US embassy cable - 03ANKARA5787

UNCLAS E F T O SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 005787 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
 
DEPT FOR NP/ECC AND EUR/SE, ENERGY FOR SLD AND NA-25, 
COMMERCE FOR CUPITT, DHS/BCP FOR SAUNDERS 
 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/11/2013 
TAGS: PARM, ETTC, PREL, KSTC, TU 
SUBJECT: EXBS: SEPTEMBER 11 MEETING WITH TURKEY ON EXBS 
LEGAL AGREEMENT 
 
REF: STATE 251735 
 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified. 
 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary:   An interagency team led by NP/ECC 
Director van Son met with Turkish MFA and the Turkish 
interagency on September 11 to negotiate the proposed EXBS 
legal agreement so that planned EXBS assistance programs can 
commence. The Turkish and U.S. teams concentrated their 
discussions on the most difficult articles for Turkey to 
accept, i.e. status of personnel, claims, inspections and 
audits, and taxes.  The Turks made clear that any framework 
legal agreement involving their interagency must be approved 
by the Turkish Parliament, and that if these four articles as 
proposed initially by the U.S. were included, the agreement 
would not be approved by the Turkish Parliament.  The U.S. 
team noted that the United States needed a legally binding 
agreement and an exemption from Turkish taxation, but 
indicated that it might be willing to drop the article on 
status of personnel given the nature of the proposed 
assistance and the short time U.S. personnel would be in 
Turkey.  The U.S. team also agreed to reexamine the language 
in the article on inspections and audits, but insisted on 
acceptance of the principle of allowing the U.S. to examine 
the end use of any assistance provided in order to ensure it 
was being used in accordance with purpose for which it was 
provided.  Turkey accepted the U.S. requirement for the 
article on taxation and agreed in principle that an audit 
provision would be helpful, but with revised language in the 
latter.  Turkey agreed that the proper format would be a 
legally binding agreement as opposed to a non-binding MOU. 
The U.S. team promised to forward a revised text of the legal 
agreement ASAP based on the discussions.  End Summary. 
 
 
2.  (SBU) The participants of the meeting on the U.S. side 
were: Paul van Son (Head of Delegation), Director of the 
Office of Export Control Cooperation in the Bureau of 
Nonproliferation (NP/ECC); Mariju Bofill (NP/ECC); Alice 
Kottmyer (L), Erik Deschler (DOE/SLD); and Pam Tremont 
(Embassy Pol/Mil).  The participants on the Turkish side 
were:  Bulent Tulun (Head of Delegation), Minister 
Plenipotentiary, Deputy General Director for Arms Control, 
Disarmament, and OSCE, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Bulent 
Meric, Head of Department, Deputy General Directorate for 
Arms Control, Disarmament and OSCE, Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs; Aykut Kumbaroglu, First Secretary, Deputy General 
Directorate for Arms, Control, Disarmament and OSCE, Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs; Recep Guven, Head of Department, General 
Directorate for Security, Ministry of Interior; Ali Riza 
Oktay, Head of Department, and Miss Gulay Tanriyapisi, 
Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade; Mehmet Guzel, Head of 
Department, and Baris Demirel, Undersecretariat for Customs; 
and Hayri Akbiyik and Ufuk Yavuz, Turkish Atomic Energy 
Agency. 
 
 
3.  (SBU) Tulun began the meeting by noting the significance 
of remembering today's date, September 11, and the importance 
of nonproliferation and export controls in a post-September 
11 world.  He then outlined the Government of Turkey's (GOT) 
membership in all of the nonproliferation agreements and 
export control regimes, and said that as a NATO Ally, the GOT 
was highly concerned about proliferation by their "neighbors 
of concern."  Following his brief on Turkish nonproliferation 
policy, he stated why the proposed agreement with articles on 
status of personnel, claims, inspections and audits, and 
taxes would not be accepted by the GOT as presently proposed 
(Ref A).  He was particularly concerned with the language 
using the term "inspection," likening it to arms control 
inspections such as the CFE inspections.  Tulun also made the 
general observation that the agreement appeared to lack 
reciprocity, in his words, "Language referring to the United 
States says 'intends' while language referring to Turkey 
says, 'shall.'" 
 
 
4.  (SBU) Van Son responded to Tulun by addressing each of 
the articles in question.  He began by explaining the need 
for an article exempting the U.S. from Turkish taxation 
because of Congressional requirements, and the Turkish side 
accepted that requirement.  On status of personnel, Tulun 
said that military personnel would be covered by the NATO 
status of forces agreement while in Turkey and that civilian 
personnel could be attached to the Embassy and notified to 
the MFA if immunities were needed.  The MFA would not 
question the Embassy on this point.  Van Son indicated that 
because of the nature of the proposed assistance and the 
short time U.S. personnel would be in Turkey, attachment of 
these TDY personnel to the Embassy would be an unlikely 
event.  Van Son agreed that after reviewing the nature of the 
assistance to be provided this article could probably be 
deleted. 
5.  (SBU) Van Son stated that while the U.S. could reexamine 
the language in the article on inspections and audits, it 
would insist on acceptance of the principle of allowing the 
U.S. to examine the end-use of any assistance provided in 
order to ensure granted equipment used in accordance with the 
purpose for which it was intended.  On claims, van Son 
explained that while the U.S. again could proceed without the 
article, the amount of assistance to be provided might be 
reduced by the cost of premiums required for insurance 
coverage.  This would mean fewer funds available for 
assistance.  Also, there was a general principle involved 
that the country receiving assistance should not make claims 
against the government of the country that was providing the 
assistance.  Tulun agreed with that general principle, but 
several times during the course of the discussions pointed 
out that it was the value of the cooperation of the parties 
that mattered most, rather than the actual amount of the 
money involved.  The U.S. team concurred with the importance 
of the cooperation and pointed to this as one of the reasons 
why an overarching State-MFA legal agreement was important. 
Implementing arrangements and MOUs between agencies of the 
respective governments could, if needed, be made under the 
umbrella of the legal agreement.  Tulun concurred. 
 
 
6.  (U) The U.S. team promised to forward a revised text of 
the legal agreement ASAP based on these discussions. The U.S. 
team has cleared this cable. 
EDELMAN