MILITARY EXPENDITURE IN TURKEY AN AMERICAN “INVESTMENT FOR PEACE”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27039, 25 March 1949, Page 5

MILITARY EXPENDITURE IN TURKEY AN AMERICAN “INVESTMENT FOR PEACE”

New Zealand Press Association—Copyright

Hec. 9.10 p.m. NEW YORK, Mar. 23. The expenditures authorised by the Truman doctrine for equipment and the training of Turkey’s armed forces were “ about the best investment the United States can make for the preservation of world peace,” said Major-general Horace Mcßride, Chief of the United States Military Mission in Turkey, says the Ankara correspondent of the New York Times.

General Mcßride said the American experiment in Turkey had already paid dividends. Mechanisation had enabled the Turkish Army to reduce the burden of a large standing army and allow young men and horses to return to the farms. He praised the qualities of the Turkish soldiers, and said that if the country were invaded the Turkish Army would give a good account of itself. The chance of offering resistance to aggressors would increase as the present programme made headway under United States guidance.

General Mcßride declared that Turkey considered the existing alliance with Britain insufficient, hence she looked to the United States for co-operation and assistance.

General Mcßride was speaking after the press had reflected what seemed to be widespread disappointment that Turkey had not been included in the Atlantic Pact. The Turks say that while Italy is not an Atlantic Power she received recognition as such, while Turkey, worn by years of vigilant mobilisation and still representing the more dynamic force in one of the foremost of the threatened areas, is left out.

From Washington it is reported that the United States to-day declared its “deep interest” in the security and independence of Greece. Turkey and Persia.

The Secretary of State, Mr Dean Acheson, issued a series of statements emphasising the United States interest in the security of countries in oiher areas than the North Atlantic, “particularly the Near and the Middle East.” The first statement said: “ During the drafting of the North Atlantic pact we were aware of the possibility that our formal expression of serious interest in the security of countries in the North Atlantic area might be misinterpreted as implying a lessening of our interest in the security of countries in other areas, particularly the Near and Middle East. The security of the United States cannot be defined in terms of boundaries and frontiers. “A serious threat to international peace and security anywhere throughout the world is of direct concern to this country. “Therefore, it is our policy to help free peoples to maintain their integrity and .independence not only in Western Europe or the Americas, but wherever aid we are able to provide can be effective.” Pressure on Persia The second statement concerned Soviet pressure on Persia. It denied in strong language Soviet charges that the United States was making Persia a base for attack on the Soviet Union. The statement said the American Embassy at Teheran had reported Soviet pressure on Persia in the form of persistent press and radio propaganda alleging activitie* by United States advisers in Persia hostile to the Soviet. Mr Acheson said such charges were “ altogether false and demonstrably untrue.” He said the United States military mission in Persia consisted of 40 or 50 officers and men, and dealt exclusively with advice and training on military administration. It had nothing to do with combat training. The United States had no airfields or bases in Persia and contemplated none. Such charges by the Soviet could rest only on malicious misrepresentations or fantastic misunderstanding of the nature and aims of American society. Greek Independence

Referring to Greece, where the Greek Government and people were asserting their determination to preserve their independence in the face of what he called “ rebellion from within, which was largely directed by anti-democratic forces outside Greece's borders.” Mr Acheson said Greece was a testing ground for the United Nations. “By extending their support to Greece at present, the American people are endeavouring not only to act as good neighbours, but also to give practical effect to their determination that the principle of collective organisation for peace shall be made to work." Middle East Defence

When questioned by the press, Mr Acheson left open the possibility that the United States might regard favourably a Middle East defence treaty comparable to the Atlantic Pact. He said that for the moment he had no comment on that possibility. Asked whether the United States had formally conveyed to the Governments of Greece, Turkey, and Persia the ideas which he expressed to-day, Mr Acheson said, “ Not to my knowledge.” . The Associated Press says it was learned from other sources that such reassurances had been expressed by American diplomats in Athens, Ankara, and Teheran when the authorities in those capitals become alarmed that the United States might be weakening in its concern over their part of the world. The Turks, especially, were reported to have been unhappy about the way the Atlantic Pact developed. They wanted to be in it. and failing that they warned quick work toward the formation of a Middle East alliance, which would have some kind of American support. Such a regional arrangement appears now to be the major objective of Turkish foreign policy, although the Uhited States has not actively encouraged the idea yet. The Governments of Greece and Persia are said by diplomats in Washington to be as deeply concerned as the Turks over some kind of defensive treaty, arrangement. The Associated Press adds that it is understood that in the Military Aid Bill, which the State Department is now drafting to back the Atlantic Pact, Congress will be asked to authorise the continuation of aid to Greece, Turkey, and Persia. USA Armed Strength Mr Millard Tydings, chairman of the Senate Armed Services’ Committee, said to-day that the military forces of the United States might have to be increased because of the North Atlantic Pact commitments, but in the long run the pact, together with projected arms shipments to Europe, should enable a cut in the American Army. He added that European man-power, equipped partly with American arms, could take over an appreciable portion of the responsibilities for the Atlantic security zone. The United Press correspondent in Washington learns that the tentative plan provides for three regional defence set-ups under the pact. One groups the United States, Canada, Greenland, and Iceland, another Britain, France, and the Benelux countries, and the third the Scandinavian nations. „ .. , It is also learned that the National Security Resources Board has advised the State Department that 2,000,000,000 dollars, spent on arms in the first year, would not dangerously deplete American resources and that diplomatic officials were ready to ask Congress for at least a four-year programme to build up the military strength of the free nations.