US embassy cable - 04ANKARA4574

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 004574 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EB/TRA/OTP AND EUR/SE 
PARIS FOR TSA AND ECON 
DHS FOR COAST GUARD/MARITIME SECURITY - CRD LOSCIUTO 
DEPT PASS TRANSPORTATION DEPT 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EWWT, PTER, ETRD, PREL, TU 
SUBJECT:  GOT Objects to Inclusion in Port Security 
Advisory 
 
Ref:  (A) State 173908 (B) Rome 3096 
(C) Miller/McCormick Email 8/13/04 
 
Sensitive But Unclassified.  Please Handle Accordingly. 
 
1. (U) This message contains an action request in para 
8. 
 
2. (U) Prior to receiving ref C email putting ref A 
demarche on hold, Econoff delivered demarche to MFA and 
the Turkish Maritime Administration advising that 
countries, including Turkey, which have reported less 
than full compliance with the International Convention 
for the Safety of Life at Sea's (SOLAS) International 
Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) will be 
included in a Port Security Advisory to be issued by the 
U.S. Coast Guard later in August. 
 
3. (SBU) Gurcan Balik, of the MFA Maritime Affairs 
Department, responded that the GOT and Turkish ports had 
done a great deal to implement ISPS requirements, 
perhaps more than most European countries.  He stressed 
that major Turkish ports, including those servicing 
trade with the United States, were in compliance.  Balik 
explained that, of Turkey's 154 ports, 151 had approved 
port security assessments.  Of these, 108 had approved 
port security plans and the Maritime U/S was working 
expeditiously to review the other plans submitted. 
(Embassy faxed copies of these lists of ports to U.S. 
Coast Guard and EB.)  Ports which were not yet in 
compliance are minor players which do not service U.S. 
ports.  Emphasizing that Port Security Advisory would 
have a negative effect on bilateral trade, Balik asked 
that the USG reconsider inclusion of Turkey in the 
advisory, or that the advisory clearly state that ships 
calling on ISPS-compliant Turkish ports would not be 
considered to pose additional security risks. 
 
4. (U) Balik responded favorably to reftel's offer of 
consultations with the U.S. Coast Guard on these issues 
and suggested that the Maritime Administration should be 
the primary point of contact. 
 
5. (SBU) Sitki Ustaoglu, Deputy Undersecretary of the 
Turkish Maritime Administration, did not comment on most 
elements of ref A demarche, but confirmed that the port 
facilities which have not been been assessed by the 
Maritime U/S are generally marginal to international 
transport.  He stated that Turkey has regularly provided 
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) with 
updates as to the status of ISPS implementation.  In 
response to ref A's question, Ustaoglu said that he 
should be the primary GOT point of contact on these 
issues.  He also reiterated his agency's interest in 
cooperation and information-sharing with USG agencies, 
and stated that the Maritime U/S is considering sending 
experts to view security arrangements implemented at 
U.S. ports. 
 
6. (U) Embassy has not sent final letter, and per ref C, 
will refrain from doing so unless otherwise instructed. 
 
Comment & Action Request 
------------------------ 
 
7. (SBU) While we fully support the need to bring our 
maritime partners into compliance with ISPS as quickly 
as possible, we agree with Embassy Rome's arguments in 
Ref B that the current strategy for doing so may not be 
the best way of bringing other countries on board.  In 
particular, the threat of listing Turkey or others in a 
security advisory based on self-reported information and 
without adequate time to remedy deficiencies will merely 
encourage the Turks and others to cut corners to report 
full compliance to us and the International Maritime 
Organization. 
 
8. (SBU) Action Request:  Embassy urges Washington 
agencies to reconsider the timing of the proposed 
advisory to allow us to work bilaterally to encourage 
Turkey's full compliance with the ISPS.  Given that 
major Turkish ports shipping goods to the United States 
apparently comply with ISPS, Washington may want to 
reconsider inclusion of Turkey in the advisory, or at 
least specify in that advisory that port calls on ISPS- 
compliant ports in Turkey alone would not trigger 
additional security measures. 
Edelman