CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): HOST COUNTRY

					  C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 002564 
 
SIPDIS 
 
THE HAGUE ALSO FOR THE CWC DEL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/05/2015 
TAGS: PARM PREL KTIA TU CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): HOST COUNTRY 
AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH TURKEY 
 
REF: A. STATE 74868 
     
B. STATE 80306 
 
Classified By: Acting DCM James R. Moore for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
					

1. (U) This is an action request. See para 4 and 5.



2. (C) PolMilCouns raised the CWC host country agreement
(HCA) with MFA Deputy Director General for Disarmament and
Arms Control Bulent Meric and provided the revised text of
the agreement on April 22, as instructed ref a. Meric said
that the GOT had long been ready to move forward with the
text agreed to in 2000, but had been waiting for the USG to
follow up. (His understanding of the negotiating history had
the ball in our court in 2000.) He agreed to review the new
language. Given the demands of the NPT Review Conference on
the GOT's arms control bureaucracy, he thought it unlikely
Ankara would be prepared to receive a USG team in late May to
discuss the latest draft. In response to the question about
a challenge inspection POC, he commented that that should be
specified in the HCA, but until we have an agreement, we
direct all communications on this to his office.



3. (C) On May 3 (following receipt of ref b), we followed up
with Meric. He said that MFA's legal experts had concluded
that the revised text was "absolutely different," requiring a
completely new legal review and interagency clearances. He
said that this process would take time. When again pressed
about meeting a delegation in late May, Meric said the
Turkish side could not be ready that quickly. He thought
late June was the earliest the GOT would be ready given the
need to compile different agencies' comments on the latest
draft. When asked whether the same would be true if we used
the 2000 text, he said no -- the necessary reviews were in
hand and MFA could agree to that language today.



4. (C) Comment and action request: We did not deliver the
points in ref b as written because they did not seem to take
into consideration ref a in that they promised yet another
draft, even before we have received Turkish comments on the
ref a text. Please advise whether we should tell the Turks
to disregard the ref a text. We did however press for a May
meeting. Unfortunately, the Turks do not want to talk with
us until they have had a chance to gather interagency
comments and develop a coordinated position. We recommend
that the DOD delegation drop Turkey from its May itinerary.
A visit here in late June or thereafter would be more
productive. End comment and action request.
EDELMAN