NATO-AFGHANISTAN: MFA WILLING TO REMAIN FLEXIBLE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 001383

SIPDIS


STATE FOR EUR/RPM, EUR/SE, SA FOR AFGHAN COORDINATOR
TAYLOR; JCS FOR J5


E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/30/2013
TAGS: PREL MARR TU AF
SUBJECT: NATO-AFGHANISTAN: MFA WILLING TO REMAIN FLEXIBLE
ON PRT LOCATION -- WITHIN "REASON"


REF: A) STATE 50477 B)ANKARA 1318 C)ANKARA 1162
(NOTAL) D) ANKARA 1005


(U) Classified by DCM Robert Deutsch. Reasons: 1.5 (B and
D).



1. (C) Drawing upon ref a talking points, Pol-Mil Counselor
stressed to MFA NATO and Afghanistan Affairs Department
officials the importance of strong allied contributions to
NATO's efforts in Afghanistan. He also urged Turkey to be
flexible with regard to its proposed PRT as the GOT works
with SHAPE on its location.



2. (C) DDG for South Asian Affairs Aydin Evergin responded
that Turkey agreed it was important for NATO to succeed in
Afghanistan, and reiterated the GOT's commitment to
continuing to contribute to reconstruction and stabilization
efforts there. On the Turkish proposal to lead a PRT in
northern Afghanistan (refs b-d),Evergin said the GOT would
continue to work with SHAPE to try to identify an acceptable
area in northern Afghanistan for the Turks to establish a
PRT, adding that the GOT had instructed the Turkish MNR at
SHAPE to initiate formal discussions with D/SACEUR late last
week (March 1-5) on a possible location. (Note: We
understand the Turkish MNR sent D/SACEUR a letter identifying
three possible locations for a Turkish-led PRT: a) Faryab
province only, b) Faryab and Jowzjan provinces, or c) Faryab
and Badghis provinces. End note.) Evergin said that if
SHAPE were to come up with an alternative location for a
Turkish-led PRT, Turkey would be willing to consider it --
assuming its location was in northern Afghanistan. In
response to a question from Pol-Mil Counselor on what the
Turks considered "northern Afghanistan," Evergin took out a
map, drew an East-West line across the country directly
through Kabul, and said "this is what we mean."



3. (C) Evergin said Turkey wanted to be as flexible as
possible regarding the location of a PRT, but noted that
logistics and capabilities would guide the GOT's final
decision. After reviewing what he understood to be the
current state of play regarding Allied contributions to
existing or future PRTs, Evergin said that most of the areas
in northern Afghanistan that NATO wanted to cover under Stage
One were already being covered or were soon to be covered by
other nations. Evergin said Turkey hoped that discussions
between the Turkish MNR and SHAPE could be concluded shortly,
and added that "if Turkey sets up a PRT, we want to do it as
soon as possible."



4. (C) Evergin said the GOT would have to look into whether
it would be able to make additional contributions to
Afghanistan (i.e. OEF) or whether it might be able to support
contributions from Partnership for Peace (PFP) countries. He
suggested that this may be an issue that US and Turkish
officials could explore in greater detail during Afghan
Coordinator Taylor's March 12 meetings in Ankara. Pol-Mil
Counselor added that it would useful for both sides to have a
readout from SHAPE's March 11 Force Generation Conference
beforehand. Evergin added that during its command of ISAF
II, Turkey supported smaller nations who wanted to contribute
to ISAF but who did not have the capabilities to do so on
their own.



5. (C) Comment: Evergin again reiterated that the Turks are
willing to be flexible to a point, but suggested that a
Turkish PRT would only be possible in the north. We continue
to see signs the Turkish military is unenthusiastic about
this proposal, which likely explains Turkey's aversion to
locating its PRT in regions it perceives as less secure. End
comment.



6. (U) Belgrade and Dushanbe minimize considered.
EDELMAN