SFOR TRANSITION: TURKS CONCERNED THAT EUROPEAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 004590

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/09/2014
TAGS: PREL MOPS TU BK
SUBJECT: SFOR TRANSITION: TURKS CONCERNED THAT EUROPEAN
UNION MAY SEEK TO EXCLUDE TURKEY FROM COMMAND HQ, RAISE
CYPRIOT AND MALTESE ATTENDANCE AT NATO/EU PLANNING MEETINGS


Classified By: DCM Robert S. Deutsch for reasons 1.5 (b) and (d).


1. (C) PolMilOff met Aug. 10 with Col. Halit Yilmaz, Chief of
TGS's NATO Operations Branch office. Yilmaz reported that
Turkey is committed to remain in SFOR at its current (one
battalion) level after SFOR becomes an EU operation, and said
he believes that the EU wants Turkey to stay. However, he
expressed two concerns surrounding this transition. First,
he had heard of "reports circulating around Brussels" that
the EU may seek to exclude non-EU members from both the
general SFOR HQ and the regional command HQs. This would,
warned Yilmaz, "be a direct violation of Berlin-plus" and
have serious consequences for Turkey's participation. Yilmaz
added that Turkey was attending an SFOR-North "mini force
generating conference" Aug. 11 in Helsinki (he said the Finns
will command the north),and said that if the EU were to make
a move toward excluding the Turks from HQs, this would come
at the mission-wide conference planned for September. The
Turks intend to offer personnel for both the mission-wide and
northern SFOR HQs. PolMilOff responded that we would monitor
this issue.


2. (C) Yilmaz cited a second concern, one that MFA Deputy
Director General Fatih Ceylan had also raised with
PolMilCouns on July 26. The Turks are concerned that Malta
and Cyprus, who have apparently not signed NATO security
agreements, will participate in NATO/EU planning meetings.
Both Ceylan and Yilmaz made the point that Cyprus was a
particular problem given the failure of the April referendum,
and that Turkey cannot deal with the GOC as if it were a
representative of the entire island.


3. (C) Comment: While the EU would be short-sighted in
excluding the Turks from SFOR HQs, we are uncertain if the EU
would be outside their rights to do so. While the spirit may
be clear, the relevant documents--Annex II of the October
2002 EU Council conclusions (the implementing document for
the EU's agreement with Turkey on ESDP) and the Dec. 16, 2002
EU-NATO Declaration on ESDP--leave room for interpretation.
The Turks have told us repeatedly that they want to
participate in the EU successor to SFOR, but exclusion from
the operation's HQ would bode ill for this participation.
End comment.
EDELMAN