Course Notes

----

Speech of Foreign Minister Fatin Rustu Zorlu

Honourable Members of Parliament:

On the occasion of submitting the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to your high approval, I shall attempt to explain the developments which have taken place in the world political scene during the past year, and explain in the context of these developments the point of view of, and the course of action adopted by, the Government of Turkish Republic, inspired by the guidance of the Grand National Assembly and in accordance with the higher interests of our nation. I would like, first of all, to express the profound pleasure I feel in discharging so eminent a task.

This august Assembly is aware of the fact that successive governments of the Democratic Party administration have always availed themselves of the thinking, the tendencies, and the decisions of the Grand National Assembly, either by way of the annual budgetary discussions, or by submitting to the assembly political problems that are of concern to the whole nation. Similarly, both the Head of our Government and our successive Ministers of Foreign Affairs have made it a practice always to inform Turkish public opinion of important political events, by means of various public statements in the radio and the press. Indeed, the course of action followed by the Government of the Turkish Republic in the field of foreign policy has been brought to your attention four times during the past year alone, including the budget discussion.

Aim of Turkey’s Foreign Policy

The unshakeable aim of our foreign policy is, on the one hand, to ensure security measures calculated to foil every variety of threat directed at the integrity and independence of our country, and, on the other, to secure for our nations, in peace and independence, a higher level of moral and material progress and prosperity, together with a position as a constructive element in the international community of nations worthy of its past and present renown.

You may rest assured that all the efforts that we exert and all the decisions we take in our foreign policy under your high guidance are directed at the attainment of this noble aim.

Indivisibility of Peace

You will readily agree that every nation’s survival and security is, above all else, contingent upon its will and determination to defend its own freedom and independence. And it is known the world over that the Turkey nation is unsurpassed in her determination and will defend her existence and independence.

However, present international conditions and the ambitious designs of international Communist imperialism, which increase rather that decrease with every passing day, and their threatening character towards the whole peace-loving, now make it practically impossible for nations to defend themselves individually.

Consequently, it has become an undeniable necessity for countries attached to peace and security to combine their defensive strength, will and determination in order to face a common potential aggressor as a single united front, and to live in complete solidarity.

Well aware of this fact, the Turkish Government has adopted the indivisibility of peace as well as the principle of maintaining the unity and solidarity of the free and democratic world as its national policy, and, along with its attachments to the United Nations, has made them the cornerstone of its foreign policy.

According to our views, the danger that confronts us is not one that threatens only us or some other nations alone, but rather a collective danger that menaces all the nations that are attached to peace, independence, and the dignity of man. It is for this reason that the same Democrat party administration which enabled Turkey to join NATO has also brought about the establishment of the Balkans and the Baghdad Pacts, and has remained attached to these pacts to the degree that they themselves maintained their will and determination to resist the common danger.

Communist Danger to the Middle East

We al know that international Communism, checked somewhat in the Far East and in Europe by the solidarity of the common peace front, has now began to concentrate its expansionist activities in Middle East.

We also know that, in addition to the progress it has made in the field of nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union has tried to create a psychological shock through its progress in the field of nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union has tried to create a psychological shock  through its progress in the field of ballistic rockets and guided missiles and its successful launching of an artificial satellite into space, and, by taking advantage of this situation, has launched large-scale propaganda activities on the object of wrecking the defensive fronts of the free world.

It is neither necessary nor possible to separate the Soviet Union’s course of action in the Middle East from its political ventures and propaganda activities on the subject of guided and ballistic missiles and satellites. These are the manifestations of the same policy in two different fields, and are complementary.

The first of these developments, that is to say the Middle East, might seem to concern us more closely from the geophysical point of view, while the second one could be viewed as posing a common threat. In reality, however, we consider them to be of the same character and we believe that they are of no more and no less concern to us than they are to the whole of the free world’s most important centre of resistance. That is to say, we believe now as we have always believed that any future war will be all-embracing, and that the present danger of aggression is directed at the whole NATO community and at the entire peace-loving world. Marshall Bulganin’s messages as sent to us thus far, and Mr. Khrushchef’s statements whish you have followed in the press, confirm and strengthen this belief.

Soviet Inroads into the Middle East

I would like to say first a few words on the policy adopted by international Communism to establish itself in the Middle East and to acquire a bridgehead there.

As we are all aware, as soon as the Second World War came to an end the Soviet tried to advance in different areas at the same time. Thus we saw them asking for bases in Turkey, trying to occupy the whole of Berlin, attempting not to evacuate Iran and making efforts to re-enter that country. We all recall the bloody conflict in Korea and Indo-China. We know equally well the efforts made, and the success obtained, by the peace-loving world acting as an entity to halt these advances. In fact, while the Truman Doctrine which supported the determined resistance of Turkey and Greece and which we recall with gratitude compelled Soviet Russia to act with caution in the Middle East, the creation of NATO and the outbreak of the Korea War halted the advance of international Communism in Europe and in the Far East.

As for the Middle Eastern area, there the Palestine question, source of unrest in the region, and the existence of certain selfish and calculating interests and ambitions, made possible the infiltration of international Communism and the establishment of its influence in certain countries in the area. The Baghdad Pact, to which I shall refer again later, was created as an element of security and peace in such a region which is open to aggression, and at a time when infiltration had already commenced.

U.S. Guarantees

We perceived that international Communism’s policy of infiltration into the Middle east started to develop with greater speed thanks to the confusion, lack of solidarity and coordination in the democratic front as a result of the most regrettable incidents of the Suez Canal.

Exploiting the Canal incidents of which the further deterioration had been prevented through the efforts of our ally the United States and of the Moslem members of the Baghdad Pact, Soviet Russia had started to arm some of the countries of the area in important degree and attempted to conclude treaties of cooperation with them. As a result, the United States of America, while extending guarantees on the 29^th of November 1956 to each individual regional member of the Baghdad Pact, at the same time undertook to defend them in a broader manner through the Eisenhower Doctrine which was proclaimed on the 5^th of January, 1957 and went into effect on the 9^th of March, 1957.

