US embassy cable - 04ANKARA1383

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 001383 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR EUR/RPM, EUR/SE, SA FOR AFGHAN COORDINATOR 
TAYLOR; JCS FOR J5 
 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/30/2013 
TAGS: PREL, MARR, TU, AF 
SUBJECT: NATO-AFGHANISTAN:  MFA WILLING TO REMAIN FLEXIBLE 
ON PRT LOCATION -- WITHIN "REASON" 
 
 
REF: A) STATE 50477 B)ANKARA 1318 C)ANKARA 1162 
     (NOTAL) D) ANKARA 1005 
 
 
(U) Classified by DCM Robert Deutsch.  Reasons:  1.5 (B and 
D). 
 
 
1. (C)  Drawing upon ref a talking points, Pol-Mil Counselor 
stressed to MFA NATO and Afghanistan Affairs Department 
officials the importance of strong allied contributions to 
NATO's efforts in Afghanistan.  He also urged Turkey to be 
flexible with regard to its proposed PRT as the GOT works 
with SHAPE on its location. 
 
 
2. (C) DDG for South Asian Affairs Aydin Evergin responded 
that Turkey agreed it was important for NATO to succeed in 
Afghanistan, and reiterated the GOT's commitment to 
continuing to contribute to reconstruction and stabilization 
efforts there.  On the Turkish proposal to lead a PRT in 
northern Afghanistan (refs b-d), Evergin said the GOT would 
continue to work with SHAPE to try to identify an acceptable 
area in northern Afghanistan for the Turks to establish a 
PRT, adding that the GOT had instructed the Turkish MNR at 
SHAPE to initiate formal discussions with D/SACEUR late last 
week (March 1-5) on a possible location.  (Note:  We 
understand the Turkish MNR sent D/SACEUR a letter identifying 
three possible locations for a Turkish-led PRT:  a) Faryab 
province only, b) Faryab and Jowzjan provinces, or c) Faryab 
and Badghis provinces.  End note.)  Evergin said that if 
SHAPE were to come up with an alternative location for a 
Turkish-led PRT, Turkey would be willing to consider it -- 
assuming its location was in northern Afghanistan.  In 
response to a question from Pol-Mil Counselor on what the 
Turks considered "northern Afghanistan," Evergin took out a 
map, drew an East-West line across the country directly 
through Kabul, and said "this is what we mean." 
 
 
3. (C) Evergin said Turkey wanted to be as flexible as 
possible regarding the location of a PRT, but noted that 
logistics and capabilities would guide the GOT's final 
decision.  After reviewing what he understood to be the 
current state of play regarding Allied contributions to 
existing or future PRTs, Evergin said that most of the areas 
in northern Afghanistan that NATO wanted to cover under Stage 
One were already being covered or were soon to be covered by 
other nations.  Evergin said Turkey hoped that discussions 
between the Turkish MNR and SHAPE could be concluded shortly, 
and added that "if Turkey sets up a PRT, we want to do it as 
soon as possible." 
 
 
4. (C) Evergin said the GOT would have to look into whether 
it would be able to make additional contributions to 
Afghanistan (i.e. OEF) or whether it might be able to support 
contributions from Partnership for Peace (PFP) countries.  He 
suggested that this may be an issue that US and Turkish 
officials could explore in greater detail during Afghan 
Coordinator Taylor's March 12 meetings in Ankara.  Pol-Mil 
Counselor added that it would useful for both sides to have a 
readout from SHAPE's March 11 Force Generation Conference 
beforehand.  Evergin added that during its command of ISAF 
II, Turkey supported smaller nations who wanted to contribute 
to ISAF but who did not have the capabilities to do so on 
their own. 
 
 
5. (C) Comment:  Evergin again reiterated that the Turks are 
willing to be flexible to a point, but suggested that a 
Turkish PRT would only be possible in the north.  We continue 
to see signs the Turkish military is unenthusiastic about 
this proposal, which likely explains Turkey's aversion to 
locating its PRT in regions it perceives as less secure.  End 
comment. 
 
 
6. (U) Belgrade and Dushanbe minimize considered. 
EDELMAN