TURKEY NERVOUS ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS FOR

C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 000479 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE, EUR/RPM, SCA E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/27/2019 TAGS: NATO PREL MOPS MARR SUBJECT: TURKEY NERVOUS ABOUT ARRANGEMENTS FOR GENDARMERIE/PARAMILITARY TRAINING IN AFGHANISTAN REF: A. SECSTATE 28929 ¶B. ANKARA 461 Classified By: Pol-Mil Counselor Anthony Godfrey, Reasons 1.4 (b,d) ¶1. (C) We met with MFA Afghanistan Department Head Babur Girgin and NATO Department Section Head Turker Ari to discuss NATO summit deliverables on Afghanistan and Pakistan (reftel) on March 26. The MFA officials welcomed the news that the U.S. review process has concluded and said Turkey looked forward to hearing about the results from the Secretary and the President. ¶2. (C) While both MFA officials expressed support for U.S. proposals for NATO summit deliverables on Afghanistan and Pakistan (ref a) in general, Ari voiced concern about the multiple proposals related to police and paramilitary training. Ari noted that there has been a flurry of proposals, including a French proposal from the previous week, the U.S. food-for-thought paper on Afghan policing, and a new IS paper which seems to incorporate various elements of both the French and U.S. proposals. He said Turkey recognizes the need to provide the Afghan National Police with more paramilitary-type capabilities, would prefer that NATO members contribute to this effort through the U.S.-proposed NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan (NTM-A), is actively examining ways to contribute to this effort, but needed clarity on whether the French initiative will be under the auspices of the EU, NATO, European Gendarmerie Force, or some other organization, and how it relates to NTM-A. ¶3. (C) Ari confirmed that the French and Turkish NATO Permreps have been in contact regarding the French proposal, but the discussions have been at a general level, and France has not asked Turkey to join its initiative, nor has it been clear about whether the mission will be EU-led. He highlighted GOT concerns about the "institutional arrangements" in support of the French initiative, and said if the French initiative will be EU-led, and if NATO support is required, Turkey expects that an EU request for NATO support would respect "existing arrangements" (i.e. Berlin Plus). "This is a red line," Ari underscored, noting that Turkish Permrep Ildem had communicated Turkey's concerns to Special Envoy Holbrooke directly (see ref b for general background on Turkey's concerns related to NATO-EU cooperation). ¶4. (C) When asked whether it might be easier for Turkey to agree to NATO support of an European Gendarmerie Force (EGF)-led training mission, Ari said Turkey's first preference is for the gendarmerie training mission to fall under NATO. Turkey could support an EGF-led effort as long as Turkey is treated as an "equal partner." He noted that EGF membership is currently restricted to EU countries only, and that France had blocked a 2005 Turkish request to become an observer at the EGF. Ari stopped short of conditioning Turkish support for an EGF-led mission on the EGF granting Turkey observer status, but stressed that if Turkey were to contribute to an EGF mission, it would expect to have equal voice regarding the mission as EGF members. ¶5. (C) Comment: Turkey is clearly interested in contributing to a gendarmerie training mission, but remains nervous about the mission's "modalities." We expect Turkey will support a robust NTM-A mission and will likely consent to NATO support for an EGF-led mission (whether it contributes to that mission will depend on EGF's willingness to have a voice in decision-making). What concerns Turkey most is if the initiative becomes an EU-led mission. If this were to happen, Ankara will, in all likelihood, demand the EU request NATO support in a manner consistent with Berlin Plus arrangements. Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:Turk ey Jeffrey