In spite of these efforts by the United States, Soviet Russia did not give up its policy of penetration into the Middle East. This was because it was convinced of the absence of a united front among the peace-loving states in the region, and believed that it could profit by the limited cooperation among the democratic states. We have observed that Soviet Russia, for this reason, worked to cooperate more closely with certain countries of the area and to establish bases in them, particularly since the summer of 1957. These acts caused concern in the countries of the entire region as well as in Turkey, and let them to turn to us and the United States. You will recall that, as a result of these events, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Mr. Henderson visited Turkey and certain Middle Eastern countries.

As we know, in order to camouflage its actions and make them appear to be entirely innocent, Soviet Russia tried to smear Turkey as a state that had aggressive intentions vis-à-vis Syria. In fact, on September 13, that is to say three weeks after Mr. Henderson’s visit to Turkey, Mr. Bulganian sent a message to our prime Minister and attempted to threaten our country. It is a curious fact that at the time that Soviet Russia advanced this threat Syria, the state interested in the first instance, had made absolutely no move.

Our allies, sure of the peaceful policy always followed by Turkey and cognizant of the real aims of the Soviet, ignored the accusations and threats of Soviet Russia and, acting with circumspection, instead of believing unfounded allegations, stood by Turkey and ensured the manifestation of truth and justice by thwarting Soviet Russia’s campaign in the United Nations and by making this campaign react against Soviet Russia itself.

This brazen maneuver on the part of Soviet Russia, and the repercussions to which it gave birth in other countries and particularly in Turkey, caused the United States and the United Kingdom to be even more cautious: In a statement made on behalf of President Eisenhower on September 10, 1957nMr. Dulles said that the United States would resort to retaliation in case of aggression on the part of Soviet Russia; and the two nations again cautioned Russia in a communiqué issued at the end of the Eisenhower Macmillan meeting in Washington on October 25, 1957.

The fact that this intrepid act of the United States, giving evidence of its loyalty to obligations, took place at a time when Soviet Russia to follow a more prudent course of action in the Middle East.

Other factors

Two other factors that led Soviet Russia to be more prudent in its actions in the Middle East as well as in other fields were the decisions reached by the NATO Council in Paris last December, and the personal participation of U.S. Secretary of State Mr. Dulles in the latest meeting of the Baghdad Pact in Ankara.

In point of fact, the firm attitude adopted by the United States and our other allies in the face of Soviet Russia’s concentrated attempts during the summer of 1957 to penetrate into the Middle East and acquire bases there, the Istanbul meeting with the participation of Mr. Handerson, the comminatory message sent to our Premier by Mr. Bulganin and which was yet another manifestation of the true nature of the camouflaged Russian threat, and in face also of the Soviet actions in the United Nations, has served to slow down Soviet activities today, at least in appearance. As mentioned earlier, there are two additional elements that brought about this slow-down: one of them was the NATO summit meeting held in Paris, and the other the most recent meeting of the Baghdad Pact in Ankara.

The Baghdad Pact

To continue this review of the Middle East region, I would like to dwell for a while on the Baghdad Pact and on the recent Ankara meeting of that pact.

As I stated earlier, the Russian threat manifested itself simultaneously on three continents following the end of the Second World War. After the establishment NATO, which is the true foundation of the peace front with its world-wide responsibilities took steps to protect the Middle East from the Russian danger and, recognizing the importance of the region to NATO defense, endeavored to set up a defensive organization in this region also. To this affect, attempts were made between 1950 and 1952 to set up a Middle Eastern Defense Organization with the participation of Turkey and Egypt.

In line with this our country, taking into consideration Turkey’s geographical position and its situation facing the potential aggressor, maintained that it, too, should take its place in the NATO community, and, after fruitful efforts, was able to have this point of view accepted by everyone concerned. But turkey at the time of its adherence to NATO and even prior to that, stressed the necessity to organize a defensive pact in the Middle Eastern region which is contiguous to Turkey, and occupied a leading place among those who believed that the NATO community could not be adequately defended unless the defense of the Middle East were likewise assured.

It is for this reason that, as a result of intensive efforts since 1952, the Baghdad Pact was successfully established and has since proven itself to be the main obstacle to the infiltration of Russia’s aggressive intentions into the Middle East.

This Pact originally signed on February 24, 1955 between Turkey and Iraq, after an existence of six months secured the adherence of Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and Iran to assume its present form.

After the events of the 1956 which threatened the security of the Middle East, first the United States extended a guarantee individually to pact members on November 29, 1956, and then reinforced the pact through the Eisenhower Doctrine in 1957, and finally the pact received greater vigor when, in May 1957, the United States adhered to the pact’s Military Committee and to its Planning Group.

The Ankara Meeting

The solidarity demonstrated by the Baghdad Pact in the face of recent events, Mr. Dulles’ participation in the meeting held at Ankara, his decision to attend also the meeting to be held at London within the next few months, the decisions of the pact states and, especially, the statement made by Mr.Dulles at the last sitting of the Ankara meeting have shown once again the greater vitality of the Baghdad Pact.

It will be recalled that in his statement Mr.Dulles had announced the authority provided by the U.S. Congress for the utilization of armed force to assist any state or any group in the Middle East-and the Baghdad Pact is such a group of states- that requests aid against armed aggression by any country controlled by international Communism. He added that the Baghdad Pact group of countries could be confident that a great armed power, meaning the United States, would be mobilized in case of need against the action of any Communist aggressor.  Then by announcing the participation of the United States in the Baghdad Pact’s Military Committee and its entry into the pact’s Joint Military Planning Staff, he gave notice to the potential aggressor that the United States has taken up position within as well as at the side of the Baghdad Pact. This constitutes a warning to the potential aggressor that his own losses resulting from any possible aggression would be greater than any likely benefit.

As will be understood from this statement by Mr.Dulles, the Unites States has given a guarantee by way of the Eisenhower Doctrine to the Baghdad Pact countries against a Communist aggression or an aggression supported by Communists, and has thus de facto entered the pact. It is now the earnest desire of all the Baghdad Pact countries that this de facto entry of the United States into the Baghdad Pact will be transformed multilaterally into a juridical entry.

