DEFENSE AND ECONOMIC COOPERATION AGREEMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 007157

SIPDIS


E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/05/2013
TAGS: MARR ELAB ECPS ECON TU
SUBJECT: DEFENSE AND ECONOMIC COOPERATION AGREEMENT
INSPECTIONS OCTOBER 20-24, 2003


(U) Classified by Charge Robert Deutsch. Reasons: 1.5 b and
d.



1. (C) Summary: The annual Defense and Economic Cooperation
Agreement (DECA) inspections occurred the week of October
20-24, 2003 in Ankara, Izmir and Incirlik. While talks
between the two sides became tense during discussions of a
small number of specific issues, the overall mood of the
inspections remained positive, and both sides agreed that
positive steps had been made in resolving outstanding issues.
Differences remained on the issues of dependent hires,
carrying of weapons off base by Air Force Office of Special
Investigations officers (AFOSI),the maintenance of an Air
Postal Office (APO) service, and the clean-up of a U.S.
landfill in Incirlik. Progress was made in most of these,
however, none were resolved outright. Although they appear
minor, the Turkish General Staff pursues them energetically
during the inspection as a means to remind the US side of the
military's more general unhappiness with declining US
assistance levels. End summary.



2. (C) Although most issues that arose during the 2003 DECA
inspection were amicably resolved, several issues saw
significant differences which the participants could not
bridge. These issues were:


-- Dependent Hires: Participating in the DECA discussions was
Murat Ayhan Basaran of the Ministry of Labor. Basaran used
the forum to inform the U.S. side that in February 2003
Turkish Labor Law No. 4817, concerning the employment of
foreigners in Turkey, went into effect. Basaran, who claimed
to have received authority from the Minister of Labor to
resolve this outstanding DECA issue, sought to find a way in
which the U.S. could work with the Turkish side to fit its
dependent hires into the parameters of the new law. The
Turkish side proposed that as a first step the U.S. provide a
list of dependent hires and their positions, and that these
employees begin the application process for formal approval.
The U.S. side explained its reservations regarding the issue,
primarily that they did not want Turkey to influence
dependent hires through quotas or lengthy bureaucratic
applications. The U.S. side insisted that dependent hires
was an extremely sensitive issue, and explained that if
service personnel could not be assured that their spouses
could work on-base in Turkey, then they might opt not to
serve in Turkey. In this sense, the U.S. judged dependent
hires to be "mission critical" issue. The U.S. side explained
that these jobs relied on the U.S. base economy, they did not
compete with or detract from the local economy. After a
lengthy, heated discussion, both sides agreed that this issue
could not be resolved during the DECA inspections. For its
part, the U.S. side prefers to pass it up the command chain,
obtain a position and then meet with the Turks to convey that
position. In side bar discussions between PolMil officer and
MFA Head of America's desk Cihad Erginay, Erginay questioned
the wisdom of the U.S. reluctance to bring closure to this
issue. He insisted that Turkey was not seeking to change the
situation, and that they only wanted to accommodate U.S.
practices into the Turkish law. He offered assurance that
Turkey would remain flexible in the administering of this law
to U.S. interests, and suggested that having a written and
legal agreement for U.S. dependent hires was also in American
interests as it could offer protection from possible future
moves to end this practice.


-- AFOSI Activities: The Turkish side raised strong objection
to the practice of AFOSI officers carrying weapons off
Incirlik base. The Turks insisted that the U.S. must respect
Turkish laws. In response, the U.S. stated that this was
done only when duties so required. In addition, the Turkish
side raised objection to AFOSI officers traveling off base
and meeting with local security officers from the Turkish
National Police, the Jandarma local city police, etc. The
Turks (who were mainly from TGS) insisted that such
activities should be coordinated through the Turkish 10th
Tanker base commander at Incirlik Air Base. AFOSI reps
insisted that it was essential for them to travel to areas to
where U.S. military personnel would be traveling in order to
assess the security environment. Such assessment required
direct contact with the local Turkish authorities, and would
only be hampered by routing all such work through the 10th
Tanker Base Commander. The Turks were unmoved and insisted
that AFOSI activities ran counter to the DECA and the NATO
SOFA. This paragraph states, "The Turkish Installation
Commander shall be responsible for relations with local
Turkish authorities...." U.S. lawyers disagreed, insisting
the Article 6 of the NATO SOFA sanctioned such AFOSI
activities "when they are authorized...by their orders." It
was agreed that this issue could not be resolved during the
inspections but both sides would continue to pursue
resolution at the appropriate level. (Comment: The real
issue the Turkish Military has with AFOSI is likely a desire
for greater control: The Turks objected to any actions taken
by a U.S. investigative service that were not coordinated
with the Turkish base command, be it carrying weapons or
conducting liaison meetings with local counterparts. End
comment.)


-- APO: The Turkish position regarding the APO was quite
clear. Like many other countries in which the U.S. operates
an APO, Turkey wanted a legal agreement to codify this
operation. The U.S. insisted that the issue of personal mail
was even more sensitive than that of dependent hires. The
Turks requested that the U.S. side allow them to peruse a
sample APO agreement from another country. The U.S. side
countered by proposing that a meeting be held in Ankara at
which a draft agreement could be discussed with the Turks on
text. Final agreement was reached to hold this meeting at
which the U.S. side would bring a sample APO agreement and
discuss the agreement with the Turks.


-- Land Fill: A rather contentious environmental issue was
the future of a U.S.-used land fill on Incirlik. The U.S.
had completed an environmental survey and determined that the
land fill could be completely sealed off through an 8 million
dollar encasement project. The Turks accepted this idea but
demanded a time frame for the initiation and completion of
the work. The U.S. side repeatedly explained that limited
resources and shifting priorities made it impossible to offer
a date by which this project would be completed. The issue
was not resolved; and discussion was simply dropped.



3. (C) Comment: The GOT - and TGS in particular - has long
grumbled about how the U.S. has failed to live up to the
letter and spirit of the DECA. While the issues discussed at
this year,s DECA inspections appear minor, they reflect
TGS,s concern that Turkey is not getting a fair return for
allowing the US to use it bases. TGS has advised us that
they intend to use this year,s HLDG to reiterate their
displeasure at what they perceive to be a gap between the
letter of the DECA and the USG,s track record on
implementation. We hope that they leave the HLDG convinced
that our relationship is about much more than aid that
continues to be relatively robust given Turkey's level of
development. Such an outcome would facilitate resolution of
DECA-related issues. End Comment.
DEUTSCH