US embassy cable - 05ANKARA3301

C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 003301 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/10/2015 
TAGS: PREL, PTER, TU, UNGA 
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL 
TERRORISM (CCIT): TURKEY'S VIEW 
 
REF: STATE 105937 
 
(U) Classified by Polcounselor John Kunstadter; reasons: E.O. 
12958 1.4 (b,d). 
 
1. (U) Action request--see para 8. 
 
2. (C) Summary: Turkey fully supports U.S. efforts to 
conclude CCIT convention at the 60th UNGA, acknowledges 
resistance exists among some OIC member states on points 
which are red lines for both the U.S. and Turkey, and asks 
for clarification of the U.S. stance on language concerning 
the definition of terrorism.   End summary. 
 
3. (C) In response to our June 10 presentation of reftel 
demarche, MFA DDG for Counterterrorism Bicakli and First 
Secretary Oral expressed Turkey's unequivocal support for 
 
SIPDIS 
trying to conclude the CCIT at the 60th UNGA.  Turkey played 
an important role in gaining OIC consensus to support the 
Nuclear Terrorism Convention, Bicakli claimed, and is 
pressing on the CCIT in every platform as a matter of utmost 
importance. 
 
4. (C) Bicakli acknowledged that some OIC member states 
remain a problem.  Indeed, Turkey is not party to the OIC 
convention against terrorism owing to inclusion of the kind 
of language of the right to resistance against occupation and 
specific reference to state terrorism that forms red lines 
for the U.S.  These phrases are red lines for Turkey as well, 
he declared.  But the OIC itself is not the problem, and 
Turkish incumbency of the OIC secretary-generalship is thus 
not a lever for achieving consensus acceptable to Turkey or 
the U.S., Bicakli claimed. 
 
5. (C) Turkey is chairman in office of the OIC group at the 
60th UNGA, and will try to lobby the states -- e.g., 
Pakistan, Iran, and Syria -- that are insisting on 
unacceptable language.  In answer to our query about which 
countries they thought the U.S. should concentrate its 
lobbying on, neither wished to give an answer. 
 
6. (C) Bicakli and Oral then brought up the question of a 
general definition of terrorism.  Acknowledging that 
achieving consensus on such a definition is impossible even 
among their Turkish colleagues, both seemed taken aback by 
our note that the U.S. does not want the effort to provide a 
legal base for cooperation in the pursuit of international 
terrorists distracted by the search for a definition of 
terrorism separate from the offenses to be described in the 
CCIT (ref). 
 
7. (C) In this regard they asked three questions.  First, 
whether the U.S. can accept the definition of terrorism in 
the draft convention's article 2.  Second, whether the 
definition in UNSYG Annan's "In Larger Freedom" report, which 
refers to attacks on civilians and non-combatants, 
corresponds to what the U.S. could accept.  Third, whether we 
could provide the MFA with the negotiation coordinator's 
draft language on article 18 (activities of military forces) 
that reftel says the U.S. could accept. 
 
8. (C) Action request: post would be grateful for answers to 
the questions in para 7, including article 18 draft language, 
by June 16 if possible. 
MOORE