Ever since its inception the Baghdad Pact has been the target of attacks by the Communists and by some neutralists which are knowingly or unknowingly aiding the Communists. The violence of these attacks clearly proves what an effective and promising organization the Baghdad Pact is. In fact the Baghdad Pact is a community of defense which represents the united will and determination of countries having no other desire than that of safeguarding their peace and independence against Communist aggression and infiltration. All these countries have nothing but respect and affection for each other and are trying to achieve their economic strengthening by helping each other reciprocally. To interpret the aim of the pact in any other way would only prove the evil intention of the interpreter.

If from time to time the Baghdad Pact countries attempt to solve some problems which worry the Middle East and prevent the establishment of peace and tranquility there, the reason for their attempts is that in reality such problems help the infiltration of Communism into our area, and because their immediate solution is imperative for the sake of justice and equity.

Peaceful Approach

I have to point out at the outset that in the solution of these problems which engage the attention of our area we never advocate resorting to force. The efforts which we have exerted and which we are still exerting manifest themselves only within the framework of the United Nations and in the light of the decisions of that organization. To attribute any evil purpose to these efforts on the part of the Baghdad Pact countries and to be suspicious of them is an attitude which can be expected only of evil minded persons and from those who would prefer to see force dominate where justice should prevail.

It is for this reason, and inspired by these considerations, that we carried out the task assigned to Turkey at the conference of the Baghdad Pact countries held in Ankara in December 1957 and explained to the NATO states the great importance to the whole peace front of finding solutions to the problems which disturb tranquility in the Middle East. Naturally no decision was expected to be taken as a result of this demarche, because neither the Baghdad Pact nor NATO nor any other defensive pact established by the peace front is an organization competing with the United Nations. Members of these organizations are well aware that these defensive pacts, established in conformity with Arts. 51 and 52 of the Charter of the United Nations, may perhaps seek to solve disputes among their members; but to endeavor to form separate groups within the United Nations would certainly be a mistake. We and our allies are countries which always act in the United Nations in accordance with our consciences and with the principles of justice. Our demands draw their inspiration only from the decisions and principles of the United Nations.

The Arab States

In speaking of the Middle East it is manifestly impossible not to refer to the other Arab states in our area aside from our allies in the Baghdad Pact.

For centuries Turkey has lived together with these nations that stretch from Syria to the Atlantic Ocean, and has become linked to them by material and spiritual ties. We desire only that all nations shall live in prosperity, happiness, and independence, and achieve political developments that conform to their own national aspirations. Our intentions towards these nations are nothing but genuine and sincere. It has also become a natural tradition for us to share their troubles and cares.

The Communist imperialism which desires to penetrate into the Middle East and aims to settle there has made it a practice always to sow discord between us and our Arab brothers, and has concentrated all its propaganda to that end.  We all know the violence and extent of this propaganda campaign. It is a sacred duty for us to combat such campaigns and to defeat them.

The interests of the Turkish and the Arab worlds, and those of the Arab nations and the other Moslem countries of the Middle East, have been identical throughout history. The existence of misunderstandings among them have always been manifestly to the detriment of both sides.

Foreign policy and politics are certainly difficult problems. They require great patience, foresight, and, above all, perseverance. We must not lose our restraint in the face of situations which may disappoint us from time to time, and must always keep in mind the natural sympathy which these nations actually entertain for each other.

We have another national grievance in the fact that we were deeply hurt very recently to see that even some of the Arab countries which we considered among our best friends adopted a line of conduct different from ours. But all these governments, that is, Iraq the Lebanon, and Libya, informed us later that they realized the mistaken aspect of their attitude, and reiterated their affection for us and their solidarity with our cause. It does sometimes happen that states are misled under the influence of states-men or government officials who may not reason correctly: but it is always the nation that survives and eternal. And especially in the case of such fraternal nations, it is one of the foremost duties of statesmen to see that nations do not hurt each other’s feelings.

What worries Turkey at the present time is that Soviet Russia has exploited this or that factor and has already secured the means of infiltrating into certain fraternal Arab countries or is working to that end. This is what worries us and cause us anxiety.

Fusion Among Arab States

Today we are confronted with two events which are of utmost importance to the Arab community and which manifest themselves in the same direction.

One of these is the Federal Arab Union between Iraq and Jordan. The union of these two Arab states, one of which is our ally, while the other has won our increasing affection and admiration for its anti-communist struggle, has, without doubt, had very positive repercussions in Turkey. Turkey wishes these allied and friendly states success and happiness in their chosen path.

Paralleling this, there is another Union formed by Egypt and Syria. You will be recall that at a press conference held prior to the formation of this Union and on the eve of the Ankara meeting of the Baghdad Pact, I had answered a question by saying that we would be only too pleased this Union would manifest itself in such a way as to obviate Communist influence in Syria, and if the Union could be kept outside the orbit of such influence.

We feel the same way today. I have already stated, Syria has caused us a great deal of worry during the past year through her policy of drawing close to the Soviet Union and of giving bases to Russia. But despite our worry we never stopped saying that we always entertained good intentions towards the Syrian nation and which has prosperity and independence. We do this because we have always considered that our own security and progress is contingent upon the security and progress of our neighbors. However, the position we shall take vis-à-vis this Union created immediately after the attitude recently adopted by Syria will, naturally, depend upon the course to be followed by the new Union. We sincerely hope that Egypt, together with patriotic Syrians, will extent a positive influence on Syria and policies of the Union  from Communist infiltration, as Egypt did in her own case.

Turkish-Arab Relations

Our relations with the other Arab states are developing a little more with each passing day.

There is a close and firmly established friendship between us and the Lebanon. We are greatly appreciative of the efforts exerted by that country to preserve its independence.

We shall always recall with gratitude he positive role that His Majesty the King of Saudi Arabia played during the Turkish-Syrian dispute; and, as clearly indicated in the communiqué issued following my visit to Saudi Arabia, His Majesty was very pleased to have had the opportunity of observing Turkey’s correct and sincere attitude towards the Arab countries.

Our friendship with Libya was further reinforced by our President’s visit to Libya, following the visit of the King of Libya to Istanbul. The welcome extended by His Majesty King Idris El Senoussi , by his government, and by his people to our President and Navy was very warm and cordial.

