Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVI, Cyprus; Greece; Turkey

224. Telegram From the Embassy in Turkey to the Department of State¹

Ankara, February 21, 1966, 1513Z.

965. NATUS. Ref: Deptel 711, Embtels 949, 966.² Cyprus. After delineating background and noting questions to be resolved in US-Turk relations, FonMin Caglayangil told Ambassador US and Turkey should work on one or several alternatives. Best alternative should be selected and both countries should then direct efforts to achieve it. He suggested he, FonOff SecGen Bayulken and Cyprus Bureau Chief Turkmen should participate on Turkish side and Ambassador and one member Embassy staff on US side. He would devote as much time as he could to these meetings although he might not be able to attend every one.

FonMin observed that Cyprus should not be considered separate question outside context of US-Turk relations. Cyprus situation now static but cannot be left thus. Cyprus was sore point for Greece as well as Turkey because all three had other problems, especially economic, to which they could more effectively devote their energies. Furthermore, GOT had to consider continuing difficult situation of Turk-Cypriot community. Turkey convinced question must be solved by means of negotiation, and US had important role to play. US should therefore be active now and try to help solve problem before it reached another acute crisis. FonMin pressed for exchange of views and information with us and for dispassionate (“outside-looking in”) evaluation of Cyprus alternatives. If US-Turk agreement on best alternative reached, US would then, he hoped, use its influence to achieve results.

Ambassador replied we could begin exchange of views anytime. He noted big difference in Greek and Turkish positions on approaches to problem of Cyprus. However, it seemed to us that there was still room for maneuver and negotiation between Greek and Turkish positions. Ambassador observed that first Turkish principle was opposition to any unilateral enosis (Embtel 858).³ Then he continued along lines para 3 Deptel 711.⁴ FonMin made no substantive comment, and Ambassador continued along lines para 1 Deptel 711. FonMin agreed continuation of UNFICYP of great importance.

In reply to Ambassador’s question, FonMin had nothing new to add on Rolz-Bennett’s visit (Embtel 952).⁵ He said perhaps Rolz-Bennett’s report to SYG would form basis for SYG to explain to Security Council that mediation will not work under present circumstances. Perhaps, FonMin continued, SC can take new decision on mediation, for example, establish team of three mediators. In any event GOT told Rolz-Bennett that Turkey ready for mediation so long as functions of Mediator agreed upon ahead of time to preclude Mediator becoming arbitrator and promoting publicly his personal views.

Discussion concluded with FonMin saying he would be in touch concerning further talks on Cyprus.

Hart

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 27 CYP. Confidential. Repeated to Athens, Nicosia, London, USUN, Paris, EUCOM and USDOCO South for POLAD, Istanbul, Izmir, and Adana.
2. Telegram 711 to Ankara, February 17, provided instructions for discussions with Caglayangil. (Ibid.) Telegram 949 from Ankara, February 17, requested guidance for this meeting. (Ibid.) Telegram 966 from Ankara, February 21, reported Caglayangil’s discussion of the domestic “background” to Turkey’s foreign policy positions. (Ibid.)
3. Document 221.
4. This paragraph discussed Greece’s position on Cyprus.
5. Telegram 952 from Ankara, February 18, reported Rolz-Bennett’s visit to Ankara. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 27 CYP) Rolz-Bennett visited Ankara, Athens, and Nicosia February 9–19.