SWEDISH EU PRESIDENCY AND TURKEY TRADE DUELING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 USNATO 000065 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/08/2020 TAGS: PREL NATO MOPS PGOV MARR EUN SUBJECT: SWEDISH EU PRESIDENCY AND TURKEY TRADE DUELING NATO-EU LETTERS Classified By: USNATO POLITICAL Advisor Kelly Degnan. Reasons 1.5 (b) and (d). ¶1. (SBU) This is a joint USNATO-USEU cable. ¶2. (C) Summary: A letter from Sweden's Permanent Representative to the EU to the Turkish Ambassador to the EU proposing an updated framework for NATO-EU RELATIONS and effective arrangements for cooperation in Afghanistan elicited a negative response in January. The Turkish response recycles familiar complaints against the EU's lack of openness that will once again fall on deaf ears in downtown Brussels. The letter exchange highlights that the NATO-EU relationship is bedeviled by Turkey-Cyprus and Turkey-EU problems that we believe are compounded by institutional rivalries and divergent national objectives for the two organizations. End Summary. ¶3. (C) Shortly before the conclusion of Sweden's term as EU President, Swedish Permanent Representative to the EU, Ambassador Christian Danielsson wrote to Turkey's Ambassador to the EU describing EU efforts to improve NATO-EU RELATIONS under the Swedish Presidency. Throughout Sweden's EU Presidency, we found Stockholm's commitment and efforts to improve NATO-EU RELATIONS impressive, even if the outcome was modest. The Swedes coordinated their approach closely with us and succeeded in raising the visibility of the issue. Unfortunately, the letter reveals the continuing shallowness of NATO-EU cooperation: Sweden's most obvious accomplishment was NATO-EU agreement on two capabilities papers. Moreover, we have not yet seen evidence that the Spanish intend a similarly concerted and coordinated effort during their Presidency. With the Spanish Presidency focused on standing up new EU foreign policy structures, Madrid may simply be unable to play an active role in promoting NATO-EU relations. ¶4. (C) The letter, while expressing appreciation for Turkey's contributions to EU operations and status as an EU candidate country, does not seem intended to allay Turkish concerns about the EU or spur tangible operational cooperation between the two organizations. Instead, it appears to respond to familiar Turkish complaints about the EU attitude toward Turkey by underlining that while the EU is acting in good faith, new arrangements between the two organizations are required in order to make real progress. (Comment: Turkey is deeply committed to NATO's formal decisions on Berlin Plus and on NATO-EU Strategic Cooperation -- which exclude Cyprus from formal NATO-EU relations, and which EU officials now consider in need of updating. Turkey will continue to resist strongly any effort to put new formal arrangements in place. End Comment) Danielsson's highlighting of the PSC 8 meetings -- a practical forum for broad policy discussion that includes all NATO and EU members, and which Greece and Turkey do not favor -- is noteworthy in this context. The letter begins by using its first operative paragraph to point out the need for "a long-term solution as regards high-level policy matters" and to find effective arrangements for NATO-EU cooperation in Afghanistan -- two areas where Turkey has opposed new formal arrangements. ¶5. (C) Indeed, Turkish Ambassador to the EU Selim Kuneralp sent a response letter on January 15 outlining Turkish complaints. This letter highlights that the NATO-EU problem is not simply a Turkey-Cyprus issue but more broadly a Turkey-EU problem. Turkish representatives to the EU almost reflexively review a list of complaints about the EU's exclusive practices and lack of transparency, a list repeated in this letter. Contacts at the Turkish Delegation to NATO told us the same day that while Ankara appreciated the effort Stockholm put into improving NATO-EU RELATIONS during its EU Presidency, it viewed the Swedish letter as an inadequate and late response to Turkey,s December 2008 NATO-EU RELATIONS non-paper. Further, when we queried our Turkish interlocutors about holding more informal transatlantic meetings, they indicated that Ankara was unwilling to consider concessions on this score until the EU delivers something for Turkey, such as approval of Turkey's administrative arrangement with the European Defense Agency (EDA) (Comment: We note that the Turkish letter rules out informal meetings of Allies and EU member states beyond the existing Foreign Ministerial Transatlantic Dinners. Based on conversations at NATO, we believe, however, that Turkey USNATO 00000065 002 OF 004 ultimately will not block the NATO Secretary General's proposal to create a High Level Group with key EU institutional counterparts because this move arguably is allowable within the Agreed Framework. End Comment). ¶6. (SBU) Sweden sent a copy of the letter to the EU, to the NATO Secretary General, and to all NATO Allies on January 8, ¶2010. Text follows: Dear Ambassador, EU-NATO cooperation has been a priority for the Swedish Presidency and we have kept the issue high on the Presidency agenda with the objective to further enhance transparency and cooperation on issues of common interest. Since we share this priority with you, and on the basis of earlier correspondence, taking into account the importance of Turkey as a partner to the EU as well as your much appreciated contributions to EU-led operations, I wanted to provide you with an update on our efforts during the Swedish Presidency. Regarding the overall EU-NATO cooperation, it is our strong belief that there is a need to work in parallel on finding a long-term solution as regards high-level policy matters, and to address concrete short-term measures. On the latter the PSC, in December, agreed a set of measures aimed at improving the cooperation. We believe these recommendations would imply a pragmatic contribution to reinforcing EU-NATO relations. As a matter of priority, the need to pursue agreements on effective arrangements between EUPOL Afghanistan and ISAF is one of the suggestions highlighted. We look forward to continue the discussion with NATO in the coming weeks on these and other matters in a spirit of cooperation. The recommendations will be communicated to NATO by the High Representative Ashton. During the