Our relationship with Tunisia and Morocco are developing in an atmosphere of ever- increasing friendship and brotherhood. I would like to stress here the sorrow we feel over the recent events in Tunisia. It is our genuine desire that an understanding will be reached between our friend and brother Tunisia and our ally France. In this connection I would also like to point out that we hope a peaceful solution will be found to the Algerian problem.

Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan

While discussing relations with the countries of the Middle East, it is naturally impossible not mention the relations based on great mutual trust and affection between Turkey and the friendly and fraternal nations of Iran and Pakistan.

I deem it useful also to mention the visit paid to Turkey by the esteemed ruler of Afghanistan, His Majesty Muhammed Zahir Khan, and his Prime Minister; their country is a neighbor of our two allies Iran and Pakistan. Even if there is not always a complete similarity of policy between us and this fraternal country, the brotherly sentiments that we cherish towards each other and the attachment to independence and freedom which is a common characteristic of both our nations always unite us and lead us to mutual understanding and cooperation. This situation is a source of satisfaction to us.

The Paris Summit Meeting

Having broached Middle Eastern problems, I am going to turn to the NATO Council Meeting at the Heads of Government level which was decided upon at a meeting held in November 1957 between the President of the United States Mr. Eisenhower and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Mr. Macmillan, with the participation of the NATO Secretary General Mr. Spaak, as a result of the already explained events which took place in the Middle East, and also the launching of the Sputnik into orbit.

As I have already stated, the Soviet Union, while attempting to secure various strategic bridgeheads in the Middle East, initiated a policy and propaganda campaign of terrorism based on the results obtained in the field of ballistic rockets, guided missiles and artificial satellites and, by way of the panic it expected to bring about in world public opinion, hoped to breach defensive fronts such as NATO, the Baghdad Pact, and SEATO.

 As a matter of fact, the progress achieved by Russia did create an atmosphere of excitement which was reflected in the free world press. Taking advantage of this situation, Russia, while hurling on the one hand threats at Turkey and at the governments of all the free countries in connection with the Middle Eastern situation, was, on the other hand, addressing letters from the Communist Party of Russia to the Socialist Parties, in other countries, inviting them to vigilance and urging them to exert pressure upon their respective governments for them to reach agreement with the Soviet Union. However, public opinion and Socialist Parties in the free world which is perfectly well aware of Russia’s aims paid no attention to this kind of propaganda, and practically all of the Socialist parties gave negative replies.

Guided Ballistic Missiles for Turkey

I deem it useful to digress a little in order to point out that, by virtue of an agreement between Turkey and the United States of America, concluded after it had been decided to hold the NATO Council meeting at the Heads of Government level, it was decided to give guided missiles and ballistic rockets to Turkey. Under this agreement, Turkey will receive two formations of each of these weapons.

At the NATO Council meeting of the Heads of Government held in Paris last December, the main topic of discussion was, beyond doubt, the problem strengthening the defensive measures and the determination of the NATO powers in face of the superiority in weapons which the Soviet Union believes it has achieved, and of increasing the solidarity and the power of retaliation and resistance of the NATO front in the event of a possible actual or peace offensive on the part of the Soviets.

By transmitting messages that almost amounted to bon voyage gifts to the Heads of Government setting out for this conference, the Soviet Union underlined particularly the danger of accepting ballistic missiles, and demanded the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact powers, and the convocation of a summit conference. Together with this proposal, Russia also advanced the idea of clearing West and East Germany, as well as Poland and Czechoslovakia, of nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union must have hoped that her messages would be read and pondered deeply as soon as the conference opened.

The Paris Communiqué 

But what the conference did was quite the opposite. Instead of discussing the Soviet messages, which they doubted would yield positive results, the NATO powers discussed the defensive measures to be adopted by themselves and the consolidation of their own solidarity.

It is necessary that the decisions adopted at the conference be viewed in the light of this concept. As a matter of fact, when we examine the joint communiqué issued on December 19, we can observe, even in its opening statement, the determination of the NATO powers to protect and defend themselves, their solidarity in the face of danger, and their decision not to bow to any force whatsoever.

The first Article of that communiqué reveals the formidable efforts deployed by the Soviet Union in  the political, military, and economic fields in the pursuit of its policy of expansion, and indicates the necessity to cooperate fully and remain united against such efforts while watching this movement of expansion very closely, not only from within NATO but also in areas outside of it. The second Article notes how the Soviet Union has avoided every sort of measure necessary for the establishment of security, an how, in spite particularly of the agreement reached at Geneva in 1955, it has adopted a negative attitude vis-à-vis the reunification of Germany. The third Article makes it clear that the NATO powers support the sovereignty and independence of the Middle Eastern countries and are concerned with the prosperity of the peoples of these countries, and that the stability of this region is essential for world peace.

You will note that in these initial sections of the communiqué there are two new and important elements. One of these is the decision by the one NATO powers to watch closely the activities of the Soviet Union outside the NATO area; and the other is the proclamation of the importance of the stability of the Middle East for peace and security, and the importance attached to the independence of the nations of this area.

But one of the most important aspects of this conference was, without doubt, the fact that President Eisenhower confirmed that the United States would immediately take up position at the side of any NATO member that might be subjected to attack, and proposed that the NATO Supreme Command be provided with ballistic missiles, and that atomic warheads be stockpiled in member countries.

President Eisenhower’s statements concerning atomic weapons and medium-range ballistic missiles are to be found in Arts. 20 and 21 of the joint communiqué. In these Articles stated, on the one hand, that at this conference of the Heads of Government it was decided to give to member countries ballistic missiles under the control of the Supreme Allied Commander Eeurope, and, on the other hand, it is noted that agreement would be reached with regard to areas where atomic and hydrogen warheads are to be stockpiled and as to the conditions of their use according to NATO defense plans. Recommendations pertaining to this matter are to be submitted by the NATO Supreme Command to the NATO Council of Ministers as soon as possible. The Council is expected to convene next May.

During the Paris meeting of the NATO Council, various discussions appeared in certain newspapers regarding the acquisition of the above-mentioned ballistic weapons. I must immediately point out that agreement on this matter was reached very quickly in the Council, and that the Articles I have just mentioned were approved unanimously following only a very short discussion.

Others among the important points that appear in the joint communiqué are the following:

1) Establishment of closer economic aid among NATO countries, and the extending of assistance to underdeveloped countries.

