US embassy cable - 05ANKARA1906

S E C R E T ANKARA 001906 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PASS TO EUR/SE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/01/2015 
TAGS: MOPS, MARR, PREL, PGOV, TU 
SUBJECT: TURKEY PREPARING TO BREAK SILENCE ON THE US CARGO 
HUB REQUEST? 
 
REF: 16 JUNE 2004 WALD/BASBUG LETTER 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). 
 
1. (S) Following nine months of silence since the US formally 
asked Turkey to allow the US to establish a cargo hub at 
Incirlik Air Base for the transit of cargo in support of 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom 
(OIF), recent public comments by Turkish officials may 
suggest that a decision is forthcoming.  Press coverage of 
the June 2004 cargo hub request was reinvigorated following a 
March 23, 2005 comment by ruling Justice and Development 
Party (AKP) MP Murat Mercan during a panel discussion at the 
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy in Washington 
suggesting that a decision on the US request would be made 
"very soon."  (Note:  This has been the talking point with 
visitors since December.)  Other GOT officials have made 
subsequent comments reinforcing this idea.  In a public 
statement on March 28, Government spokesman Cemil Cicek noted 
that the issue was not raised during the March 27 Cabinet 
meeting but could be discussed at the next meeting, and on 
March 29 several papers suggested that PM Erdogan will 
receive a briefing on the request. 
 
2. (S) Press speculation on the reason for a positive GOT 
decision ranges from a GOT extension of an olive branch to 
mend bilateral relations or of a sweetener to encourage USG 
and Congressional efforts to vote down the annual Armenian 
Genocide Resolution when it comes up for a vote in April. 
Some of the press reporting has included wild exaggerations 
of what we requested, including suggestions we want to use 
Incirlik to attack Iran or Syria.  Whether this is 
anti-Americanism at its worst, or some PR ploy to allow the 
government to portray whatever it finally approves as sharply 
constrained, is not clear. 
 
3. (S) We would normally conclude that nine months of 
inaction is the Turkish equivalent of a "no."  But it does 
seem to us that there may be movement.  Although Turkish 
officials have not approached the Embassy directly to discuss 
the cargo hub, Deputy Director General for Americas Affairs 
Suna Ilicak did suggest to PolMilCouns that a GOT decision to 
favorably consider limited Incirlik access requests from the 
UK and South Korea boded well for the US request.  However, 
government officials have found multiple pretexts for 
delaying approval, variously claiming that public statements 
by visiting US officials complicated the decision or 
suggesting that the US should provide something in return, 
such as kinetic action against the PKK in Iraq.  Whether the 
current flurry of press reports signals something different 
or will also fade away, remains to be seen. 
 
4. (S) Given the history, post believes that further 
inquiries on our part will not advance the GOT decision 
process and could be misconstrued by the Turks as suggesting 
we have no alternative to a hub in Turkey, providing them 
with a perceived bargaining chip on other issues.  We 
therefore plan to refrain from raising the matter with 
Turkish officials and suggest that military and Washington 
agencies also respond on the cargo hub only if asked.  We 
also suggest that in any discussion we stress that the 
facility is useful but not essential for our missions.  We 
will continue to watch the Turks struggle with this issue 
until they reach a decision or until USTRANSCOM informs us 
that a hub at Incirlik would no longer be useful. 
 
5. (U) Baghdad minimize considered. 
EDELMAN