Presidency we have put a distinct emphasis on the EU-NATO Capability Group, an issue of high interest, as we understand also for Turkey. Joint staff papers were produced on two topics of mutual interest; helicopters and rapid response. We believe these joint background papers provided real value-added and hope that the two secretariats will continue to work to identify future relevant subjects for the group. We have also continued the Czech initiative to invite Defence Policy Directors to participate in a meeting in the Capability Group. Let me underline in this context that we have appreciated your very active participation and contributions to the discussions in the Capability Group meetings. Defence Policy Directors from all EU Member States and NATO Allies were also invited to an informal Transatlantic dinner to discuss current challenges in crisis management. NATO SG was furthermore invited to an informal GAERC meeting with the EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence to discuss crisis management and joint challenges with a particular focus on Afghanistan. Since transparency between EU and NATO is an imperative, the Swedish EU Presidency took the initiative to brief the NAC at an informal session on operation ATALANTA last October. I hope that this will encourage future exchange of similar briefings on operational issues of common interest, including from NATO to the PSC. While straying a bit outside of the EU-NATO context let me just underline our continued appreciation of the PSC 8 format as a useful platform for sharing information and I am happy to note that the tradition of these meetings was upheld during our Presidency as was the PSC 6 meetings. Sweden as an active troop contributor and partner to NATO fully appreciates the importance also of creating an inviting environment for third state participation to missions and operations. In this context we recognize that Turkey as a candidate country and strategic partner provides substantial and valuable contributions to EU-led operations. On this subject the Swedish Presidency initiated work within the EU to review the ways and means by which the EU interacts with partners. We also invited your country, together with other important third state contributors, to share your views on this subject. This is an important dialogue which I hope USNATO 00000065 003 OF 004 will become even more regular in the future. While I foresee that these discussions will continue beyond our Presidency, I do hope that the conclusions drawn already during the autumn semester will provide a solid basis for further work on this important matter. Finally, let me once again underline that we highly value Turkey's commitment to CSDP and to improving the EU-NATO cooperation and I look forward to continue working together with you and our other colleagues to keep this issue continuously high on our common agenda. Yours sincerely, Christian Danielsson End text. ¶7. (SBU) Turkey sent a copy of its response letter to the NATO Secretary General and all NATO Allies on January 25. Text follows: Dear Ambassador, I would like to thank you for your letter of 21 December 2009 concerning NATO-EU cooperation. The efforts of the Swedish EU Presidency clearly demonstrated the significance that Sweden attaches to the enhancement of transparency and cooperation in the context of NATO-EU relations. We continue to appreciate your efforts and share the belief that there is still room for the improvement of cooperation between the two organizations. Turkey has so far displayed a constructive stance and utmost flexibility to make its own contributions to NATO-EU relations despite well-known POLITICAL problems. We believe that the Turkish Non-Paper on NATO-EU RELATIONS which was circulated in December 2008 on the occasion of the meeting of the NATO Foreign Ministers and which was subsequently distributed to PSC Ambassadors constitutes a clear illustration of Turkey's constructive attitude to solve the pending issues. However, I should draw your attention to the fact that Turkey's concerns have not been addressed and the practical proposals put forward in the said non-paper are yet to be taken into consideration. Such unfortunate factors have consequently caused a deep frustration for the Turkish side. Further enhancement of NATO-EU RELATIONS requires full-fledged cooperation by all parties. Nevertheless, Turkey has been the sole actor that is expected to display flexibility to overcome the long-standing shortcomings in the relations between NATO and the EU. At this point, I should state that the EU has failed to properly fulfill its commitments vis-a-vis its partners such as Turkey, despite the fact that Turkey is one of the biggest contributors to the missions and operations carried out within CSDP. It is also important to note that the Nice Implementation Document has not been fully and properly put into effect by the EU, which still fails to adequately address the subsequent shortcomings. The EU does not fully reciprocate the clear and transparent approach favoured by NATO in the context of enhancing relations between the two organizations. The imbalance between the degree of transparency and openness accorded by NATO to the EU and the narrow interpretation that the EU applies when it comes to its dealings with NATO remains significant. Turkey fully supports the enhancement of NATO-EU cooperation in line with the Agreed Framework and has done its utmost to translate its support into concrete action. Turkey is of the view that efforts that aim at the institutionalization of some informal transatlantic activities would not bear fruitful results. Under no circumstances should informal arrangements be utilized to amend or replace the existing official mechanisms. The EU should initiate, as a matter of priority, a process to eliminate the existing limitations to more effective participation by non-EU allies such as Turkey in CSDP. This USNATO 00000065 004 OF 004 would also entail the enhancement of NATO-EU relations. I would like to highlight once again that Turkey will continue to positively consider any constructive idea or initiative and offer its own contributions to the improvement of NATO-EU cooperation. In this vein, we look forward to continue to work together with our Allies to realize our shared objectives. Yours sincerely, Selim Kuneralp End text. DAALDER