2) Establishment of wider cooperation in the field of the atom, and joint access to atomic resources.

3)  Establishment of very close collaboration in the scientific and technical fields, to cover all personnel from the youngest to the most experienced scientists, and the establishment to this effect of a Scientific Political Committee.

It will be seen that, in spite of Soviet hopes, the latest meeting of the NATO Council ended in a manifestation of strength. Despite its having been convened in an atmosphere of alleged Russian technical superiority, the meeting ended on a note of solidarity and thus reinforced the confidence of peace-loving peoples. The confidence and solidarity of these peoples were doubtless bolstered even further as a result of the launching of the Explorer satellite into orbit by our ally the United States of America.

Test of Soviet Sincerity   

With regard to the answer to be given to the messages transmitted by Marshal Bulganin on the eve of the NATO Council meeting: these messages were not examined at the meeting of Heads of Government, and this task, as well as that of providing appropriate replies, was relegated to the Permanent Council. In this connection, I would like to mention also that the replies to the two messages sent by Marshal Bulganin to our Prime Minister on December 14, 1957 and on January 9, 1958 after the NATO Council meeting were handled to the Soviet Ambassador on Sunday (February23, 1958) and published on the following day.

In the joint communiqué published in Paris, there is a section on disarmament, and on the meeting to be held among the foreign ministers of the NATO states and Soviet Russia. The reason for the inclusion of this section is as follows: although the Soviet Union has up to the present blocked all disarmament conferences and efforts aiming at the establishment of peace and security, it is nevertheless disseminating propaganda to give the impression that whereas Russia desires such conferences to yield positive results, it is the free world that deviates from this path. At the same time, through its various messages and statements, Russia is accusing innocent states who have no ambition other than to preserve human dignity and the independence of nations It is true that all countries of the free world recognize these maneuvers, and act accordingly. But the NATO Council, desiring to test the goodwill of the Soviets once more, thought it would be uselful to make one more attempt.

The joint communiqué also contains such points as the Russian blocking of free elections for the unification of Germany although this had been agreed to by the Soviets at the 1955 Geneva Conference, and provisions aiming to secure a controlled and effective disarmament such as had already been accepted by all countries in the United Nations except the Communist bloc. In this manner, NATO attempted once more to find out whether Soviet Russia was sincere in its allegations.

Turkey at the Paris Talks:

Having thus mentioned the principal decisions adopted at the NATO Council, I find it advisable to outline also the course of action followed there by the Turkish delegation headed by our Prime Minister.

On setting out for Paris, we were under the influence of two main considerations. The first of these was to examine the developing Soviet efforts to acquire bases in the Middle East, while the second was to make sure that NATO solidarity and possibilities of defense would be even further reinforced in the face of Soviet claims of superiority in arms.

The agreement reached with the United States on December 9 just before leaving for Paris concerning our being furnished with ‘Nike’ guided missiles and ‘Honest John’ rockets gave clear indication as to our decision in this respect.

We tried to emphasize at the Paris meeting that Soviet machinations in the Middle East were not aimed at a limited objective such as surrounding Turkey from the rear or even of gaining control of the Middle East, but aimed rather at the much greater goal of encircling from behind the NATO front which constitutes the true center of resistance against Soviet expansionist policies; we tried to demonstrate the importance to NATO of Soviet penetration into the Middle East. At the same time, we suggested that instead of resorting to timidity in the face of new Soviet weapons, we should increase our existing superiority in arms to an even greater degree in order to prevent the realization of Soviet expansionist ambitions in the political, military, and economic fields.

We do not claim to have been the only motivating factor in NATO’s adoption of the very courageous decisions mentioned above which have further enhanced the strength of our organization; but the determination and the courage of Turkey, the country believed most open to the danger of aggression, undoubtedly played an important part in their adoption. Otherwise, each decision adopted at the meeting of fifteen nations was of course the collective substance of the expressed desire of each nation.

Turkish-Soviet Relations

As we now come to the end of our views and comments with respect to the Baghdad Pact and to NATO, I would like also to dwell briefly on our relations with Soviet Russia in connection with both pacts.

As has been clearly stated in the various replies sent to Marshal Bulganin by our Prime Minister, Turkey’s greatest desire is undoubtedly to live in good-neighborly relations with the Soviet Russia and to become friends with her.

If, in my statement above, I have always referred to Soviet Russia as a danger, this should not be constructed as a sentiment of ill will that we harbor towards Soviet Russia. One must look for the reason in Soviet Russia’s acts and deeds, which are unfortunately aimed at disturbing our security.

How Russia Could Inspire Confidence

We always consider it in our interests to maintain friendly relations with Soviet Russia; but, like every other state, we want to feel secure in doing so. Since at the present time it is not possible for a state to feel secure all alone, Soviet Russia must inspire confidence in the whole group to which we belong. Both moral and material conditions are necessary for the creation of such an atmosphere of confidence; and, it is only the emergence of proper material conditions that can create the appropriate moral climate. The NATO community has made many proposals for coming to an agreement with Soviet Russia in every field; we wholeheartedly desire that these proposals may be accepted and a full friendship with Russia created. Few countries would be more pleased at such a development than Turkey.

As is known, the Soviets rejected the proposal of the NATO Council which suggested that a meeting of foreign ministers be held to discuss the question of disarmament. In their message of January 9, 1958, a copy of which was also addressed to us, Russia proposed that a more general conference be held at the Heads of Government level. The Soviets, to use their own expression, suggested that such problems as are ripe for solution should be discussed at this conference. The problems to which the Soviets refer may be summarized in the following nine items: (1) Immediate termination of experiments with nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons; (2) Renunciation of the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union; (3) Creating of an atomic-free area in Central Europe; (4) Conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries; (5) Reduction of foreign troops in Germany and other territories; (6) Adoption of measures in an area 800 kilometers in depth to prevent a surprise attack; (7) Expansion of international trade relations; (8) Termination of war propaganda; and (9) Reaching agreement among the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Soviet Russia not to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries of the Middle East and not to resort to armed force in the area, with a view to relaxing tension in the Near and the Middle East.

