US embassy cable - 04ANKARA3989

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 003989 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/09/2029 
TAGS: MARR, MCAP, PARM, TU 
SUBJECT: CHARTING A WAY FORWARD ON US-TU MISSILE DEFENSE 
COOPERATION 
 
 
Classified By: (U) Classified by PMA Counselor Tim Betts, reason 1.4, b 
/d. 
 
1. (C) Summary: At the July 8 Missile Defense Technical 
Experts Group meeting in Ankara, the US and Turkey agreed 
that the completion of the joint architectural study of 
Turkey called for a new look at bilateral cooperation in the 
area of missile defense.  The two sides agreed to three new 
studies -- a sensor placement study to identify optimal 
locations in Turkey for a forward deployed sensors; a Post 
Engagement Ground Effects Model Study; and a revised upper 
layer analysis based on updated THAAD information.  The GOT 
was reluctant to agree at the outset to all aspects of a 
sensor placement study out of concern that the study could 
duplicate or contradict what is being done in NATO's Missile 
Defense Feasibility Study.  To help address this concern it 
was decided to facilitate a dialogue with the NATO team that 
manages the study,  The two sides agreed to pursue the 
amendment of the MOU to allow for the new studies and 
tentatively planned to hold the next full TEG in January 
2005.  End Summary. 
 
2. (C)  On July 8 a Missile Defense Technical Experts Group 
(TEG) meeting was held in Ankara with the intention of 
agreeing upon future cooperation in the area of missile 
defense.  The Turkish side was led by Turkish General Staff 
(TGS) Scientific Decision Support Center (SDSC) Chief BG 
Pekar, supported by TU Air Force J-5 BG Unal (Pekar's 
predecessor once removed), SDSC project coordinator CPT (Air 
Force) Osman Iyde, LTC Unal from TGS/J-5, MFA NATO/EU 
Armaments and Defense Expert Muzaffer Akyildirim among 
others.  The US side was led by Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 
Dr. David Martin.  Both sides voiced their appreciation for 
the bilateral cooperation dating back several years, when the 
TEG was initiated as an outgrowth of the High Level Defense 
Group (HLDG).  Since then the cooperation had taken on a life 
of its own and benefited both sides through the completion of 
the 3-phase joint architectural study of missile defense for 
Turkey. 
 
3. (C) The TEG agreed that near term future work should 
include: 
- a sensor placement study to identify optimal locations in 
Turkey for a forward deployed sensors; 
- a Post Engagement Ground Effects Model Study; 
- a revised upper layer analysis based on updated THAAD 
information. 
 
4. (C) MDA reminded the TEG that DASD Ian Brzezinski noted 
during his visit two years before that interceptors for the 
defense of Europe would likely need support from forward 
deployed sensors, probably located in Turkey's general 
region.  The US had already received approval to upgrade 
radars in Thule, Greenland and the UK that would help to 
defend North America and western Europe, but a more eastern 
sensor would provide better tracking data and also be 
necessary to help defend NATO's easternmost regions.  For 
this reason, Dr. Martin urged the Turkish side to approve the 
sensor study, amend the MOU and begin the study soon. 
 
5. (C) The Turkish side asked extensive questions on how the 
sensor study would fit into NATO's ongoing feasibility study. 
 Despite MDA's assurances that the NATO study would not go 
into detail on the actual placement of forward deployed 
sensors, the Turks expressed concern about duplicative and/or 
overlapping work on issues already being pursued in Brussels. 
 They noted Turkey does not have the resources to support 
duplicative studies.  MDA emphasized that appropriate 
briefings on the US-TU study could be fed into the NATO 
study.  Dr. Martin suggested a joint contribution of a 
US-purchased sensor supported by Turkish infrastructure would 
be an excellent contribution to the NATO MD force structure. 
He argued that the study should be completed in order to 
explore that possibility.  The Turks questioned whether 
sensors and interceptors would be a commonly funded or 
national expense.  MDA explained that currently the NATO plan 
is that interceptors would be nationally funded; nations 
might also make sensors available to NATO, but there will be 
the alternative (not yet guaranteed) of common funding for 
sensors.  Such common funding would have to compete with 
other NATO funding priorities.  MDA assured the GOT that 
doing the sensor study would not commit the GOT to hosting a 
sensor.  The Turks, reluctantly it seemed, agreed to the 
sensor study. 
 
6. (C) MDA also briefed the Turks on the Post Engagement 
Ground Effects Model (PEGEM), noting that the program was 
designed to predict and evaluate, not manage, the 
consequences of leaked missiles.  The GOT had expressed 
interest at the May 2003 TEG in doing a PEGEM study on the 
missile leakage allowed by the joint architectural analysis. 
 
7. (C) The TEG agreed that a revised upper layer analysis 
would be useful given new information on THAAD since the 
conclusion of the joint architectural study.  It would 
provide better background relevant for the sensor study. 
 
8. (C) MDA planned to provide TGS within six weeks a draft 
MOU amendment with the goal of finalization of the amendment 
by October 1.  With that timeline, the sensor placement study 
would be complete at approximately the same time as the NATO 
study. 
 
9. (C) Comment: As a result of the July 8 TEG, the GOT is now 
fully aware of how important the forward deployed sensor is 
to the US.  The Turks clearly had lingering concerns about 
ensuring coordination of the bilateral study with the NATO 
feasibility study and the related issue of common versus 
national funding.  IMF-imposed fiscal discipline has made the 
defense budget tight. 
DEUTSCH