Zurich Agreement 1959
Referring to NATO commitments, you declare in your embassy that the very essence of NATO requires that the allies not wage war and that a Turkish intervention in Cyprus would lead to military engagement between Greek and Turkish forces. I agree with the first part of your statement, but the commitment of NATO allies to respect the international agreements between them and their reciprocal contractual rights and commitments is an equally important condition for the alliance. It is unthinkable to establish an alliance between states that ignore their mutual contractual obligations and obligations. With regard to the concern about the outbreak of a Turkish-Greek war in the event of Turkey`s intervention in Cyprus, it is in accordance with its rights and obligations defined in international agreements and wishes to stress that Turkey would conduct a military operation in Cyprus under the sole conditions and purposes of the agreements. As a result, a Turkish-Greek war, described as literally unthinkable by The Dean of Honour Rusk, could only take place in the event of Greece`s aggression against Turkey. In the case of such an intervention, we consider inviting effective cooperation to restore constitutional order in Cyprus, both in Greece and in the United Kingdom, as guarantor of powers. If, in spite of this invitation and its contractual obligations, Greece were to attack Turkey, we would not be held responsible for the consequences of such an action. I hope you have already seriously drawn the attention of the Greek governments to these issues. The part of your message, in which you express doubts about the commitment of NATO allies to project themselves directly on the USSR because of an action launched in Cyprus, gives me the impression that there are great differences of opinion between us on the nature and fundamental principles of the North Atlantic Alliance. I must admit that this has been the source of great sadness and concern for us. Any aggression against a NATO member will of course be an effort to justify the aggressor.
If NATO`s structure is so weak that it can pay tribute to accusations of aggressors, it means that NATO`s failure really needs to be corrected. We assume that the North Atlantic Treaty imposes an obligation on all Member States to immediately assist any member who is the victim of an attack. The only remaining point at the discretion of the Member States is the nature and scope of this aid. If NATO were to begin to discuss the well-being and harm of the situation of its Soviet-attacked co-quar, whether or not that aggression was provoked, and whether the decision to assist the member should depend on the issue of such a discussion, the foundations of the alliance would be shaken and meaningless. A duty of assistance, if it is to carry a weight, should arise immediately after the observation of the aggression. That is why Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty considers that an attack on one of the Member States is an attack on all of them and that it is imperative that they support the party so attacked by taking such action immediately as they deem necessary. In this regard, I would also like to stress that the agreements on Cyprus have already been approved by the North Atlantic Council at the stage of the United Nations debate on this issue, that is, before the creation of the Republic of Cyprus, that is, well before the events of December 1963.