It is deplorable that these matters which the Soviet Union considers to be sufficiently ripe for solution include nothing pertaining to disarmament without controls, to disarmament with controls as requested by the democratic countries, to the unification of the two Germanies through free elections, or to the right of certain nations freely to elect their own governments.

The Soviet Union bases the arguments contained in its messages on the highly destructive capability of nuclear weapons, and, through the exploitation of the terror that this idea is expected to create, seeks to attain certain results in fields of its own choosing.

Conditions for East –West Summit Talks

We believe that a high-level conference would be very beneficial. We wholeheartedly desire to see an end put to the cold war within truly reasonable conditions of agreement. However, it is very necessary for the agenda of such a conference to be well-prepared and for agreement to be to be reached on this score beforehand. If a comprehensive discussion is to take place, it is equally necessary that Soviet Russia agree to the holding of free elections preliminary to the reunification of Germany –which is a matter of very great interest to the Western states-   and to the principle of achieving disarmament subject to effective controls.

It would be possible for Soviet Russia to bring about the holding of a high-level conference by merely agreeing to discuss these points which would make all of Europe and the peace-loving world very happy.

Turkey and Her NATO Allies

While reviewing the NATO Pact and relations with Soviet Russia, I should like also to inform the Grand National Assembly of our relations with our NATO allies.

Our cordial cooperation with the United States of America increases each day and is developing in an atmosphere of friendship and alliance.

United States aid extended to us within the framework of the Marshall Plan, of the NATO alliance, and of the Baghdad Pact has doubly strengthened the existing ties of friendship.

While expressing gratitude to the United States for their kind support of our country during the recent developments in Syria, I am very happy also to recall on this occasion Mr. Dulles’visit to Turkey to take personal part in the Ankara Conference of the Baghdad Pact Council.

As you are aware, the distinguished Heads of State of the Federal Republic of Germany and of Italy, to both of which Turkey is bound with ties of friendship and alliance within the framework of NATO, paid visits to our country in 1957.

The warm memory of these visits is still fresh in our minds. Only a week ago, accepting the kind invitation extended to me, I had the opportunity to visit Bonn and talk with Dr.Erhardt, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy, as well as with Mr. Von Brentano, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of our ally Federal Germany.

In the course of these talks an agreement was reached to develop still further our existing and highly advanced political and economic relations. We shall continue our positive efforts in this respect.

The cultural agreements recently signed with the Federal Republic of Germany and with the Norwegian Government may be mentioned among our continuing efforts to develop cultural relations with our NATO allies.

Cyprus

Having mentioned different matters such as NATO and the Baghdad Pact that concern the security of Turkey, I deem it necessary to broach also the matter of Cyprus which is undoubtedly a vital problem for our entire nation and concerns the security of the whole Turkish homeland.

Everyone knows by now the great importance that we as a nation attribute to this matter, and the degree of our attachment to it.

At the last session of the United Nations General Assembly, a draft resolution submitted by the Greeks for the application of self-determination in Cyprus was dropped after failing to win a majority vote in the full Assembly.

The Grand National Assembly is naturally aware that the matter of Cyprus has been a subject of dispute among Turkey, Great Britain and Greece since 1954. The Turkish Government has always endeavored to act calmly in this problem and, not losing sight of the fact that the dispute involves three allies, has exerted maximum efforts in behalf of the possibility of compromise. Thus it is the cost of great sacrifice in pursuit of this aim, and only by keeping in mind the importance that it attaches to Turkish-Greek friendship, that the Turkish Government agreed to the partitioning of the island.

But Turkey has reached the maximum limit of the concessions which she is prepared to make. This should be clearly understood by her friend and allies.

In order to ensure the peaceful solution, we have agreed to a form of settlement which would assure the minimum possible conditions of security for the Turkish homeland and also ensure that our compatriots on Cyprus will no longer have to remain under a foreign flag.

Our demand is in full accord with the rules of justice and equity and with the principles by which the international world is governed.

All we call for is the right to give a place under our flag to those that are of us and want us, and the possibility of acquiring that which is necessary for our security.

Thus far we have worked in full cooperation and agreement with the British Government in this matter; and the remarks of Foreign British Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd during his visit to Ankara gave us the hope that this cooperation would be continued.

We desire to preserve this hope.

However, I must hasten to say that Britain should appreciate Turkey’s great efforts to come to an understanding, and never forget that the solution based on partition was accepted by Turkey in agreement with Britain and solely for the sake of preserving Turkish-British and Turkish-Greek friendship.

It is only within this framework that we can share the hopes expressed by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd in his most recent statement.

Turkey is of the opinion that the early materialization of partition is essential for the solution of the Cyprus problem.

You all know about the regrettable incident that took place on Cyprus as the result of an error, and cost several times. It must not be forgotten that if this incident did not produce more serious results that could have caused grave deterioration of Turkish-British relations, this was most certainly due to the dignity and cool-headedness of the Turkish nation, the Turkish Grand National Assembly, and the Turkish Government. Let me hasten to add that the Turkish Government has most seriously drawn the attention of the United Kingdom Government to this matter.

At all events, we consider it our duty as a friend and an ally to reiterate the necessity for the British Government to bring to a speedy conclusion its efforts to solve the question of Cyprus which constantly threatens the relations between two countries that have assumed great responsibilities under NATO and Baghdad Pact and have to work hand in hand.

In order to enlighten the Grand National Assembly on this question, I would like to state that our discussions with the British Government are continuing following the Ankara and Athens talks.

Sure of our rights, and as desired by the Grand National Assembly, we have taken up with great seriousness, perseverance and confidence this cause which the whole Turkish nation has made its own.

I would like the Grand National Assembly to rest assured that at no time will we permit anyone to trample underfoot the rights of the Turkish homeland or of the Turkish community on Cyprus.

Military and Economic Mutual Aid

Having indicated the efforts being deployed to safeguard Turkey’s security and its political and national interests, I would like to deal with the activities of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to increase the military and economic strength of our country and raise the level of our nation’s prosperity.

First I will take up the military aspect. As you know, because of the alliances which it has contracted, the Turkish Government is receiving aid from the United States and Canada under bilateral arrangements within the framework of NATO, and also aid under multilateral arrangements within the structure of that same alliance.

The first category of aid is extended by the United States at the rate of $200 to $240 million per year.

