Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 1

740.5/10–1751: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford), at London¹

confidential

Washington, October 20, 1951—6:17 p. m.

Todep 257. Re Depto 466, Oct 17.² Without prejudice Dept’s position re adoption interpretive para suggested by UK, following concerns 23(B) para 5 Depto 466, Oct 17 shld UK suggestion be adopted:

Both Dept and Amer Emb Athens believe that gen knowledge at this time of exclusion of Cyprus is capable of increasing agitation both in Greece and Cyprus for union Cyprus with Greece. (Some possibility union question may be raised Sixth Session UNGA). Cypriot communists might use exclusion allege Western disinterest security Cyprus. Nationalists and Grk proponents of union might use exclusion show security Cyprus can only be insured through union with Greece. Unless carefully handled believe exclusion may prove irritant in Anglo-Greek relations.

For foregoing reasons and until MEC takes more form Dept believes advisable in general interests soft-peddle Cyprus exclusion. Specifically Dept believes inadvisable make express mention of exclusion in interpretive comment. Rather prefer follow outline of protocol by indicating “or the Med Sea” was to cover forces, etc., in and over waters of Eastern Med.

Since US as depositary NAT wld conduct formalities of admission, US in discussing meaning of protocol cld at that time point out to Greeks and Turks exclusion of Cyprus logical development for reasons such as: 1) Cyprus area not indigenous to Eur or Atlantic area, but situated such as to be natural part of MEC. 2) Most improbable any attack cld be made against Cyprus without first having violated areas and waters covered by NATO.

Acheson

1. Drafted by Dixon of GTI and cleared by Perkins. Repeated to Athens and Nicosia.

2. Not printed. It reported that the draft protocol on the admission of Greece and Turkey to NATO had been signed by Spofford. It also reported, inter alia, that the Deputy Representative from the United Kingdom had requested the amendment of paragraph 23 of the agreed Council minutes of October 10 with the argument “that some minutes of mtg at which text” of the protocol “adopted shld be given to Greece and Turkey when they are invited to join NATO and that agreed minutes without quoted summary do not clearly cover points.” The amended paragraph 23 suggested by the United Kingdom, which Spofford believed “amounts to interpretive minute,” read as follows:

   “23. To sum up, the deputies, in approving the text of the protocol as given in C7-D/27 (second revise), agreed that

   (a) When the European defense community had been established it wld be necessary to consider its position in relation to the treaty and, in particular, to Art 6 thereof;

   (b) Article II (1) of the protocol covered the Greek and Turkish Islands in the Mediterranean and Malta and its dependencies, but not Cyprus;

   (c) The protocol did not affect the interpretation placed on the words ‘Nortn Atlantic area’ in the preamble and in Articles 5 and 12 of the treaty;

   (d) The words ‘North Atlantic area’ in the new Article 6 were to be interpreted in precisely the same way as they had been interpreted up to the present in the original Article 6 of the treaty(740.5/10–1751)