EXBS: TURKS REJECT AGREEMENT ARTICLES; PROPOSE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 002374

SIPDIS


STATE FOR NP/ECC KATHY CROUCH
ENERGY FOR SLD
USCS/INA FOR DHARRELL
ROME FOR CUSTOMS ATTACHE


E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/10/2013
TAGS: PARM ETTC PREL KSTC TU
SUBJECT: EXBS: TURKS REJECT AGREEMENT ARTICLES; PROPOSE
CASE-BY-CASE WORK

REF: A. STATE 29502

B. 02 ANKARA 7670

C. 02 STATE 165781


(U) Classified by Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Deutsch.
Reasons 1.5 (b) and (d).



1. (U) This is an action request. Please see para 7.



2. (C) Summary. On March 31, the Turks objected to three
articles of our proposed Export Control and Related Border
Security Assistance (EXBS) Program agreement. The articles
govern the status of personnel, claims, and inspections and
audits. For the moment, we are at an impasse, and it appears
as though these three articles serve as a proxy for the GOT's
overall reluctance to conclude the agreement. Turkey remains
eager to cooperation regarding non-proliferation, but would
like to work with us on a project-by-project basis, without
an overarching framework or agreement. End Summary.



3. (C) On March 31, MFA Disarmament Department Head Ibrahim
Yagli convoked polmiloff to respond to the US's proposed text
for an agreement "Regarding Cooperation to Facilitate the
Provision of Assistance for Non-Proliferation Purposes." We
had presented our latest text to the Turks on September 30,

2002. Polmiloff had subsequently lobbied Turkish Customs and
MFA on multiple occasions to dislodge a response. Yagli said
that the GOT had examined our text in detail and had
concluded that articles III, IV, and V "were not in
conformity with Turkish legislation." Therefore, the GOT
could not accept our text as it stands, absent action by the
Turkish Parliament. Yagli did not hold out parliamentary
action as an option.



4. (C) Yagli urged us to put an overarching agreement to the
side. He said the GOT "on the whole attaches importance to
cooperation on non-proliferation issues." However, he
proposed that the US and Turkey "continue cooperating with
purpose-oriented projects, but without a big, extensive
agreement." He thought that the US seemed to be trying to
use a generic text, perhaps appropriate for other
circumstances, but for which Turkey did not see a need. As
Yagli put it, Turkey is "ready to receive proposals on what
and how we can move forward."



5. (C) Polmiloff asked Yagli if we could get a detailed
analysis of the legal obstacles to Turkey's accepting the
three articles. Yagli replied that he would have to refer to
MFA's Legal Department to get specific information. Noting
the MFA's understanding is that the US position on the
articles is "steady," he had not thought that we would want
the particulars of why the article were objectionable. Yagli
recalled that in June 2002 Turkey had objected to these
specific provisions, but in September the US's
counter-proposal contained basically the "same articles."
Polmiloff pressed Yagli on whether, hypothetically,
modifications of the September text might make the agreement
acceptable to Turkey, but Yagli could not commit on whether
Turkey's reservations regarding the agreement, as opposed to
the articles, were firm.



6. (U) The three articles to which the Turks object are as
follow:


Begin Text:


Article III: Status of Personnel


(a) Turkey shall accord civilian and military personnel of
the United States Government present in Turkey in connection
with United States assistance programs under this Agreement,
status equivalent to that accorded administrative and
technical personnel under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations of April 18, 1961.


(b) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to derogate
from the privileges and immunities granted to any personnel
under other agreements.


Article IV: Claims


(a) Turkey shall, in respect of legal proceedings and claims,
other than contractual claims, hold harmless and bring no
legal proceedings against the United States and personnel,
contractors, and contractors' personnel of the United States
for damage to property owned by Turkey, or death or injury to
any personnel in Turkey, arising out of activities pursuant
to this Agreement.
(b) Claims by third parties, arising out of the acts or
omissions of any employees of the United States or
contractors or contractors' personnel of the United States
done in the performance of official duty, shall be the
responsibility of Turkey.


Article V: Inspection and Audit


Upon reasonable request, Turkey, or its relevant authorities
or entities subject to its jurisdiction, shall permit
representatives of the United States to examine that
utilization of any commodities, supplies, other property, or
services provided under this Agreement at sites of their
location or use; and to inspect or audit any records or other
documentation in connection with the assistance wherever such
records or documentation are located during the period in
which the United States provides assistance to Turkey and for
three years thereafter.


End Text.



7. (C) Action Request: Post requests the Department's
guidance on a response to Turkey's position. In the meantime
we will follow up with MFA to try to nail down the legal
particulars of why articles III, IV, and V are not "in
conformity with Turkish legislation." If the articles were
the only obstacle to signing the agreement, we doubt it would
have taken the Turks from September 2002 until March 2003 to
reach their position. Our discussions with MFA and Turkish
Customs have consistently shown that the Turks are eager to
receive assistance and equipment, but are reluctant to agree
to an overall framework for the program. Per Ref A, para 6,
Post understands that the Department's position is that
further equipment installation and "other significant EXBS
program projects" cannot go forward absent the GOT's signing
the proposed agreement. We have communicated this fact to
the Turks. End Action Request.


PEARSON