The total value of materials received in this manner to date exceeds $1.7 billion.

I m very pleased to announce that, as already stated, this aid will be further strengthen by making available to us guided missiles and rockets such as the ‘Nike’ and ‘Honest John.’ I m sure I echo your sentiments when I express Turkey’s gratitude to the American Government for this aid.

As for aid from Canada, this ally, with which our friendship increases daily, has been aiding Turkey since 1954.

The total value of aid that Canada has extended to Turkey so far exceeds $100 million. Besides the aid provided by Canada in the form of jet aircraft, warships and cannon it has also helped us greatly by taking over the training of nearly 300 of our jet pilots.

I consider it a duty to express all our gratitude to Canada.

Similarly, I would also like to extend our thanks to our British allies for having agreed, in accordance with the recommendation of NATO military authorities, to the transfer of four large destroyers from their reserve fleet to the Turkish Navy under favorable terms of payment.

It is expected that these vessels, now being thoroughly overhauled and equipped with modern weapons in England, will have joined our Navy towards the end of the present year.

Infrastructure Aid Within NATO

Aside from this aid, there is the infrastructure aid received from all the NATO countries within the framework of NATO.

As you know this aid provides us with airfields, oil pipelines, storage tanks, communication networks, naval bases and anchorages, and radar systems.

The amounts received from this source of aid up to the present time total $280 million, which constitutes one-fifth of this type of aid to all the NATO countries.

Another advantage of this type of aid is that nearly 30% of the foreign exchange obtained remains in Turkey: the contractors who work on infrastructure projects are able to obtain the equipment they need, and our cement is consumed within the country but against payment in foreign exchange, just as though it were being exported.

Bilateral and multilateral agreements

Having referred to aid in the military field, I would like to mention also the aid extended to us within the framework of bilateral and multilateral agreements, and our activities in conformity with such multilateral arrangements.

You will recall that the international solidarity established among the Western democracies after the Second World War primarily to aid in the reconstruction of devastated countries was extended almost immediately thereafter both to economically underdeveloped countries whose independence was long standing and to countries that had but recently attained their independence. And you know that Turkey too had begun to benefit from such aid under the Marshall Plan, European Economic Cooperation, and the World Bank.

We are also aware that one of the most important problems to emerge in the post-World War Two period was doubtless the one that stemmed from the efforts exerted by economically underdeveloped countries to attain recovery and progress in this field, and from the important influence exerted in the sphere of foreign policy by this desire for economic independence.

It is a well-known fact that although the Western States kept this aid separate from politics and endeavored to retain the matter of international economic solidarity based on cordial cooperation strictly within its own limits, certain countries that support invasionary aspirations seek to exploit the situation for the furtherance of their political ambitions.

This course of action on their part has caused the democratic front to be on its guard in this respect; end the most recent manifestation of such watchfulness is to be perceived in the communiqué issued following the NATO summit meeting in Paris.

The vast efforts required of Turkey for centuries to make it possible to defend and retain its independence against ruthless foes, and the economic capitulation to which she was forced to submit for such a long period, prevented it from achieving an appropriate measure of economic development.

The attainment of economic development by Turkey is a most beneficial necessity not only for herself alone but also for the whole free world.

It has been Turkey’s aim from the outset to achieve such economic development within the international peace front and in the democratic community of which she is a member, and by way of the cooperation which she has established with them on reciprocally equal terms.

The Turkey of 1957 which marks a population increase of close to 3% per annum will comprise in the near future, that is to say in about twenty years, the homeland of almost 50 million Turks.

If we fail to gear our currently underdeveloped economy to this increase in population, instead of becoming a force to contend with as an important factor in the establishment of peace and security within the peace front after the lapse of those twenty years, we could become a veritable burden.

Therefore, in the economic development which constitutes the goal of all Turkish economic policies, it is naturally our major duty within the framework of the international economic solidarity established by the peace front to endeavor to ensure the widest possible measure of economic aid compatible with Turkey’s true needs.

Let me hasten to add that Turkey’s efforts in this respect are being reciprocated in the sense that we are being accorded fruitful aid towards Turkey’s economic recovery within the framework of the bilateral and multilateral agreements concluded with our friends and allies.

Aid from the U.S.

I now propose to broach the subject of the actual manifestations of such aid and cooperation.

You know that this aid is received from our great friend and ally the United States within the framework of the Marshall Aid plan, through Public Law No. 480 relating to agricultural surpluses, and in the form of technical assistance.

Aid received in this manner up to the end of the 1956/57 period amounts to $938 million. It had materialized within the framework of the Marshall Plan, at the rate of $100 million since 1955. This year it has been increased to $120 million in the form of economic development aid, Direct Forces Support, and defense support aid.

If to this is added the $46 million received under Public Law No.480, the total aid received under this heading during the current year will amount to $165 million.

This aid extended by our friend the United States, not only supports our efforts at economic development to a large extent but has also helped us to withstand without too great hardship the difficulties caused by the last four years of drought.

This aid on the part of American Government will always be remembered with gratitude by the Turkish nation.

Aid for Baghad Pact Communications

Besides this type of American aid to Turkey, there is the aid for joint projects under the Baghdad Pact to which I shall now refer.

Of the $12 million allocated by the United States last year for joint projects under the Baghdad Pact, $2.6 million was apportioned for equipment to be purchased by our Department of Highways for the construction of roads between Turkey and Iran. A further $10 million has been allocated this year for such joint projects.

Furthermore, Mr. Dulles has stated that our joint projects can also be financed by the Export-Import Bank and by the Development Loan Fund. It is quite possible that we may receive further aid from these sources.

Aside from these, the British Government has placed at the disposition of the Baghdad Pact one million pounds sterling for technical aid.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

When referring to our economic activities in the international field, it is doubtless necessary to mention also the activities of the free trade area within the OEEC.

As the Grand National Assembly is aware, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxemburg have signed a treaty for a common market. Work has been going on for a year on the part of the OEEC to extend this treaty to its other members in the formula of free exchange.

The six European countries to which I have referred are decided to achieve uniformity in their customs tariffs, quantitative restrictions, and taxation, and also in their social regimes, with the object of creating the common market. It is planned to do the same things for the free trade area.

