of the agreement provide the Turkish Government an ample opportunity to discuss with the United States Government the retention of such materials as the Turkish Government desired to purchase.

2. The Turks' question as to whether Article VII might be construed by the United States as a binding commitment or obligation by them to agree to any demands that may be made with respect to the matters referred to in Article VII may be answered, in a manner which you consider appropriate, in the following sense:

The Article pledges the signatories to work together with all other countries of like mind for the economic objectives therein described. Since it is recognized that the reduction of trade barriers, for example, is a matter for action by each country in accordance with its own constitutional procedures, provision is made for conversations to determine the best means of attaining the stated objectives of each government by their own "agreed" action. The broad discretion given to the President in Section 3 (b) of the Lend-Lease Act to determine the benefits to be received by the United States for lend-lease aid would, of course, permit him to take cognizance of the agreed action contemplated by Article VII as a benefit under Article VI. It may be appropriate to point out to the Turkish Government that there is some advantage to it in signing the agreement at least to the extent that Article VII establishes the principles on which a final settlement is to be based and to that extent indicates the area of discretion to be exercised by the President with respect to his determination of what constitutes a satisfactory settlement.

3. With respect to the Turks' inquiry as to whether the signing of the agreement would be availed of by Washington to terminate lendlease to Turkey automatically, you are authorized to answer, in a manner which you consider appropriate, in the following sense:

It is not the intention of this Government to use the signing of the agreement as a basis for automatically terminating lend-lease assistance to Turkey. The amount of assistance in the future depends, of course, upon the course of the war. Our position in this respect remains as stated in Department's [811] September 20, 1944.

4. The Department's views as expressed in Department's [880] October 10, 1944 are not to be considered as modified in any sense by the foregoing comments.

HULL

867.24/12-144: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Turkey (Steinhardt)

WASHINGTON, December 1, 1944-7 p. m.

1121. The Department is agreeable to the execution of the proposed lend-lease agreement in both the English and Turkish languages, both

authentic, and the Embassy is authorized to verify and approve the Turkish text without further verification by the Department.

Since the agreement will be executed in both languages, it will be necessary to revise the wording of the last sentence in Article 8 as follows: "Done in duplicate in the English and Turkish languages, both authentic, at Ankara, this blank day of blank, 1944."

It is understood that the Turkish Government now suggests that the notes already proposed in connection with the agreement not be exchanged, but apparently no objection to the contents of the notes has been brought forward. The Department is not agreeable to the suppression of these notes. Commitments have been made to Congressional leaders that the provision in paragraph 4 of such notes regarding the implementation of the provisions of the agreement in accordance with the constitutional procedures of each of the signatory governments will be included in any new lend-lease agreements. For your own information, paragraph 4 and the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of these notes are contained in notes proposed to other governments in the Middle East, and for the Department to agree that these notes need not be exchanged with the Turkish Government would seriously embarrass other negotiations.

The Department has no objection to an exchange of notes embodying the statements contained in the memorandum handed to the Turkish Government by the Ambassador pursuant to our 880 of October 10 and our 900 of October 14.

STETTINIUS

867.24/12-2944: Telegram

The Ambassador in Turkey (Steinhardt) to the Secretary of State

ANKARA, December 29, 1944-2 p. m. [Received December 30-7:15 p. m.]

2427. Department's 1208, December 21.5 During the past 3 weeks I have had numerous conferences with the Secretary General of Foreign Office with a view to concluding the mutual aid agreement. It is becoming increasingly apparent since discontinuance of LendLease deliveries to Turkey earlier in the year, Turk Government is no longer interested in concluding a mutual aid agreement and in

3 On November 15 the Turkish Foreign Office had handed to Ambassador Steinhardt a draft text in Turkish of the proposed Lend-Lease agreement (867.24/11-1644).

The draft exchange of notes provided for current payment by Turkey for foodstuffs and other supplies for the civilian population, and stated that other goods and services might be furnished on the same basis by agreement from time to time. For provisions contained in the proposed exchange of notes sent to Ambassador Steinhardt in telegram 60, January 16, 1943, midnight, see Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. IV, p. 1088.

5 Not printed.

consequence continues to resort to delaying tactics with the object of ultimately avoiding signing an agreement. Without burdening Department with a detailed recital of the . . . objections raised by Foreign Office to terminology, interpretation, translation, et cetera, suffice it to say the Turks adhere to their objection to an exchange of notes dealing with possible delivery of foodstuffs and other supplies for use of civilian population. The argument advanced by Secretary General at our meeting yesterday was no foodstuffs are being provided for use of civilian population of Turkey, that Turk Government has no intention of requesting same and in consequence proposed exchange of notes is no longer necessary even assuming it was desirable when drafts were prepared.

