1962; for text, see Department of State Bulletin, May 28, 1962, pp. 862–863.