You will appreciate of course that these are not problems capable of easy solution. But the great economic and political importance of the establishment of a free trade area in Europe to all countries of the region propels these countries to make the necessary sacrifices.

Within the free trade area, underdeveloped countries like Turkey, Greece, Iceland, and Ireland have social problems all their own. It is obvious that, above all else, these countries need a period of adjustment in order to strengthen their economies. It is necessary for these countries to develop economically during such a period, and, to achieve this, they need to obtain the necessary financial aid from three sources.

These sources are an Investment Fund, a Readjustment Fund, and an International Investment Bank which would operate as a commercial enterprise.

In addition, the governments of countries that are exporters of capital have been requested to adopt measures to encourage and facilitate the movement of private foreign capital to the underdeveloped countries.

The views put forward by us and our partners have been accepted in principle, and a Working Group has been formed to study these matters. This Working Group envisages the adoption of methods of which the aim is to exempt these countries for a period of ten years from reducing their customs tariffs, their quantitative restrictions and levies on imports, and their measures calculated to aid production. It is also studying the matter of sources from which economic development can be financed.

As a result of the request made by us and supported by Greece at the most recent meeting held at Ministerial level, the matter of speeding up the work of ascertaining such sources of capital was taken into consideration.

Despite the difficulties that are still in the way, it is hoped that the Agreement for a free trade area will be ready by July.

Council of Europe Projects in Turkey

Before leaving the subject of European cooperation, I would like to mention an activity of the Council of Europe which concerns our country.

In 1956,a Resettlement Fund was set up by 8 Council members. The purpose of this Fund was to aid such countries as are faced with problems created by refugees and by over-population. Since it was agreed that Turkey was among the countries to receive immediate aid from this Fund, Turkey submitted three projects. These were for the construction of a 100-dwelling village in central Anatolia intended for immigrants from Turkistan and excess population from other areas, for a modern receiving center at Tuzla in Istanbul to accommodate 1.000 refugees and contain also facilities for vocational training, and, finally, for reclamation work in the plain of Muş. These projects were approved by the Fund, which granted Turkey a loan of $372.000 for their implementation.

Trade and Payments Pacts

Side by side with such economic activity on a multilateral level, efforts have been exerted also to conclude bilateral agreements to regulate commerce and payments.

 Aside from existing agreements, commercial negotiations were conducted and brought to a satisfactory conclusion with the United Kingdom., France, Italy, and Belgium in 1957, and with Switzerland in January of 1958.

In 1957, as in previous years, 75% of our export and import trade was conducted with EPU and dollar-area countries, and only 25% of it went to countries with which we have special bilateral arrangements. Of this latter portion, only about 17% was with Soviet satellites or with countries of the Communist bloc.

Turkey’s Role in Atoms for Peace

In addition to economic cooperation, I consider it necessary to broach also a subject of great concern to our country’s future, namely, international activities connected with atomic energy.

Turkey, which back in 1955 was the first country to have signed an Agreement with the United States for the Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy, has benefited from American technical assistance in this field; it has participated in the activities of the European Atomic Agency within the framework of the OEEC; it is a partner in the chemical separator installation which it has been decided to set up at Moll by European countries.

We are also taking a very active part in the work of the International Atomic Agency which has been decided to set up at Vienna under the auspices of the United Nations; and we have been elected to its first Board for a period of two years.

At present, we have some forty atomic scientists in the United States who are acquiring additional knowledge and experience in the various branches of atomic energy.

We are also participating in the work of research into radio isotopes being conducted at the Baghdad Atomic Center which was set up within the framework of the Baghdad Pact.

A reactor center for atomic research is on the point of being established in Turkey.

---------------------

Biography of Foreign Minister Fatin Rüştü Zorlu

A well-known figure on the international scene, Fatin Rüştü Zorlu has come to be recognized as one of the free world’s foremost exponents of collective defense and economic cohesion.

As Chief Delegate, Ambassador, Minister of State, Deputy Premier, and, since November 25, 1957, as Foreign Minister, career diplomat Zorlu has been a familiar personality at almost every major international conference of the past decade.

Born in Istanbul in 1910, Mr. Zorlu is married and has one daughter.

A graduate of the Galatasaray Lycee in Istanbul, he holds LL.B. degrees from the Law School of the University of Geneva and from the School of Political Science in Paris.

Mr. Zorlu entered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1932 and was successively Secretary to the Turkish Delegation to the Disarmament Conference (1934), Legal Adviser to the Turkish Delegation to the Montreux Conference (1936), Adviser to the Turkish Delegation to the League of Nations in Geneva (1938)

Appointed First Secretary to the Turkish Embassy in Paris in 1939, he later became Counselor of Embassy in Moscow (1942), Chargé d’Affairs in Kuibishef, USSR (1942), and Consul-General in Beirut (1943).

Appointed Director-General of the Department of Economy and Commerce at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ankara (1946), he served as Head of the Turkish Delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe (1947-49), Chairman of the Turkish Delegation to the Conference on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Havana (1948), Deputy Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Marshall Aid Program, and Head of the Turkish Delegation assigned to conclude trade agreements with different countries(1949).

Promoted Minister Plenipotentiary in 1950, he was a member of the Turkish Delegation assigned to conclude the loan agreement with the World Bank in Washington, D.C. (1950), Chairman of the Turkish Delegation to the GATT Conference in England (1951), member of the Turkish Delegation to the NATO Conference at Lisbon (1952).

In 1952 he was appointed AMBASSADOR AND Turkish Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Council in Paris.

Elected to the Grand National Assembly from the constituency of Çanakkale on May 2, 1954, Mr. Zorlu entered the cabinet as Minister of State and Deputy Prime Minister on May 17, 1954; and became Minister of State and Acting Foreign Minister on July 29, 1955. He headed the Turkish Delegation to the Bandung Conference in 1955.

Resigning from the cabinet on November 29, 1955, he re-entered it as Minister of State for Press Affairs on July 28, 1957. On November 25, 1957, he became Minister of Foreign Affairs in the fifth cabinet formed by Premier Adnan Menderes.

He took part in the NATO Summit Conference in Paris in December 1957, and accompanied Premier Menderes on the state visits to Japan, South Korea, and Nationalist China in April, 1958.