In connection with foregoing, I appreciate the necessity of preserving paragraph 4 of proposed note either in the note or by inserting same in text of the mutual aid agreement itself and believe it may be possible to persuade the Turks to incorporate paragraph 4 in text of the mutual aid agreement if the proposed exchange of notes is abandoned. While I also appreciate the abandonment of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of proposed notes might handicap Department's negotiations for mutual aid agreements with other countries of the Middle East, the fact remains that failure to press for conclusion of a mutual aid agreement with Turkey over a period of nearly 3 years and until comparatively recently, during most of which time an agreement could have been concluded with relative ease by reason of the continuing deliveries of Lend-Lease war material, has resulted in a situation whereby in my considered judgment we would be better advised to take what we can get than to be left without any mutual agreement at all. Furthermore, although I am not informed on the subject, I am under the impression the other countries of the Mid-East have benefited or are benefiting from Lend-Lease deliveries of foodstuffs which is not the case with Turkey and are, therefore, less likely to raise objections to proposed exchange of notes.

... Cajoling the Turk Government into signing a mutual aid agreement covering past deliveries which are safely in their physical possession and after deliveries have ceased promises to be a difficult enough task without endeavoring to wring from it an exchange of notes the provisions of which are intended to serve as a model for other Mid-Eastern countries.

As result of a rather sharp exchange of words with the Secretary General yesterday, I succeeded in persuading him to tentatively accept the mutual aid agreement as now drafted and translated but without the exchange of notes referred to above. I have no way of forecasting whether he may not recede from this position as he has done before if the discussions continue. Under the circumstances I.

have no alternative than to recommend that I be authorized to endeavor to incorporate paragraph 4 of the proposed note into the text of the mutual aid agreement and to sign agreement as so amended without the exchange of notes if I am unable to persuade the Turk Government to accept paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed [note. If] Department accepts my recommendation I trust it will be understood that I shall continue the struggle to have the exchange of notes accepted up to the last moment and will only sign the mutual aid agreement without exchange of notes if and when I am convinced. that further insistence on exchange of notes may mean a refusal by the Turks to sign any mutual aid agreement covering past deliveries. In view of fact that negotiations are continuing from day to day and it is my intention to take matter up with the Prime Minister in the course of next 2 or 3 days, I request an urgent reply.

STEINHARDT

867.24/12-3044: Telegram

The Ambassador in Turkey (Steinhardt) to the Secretary of State

ANKARA, December 30, 1944-7 p. m. [Received December 31-4:25 p. m.]

2437. In conversation with Foreign Minister this morning, he informed me that at the request of the Secretary General of the Foreign Office he had discussed with the Prime Minister the mutual aid agreement and proposed exchange of notes dealing with the possible delivery of foodstuffs and other supplies for the civilian population of Turkey. Saka said the Prime Minister had expressed himself as undoubtably opposed to the proposed notes on the grounds that the Turk Government was not seeking and did not intend to seek LendLease foodstuffs or other supplies for its civilian population from the United States and would purchase through commercial channels and pay in dollars for any foodstuffs or other supplies it might acquire in the US. He said the Prime Minister had expressed the view that the proposed notes might open the door to an unwarranted interference by the US with Turkey's trade, commerce and foreign exchange, and that he could find no justifiable relationship between the proposed notes and a mutual aid agreement covering past deliveries.

Saka said that Saraçoğlu had referred to Lend-Lease deliveries by the US to Turkey as having consisted almost exclusively of war material intended to strengthen the Turkish Army on behalf of the Allied front, and that in consequence Turkey's position in respect of past Lend-Lease deliveries of war material differed substantially from that of other countries which had received Lend-Lease aid by reason

Hasan Saka.

of their war requirements or to meet other exigencies. He said the Prime Minister had remarked that the Lend-Lease deliveries of war material to Turkey had been made primarily for the benefit of the Allies by strengthening the Turkish Army to resist possible German aggression and for no other purpose.

Saka concluded with the statement that the Prime Minister had told him that parliamentary leaders with whom he had discussed the matter had informed him that while the mutual aid agreement would be approved by Parliament the exchange of notes would not, as the notes would be regarded as implying an impending shortage of foodstuffs in Turkey. He said the Prime Minister felt that presenting the proposed notes to Parliament from which such an implication could be drawn would not only encourage further hoarding of foodstuffs with a resultant increase in the already much criticized high cost of living but might even precipitate a government crisis.

I gained the impression that the Turk Government, including the Prime Minister, is reluctant enough to sign the mutual aid agreement at this late date after deliveries of war material have ceased and is determined should it find itself hard pressed to sign the same to refuse to sign simultaneously anything even resembling an agreement in respect of possible future purchases of foodstuffs or other supplies for the civilian population.

In view of the foregoing I renew the recommendation contained in my 2427 of December 29 that I be authorized to abandon paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed notes and to endeavor to incorporate paragraph 4 thereof in the text of the mutual aid agreement.

STEINHARDT

DEATH OF THE TURKISH AMBASSADOR, MEHMET MÜNIR ERTEGÜN

701.6711/11-1144: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Turkey (Steinhardt)

WASHINGTON, November 11, 1944. 1026. The President today is telegraphing following directly to President Inönü:7

8

"I send you my sincerest condolences in connection with the death of your Ambassador to this country and personal friend, Mehmet Münir Ertegün. You must be proud of his able record here and the officials of this Government who have learned to appreciate Ambassador Ertegün's personal integrity and noble and kindly spirit share in your loss. It is with particular sadness that I send to you, and through you to the Government and to the people of Turkey, the deep

"Ismet Inönü, President of the Turkish Republic.

8 The Turkish Ambassador died early on the morning of November 11, 1944.