PSI AND NPT: TURKS "DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED" AT LACK

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 003740

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR T, NP/RA, NP/MNA, AC/ISN, VC/FO, EUR/SE;
GENEVA FOR AMB. SANDERS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/30/2029
TAGS: PARM KNNP MNUC PREL TU IR
SUBJECT: PSI AND NPT: TURKS "DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED" AT LACK
OF U.S. RESPONSE ON PSI CORE GROUP; AGREE NEED TO KEEP
PRESSURE ON IRAN

REF: A. STATE 142212


B. STATE 139286

C. ANKARA 3117

Classified By: DCM ROBERT S. DEUTSCH, REASONS 1.4 B AND D.


1. (C) Action Request at Para 8.

--------------
Summary
--------------


2. (C) While delivering Refs A and B, PolMilCouns and
PolMilOff were treated to an unexpected and emotional
reaction to U/S Bolton's PSI letter from usually stoic MFA
Director General for Disarmament and Security Affairs Haluk
Ilicak. On NPT PrepCom III views, Ilicak said he would
circulate Ref B to relevant authorities for considered
comments, but as an initial point he said that Turkey, too,
was very concerned about states seeking to develop a nuclear
capability, especially Iran. He contended that we needed to
keep pressure on Iran and to prepare the ground in the UNSC
before having IAEA refer Iran's case there. A UNSCR would be
difficult to pass due to Russian assistance to Iran's program
development, non-aligned states supporting one of their own,
and EU members seeking to protect their commercial interests.
On PSI, Ilicak repeatedly said that while he understood Ref
A did not respond to Turkey's request for the criteria for
PSI Core Group membership (Ref C),receiving such a letter
after making the request was very discouraging, especially as
another non-founder (Russia) that was helping Iran, that had
not participated in any experts meetings, and that was
contributing nothing to PSI had been brought into the group.
He called this a double standard, noted that he and TGS J-5
MG Arslan were PSI's only proponents in the GOT, and stated
that the lack of positive response made it impossible for
them to advocate continued Turkish contribution. He said
repeatedly that he would stop working on PSI until a
satisfactory answer was received. We urge Washington to give
careful consideration to its response to Ref C. End Summary.

--------------
NPT and Iran
--------------


3. (C) On June 30, PolMilCouns and PolMilOff delivered Refs A
and B to MFA DG for Disarmament Haluk Ilicak. On the NPT
PrepCom, Ilicak offered his personal, preliminary views,
saying that Turkey was very concerned about Iran's nuclear
aspirations. Many Turks, including Ilicak, believe Iran is
trying to buy time to implement a real nuclear weapons
program. Turkey would support a more rigorous inspection and
control regime, he said. However, he worried that the
non-aligned states would strongly oppose limits on the
NPT-recognized right of countries to develop atomic energy
for peaceful purposes. Ilicak did not think there could be
consensus to strengthen restrictions or place limits on
states in this regard during the NPT RevCon. Turkey, he
said, has no nuclear aims and no nuclear program, but that it
is in Turkey's interests to have strong controls. He said he
would take Ref B points to his higher authorities and get a
considered official response.


4. (C) Returning to Iran, Ilicak warned that strong
preventive measures must be taken before the Iranians develop
a nuclear weapons capability, which he predicted would be
developed in three-to-five years if things remain as they
are. On the EU-3's initiative with the Iranians, he was
skeptical and said the Europeans were driven by an interest
in protecting their significant commercial ties with Iran.
He worried that even if the IAEA sent the matter to the UNSC,
it would be very hard to pass a resolution. He recommended
that the US forestall moving the issue to the UNSC until we
can assure the necessary votes for passage in the UNSC. To
go to the UNSC and not get a resolution would be a disaster
for the IAEA and the UNSC, he opined. In the UNSC, Ilicak
continued, Iran would have the support of the non-aligned, of
Russia which he said was helping Iran develop its
capabilities, and of China which was involved in helping Iran
with delivery systems. The EU members would continue to have
the trade consideration hanging over them. "You can be sure,
Turkey is even more concerned than the US about Iran," he
said.

--------------
PSI - Turkish Participation in Jeopardy
--------------

5. (C) PolMilCouns passed Ilicak Ref A letter (addressed to
MFA U/S Ugur Ziyal) and made accompanying points, stressing
that the latter was not/not a response to Turkey's request to
become a member of the PSI Core Group. The usually stoic
Ilicak became emotional asking when Turkey would get an
answer and stating that given Turkey's request, the letter
was very discouraging. We made clear that the same letter
had been sent to over 40 PSI participants and that he should
not take this as a slight toward Turkey. Ilicak continued to
say that this was very disappointing, and that if Turkey was
to be treated like this, it would not send representatives to
experts meetings. He noted that Russia does not send
personnel to PSI events or expert meetings, does not
contribute planes or anything else, and was not a PSI
founder. Yet they have been taken into the Core Group. This
was a double standard, and Turkey wanted the status we were
willing to give to at least that one other non-founder. He
said he would circulate Ref A letter with a note saying that
the answer to Turkey's request is no, for the time being.
Until the US position changed, he said, no one in the GOT
would support his pleas for more Turkish contributions.
Ilicak, who clearly feels he has invested a great deal in
pushing Turkey's bureaucracy to actively participate in PSI
in the future, said that in all of the GOT, only he and TGS
J-5 MG Arslan have supported Turkish participation.


6. (C) Ilicak said, "if you expect a positive response to
future requests for contributions based on this letter, I
assure you it will not serve that purpose. I am not in a
position to support the continuation of our contributions."
He asked again when Turkey would get a response to its
request for inclusion in the Core Group. PolMilCouns said he
hoped the response would come soon and that drafts were
already circulation. Ilicak continued that he had prepared a
matrix of relevant Turkish laws and of what Turkey could and
could not do in PSI, but that he would stop moving it forward
until he received a response from the US. "I'll write a
report saying that while you stressed this letter is not the
answer to our request, we must wait for that answer before
taking any step forward. For the moment, I am not forwarding
the matrix or recommending any further action. I will do
everything I can to stop or slow down steps on PSI. I am
really disappointed."


7. (C) Ilicak shared that NP/CBM Director Vann VanDiepen had
told him during the Paris Australia Group meeting that the
answer would probably be negative, but urged the Turks not to
be upset and assured Ilicak that Turkey and the US could
continue to work well together on PSI. Ilicak said the US
would be sorry if it gave Turkey a negative answer. "It's
your project. If you want us in, give us a positive
response. If it is, in part, our project too, that changes
our approach."


8. (C) ACTION REQUEST: Embassy requests that Washington give
careful consideration to its reply to Turkey's questions (Ref
C). The alternative would appear to be Turkey placing itself
on the sidelines of PSI.
EDELMAN