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