This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 003740 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR T, NP/RA, NP/MNA, AC/ISN, VC/FO, EUR/SE; 
GENEVA FOR AMB. SANDERS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/30/2029 
TAGS: PARM KNNP MNUC PREL TU IR
SUBJECT: PSI AND NPT: TURKS "DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED" AT LACK 
OF U.S. RESPONSE ON PSI CORE GROUP; AGREE NEED TO KEEP 
PRESSURE ON IRAN 
 
REF: A. STATE 142212 
 
     ¶B. STATE 139286 
     ¶C. ANKARA 3117 
 
Classified By: DCM ROBERT S. DEUTSCH, REASONS 1.4 B AND D. 
 
¶1. (C) Action Request at Para 8. 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶2. (C) While delivering Refs A and B, PolMilCouns and 
PolMilOff were treated to an unexpected and emotional 
reaction to U/S Bolton's PSI letter from usually stoic MFA 
Director General for Disarmament and Security Affairs Haluk 
Ilicak.  On NPT PrepCom III views, Ilicak said he would 
circulate Ref B to relevant authorities for considered 
comments, but as an initial point he said that Turkey, too, 
was very concerned about states seeking to develop a nuclear 
capability, especially Iran.  He contended that we needed to 
keep pressure on Iran and to prepare the ground in the UNSC 
before having IAEA refer Iran's case there.  A UNSCR would be 
difficult to pass due to Russian assistance to Iran's program 
development, non-aligned states supporting one of their own, 
and EU members seeking to protect their commercial interests. 
 On PSI, Ilicak repeatedly said that while he understood Ref 
A did not respond to Turkey's request for the criteria for 
PSI Core Group membership (Ref C), receiving such a letter 
after making the request was very discouraging, especially as 
another non-founder (Russia) that was helping Iran, that had 
not participated in any experts meetings, and that was 
contributing nothing to PSI had been brought into the group. 
He called this a double standard, noted that he and TGS J-5 
MG Arslan were PSI's only proponents in the GOT, and stated 
that the lack of positive response made it impossible for 
them to advocate continued Turkish contribution.  He said 
repeatedly that he would stop working on PSI until a 
satisfactory answer was received.  We urge Washington to give 
careful consideration to its response to Ref C.  End Summary. 
 
------------ 
NPT and Iran 
------------ 
 
¶3. (C) On June 30, PolMilCouns and PolMilOff delivered Refs A 
and B to MFA DG for Disarmament Haluk Ilicak.  On the NPT 
PrepCom, Ilicak offered his personal, preliminary views, 
saying that Turkey was very concerned about Iran's nuclear 
aspirations.  Many Turks, including Ilicak, believe Iran is 
trying to buy time to implement a real nuclear weapons 
program.  Turkey would support a more rigorous inspection and 
control regime, he said.  However, he worried that the 
non-aligned states would strongly oppose limits on the 
NPT-recognized right of countries to develop atomic energy 
for peaceful purposes.  Ilicak did not think there could be 
consensus to strengthen restrictions or place limits on 
states in this regard during the NPT RevCon.  Turkey, he 
said, has no nuclear aims and no nuclear program, but that it 
is in Turkey's interests to have strong controls.  He said he 
would take Ref B points to his higher authorities and get a 
considered official response. 
 
¶4. (C) Returning to Iran, Ilicak warned that strong 
preventive measures must be taken before the Iranians develop 
a nuclear weapons capability, which he predicted would be 
developed in three-to-five years if things remain as they 
are.  On the EU-3's initiative with the Iranians, he was 
skeptical and said the Europeans were driven by an interest 
in protecting their significant commercial ties with Iran. 
He worried that even if the IAEA sent the matter to the UNSC, 
it would be very hard to pass a resolution.  He recommended 
that the US forestall moving the issue to the UNSC until we 
can assure the necessary votes for passage in the UNSC.  To 
go to the UNSC and not get a resolution would be a disaster 
for the IAEA and the UNSC, he opined.  In the UNSC, Ilicak 
continued, Iran would have the support of the non-aligned, of 
Russia which he said was helping Iran develop its 
capabilities, and of China which was involved in helping Iran 
with delivery systems.  The EU members would continue to have 
the trade consideration hanging over them.  "You can be sure, 
Turkey is even more concerned than the US about Iran," he 
said. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
PSI - Turkish Participation in Jeopardy 
--------------------------------------- 
¶5. (C) PolMilCouns passed Ilicak Ref A letter (addressed to 
MFA U/S Ugur Ziyal) and made accompanying points, stressing 
that the latter was not/not a response to Turkey's request to 
become a member of the PSI Core Group.  The usually stoic 
Ilicak became emotional asking when Turkey would get an 
answer and stating that given Turkey's request, the letter 
was very discouraging.  We made clear that the same letter 
had been sent to over 40 PSI participants and that he should 
not take this as a slight toward Turkey.  Ilicak continued to 
say that this was very disappointing, and that if Turkey was 
to be treated like this, it would not send representatives to 
experts meetings.  He noted that Russia does not send 
personnel to PSI events or expert meetings, does not 
contribute planes or anything else, and was not a PSI 
founder.  Yet they have been taken into the Core Group.  This 
was a double standard, and Turkey wanted the status we were 
willing to give to at least that one other non-founder.  He 
said he would circulate Ref A letter with a note saying that 
the answer to Turkey's request is no, for the time being. 
Until the US position changed, he said, no one in the GOT 
would support his pleas for more Turkish contributions. 
Ilicak, who clearly feels he has invested a great deal in 
pushing Turkey's bureaucracy to actively participate in PSI 
in the future, said that in all of the GOT, only he and TGS 
J-5 MG Arslan have supported Turkish participation. 
 
¶6. (C) Ilicak said, "if you expect a positive response to 
future requests for contributions based on this letter, I 
assure you it will not serve that purpose.  I am not in a 
position to support the continuation of our contributions." 
He asked again when Turkey would get a response to its 
request for inclusion in the Core Group.  PolMilCouns said he 
hoped the response would come soon and that drafts were 
already circulation.  Ilicak continued that he had prepared a 
matrix of relevant Turkish laws and of what Turkey could and 
could not do in PSI, but that he would stop moving it forward 
until he received a response from the US. "I'll write a 
report saying that while you stressed this letter is not the 
answer to our request, we must wait for that answer before 
taking any step forward.  For the moment, I am not forwarding 
the matrix or recommending any further action.  I will do 
everything I can to stop or slow down steps on PSI.  I am 
really disappointed." 
 
¶7. (C) Ilicak shared that NP/CBM Director Vann VanDiepen had 
told him during the Paris Australia Group meeting that the 
answer would probably be negative, but urged the Turks not to 
be upset and assured Ilicak that Turkey and the US could 
continue to work well together on PSI.  Ilicak said the US 
would be sorry if it gave Turkey a negative answer.  "It's 
your project.  If you want us in, give us a positive 
response.  If it is, in part, our project too, that changes 
our approach." 
 
¶8. (C) ACTION REQUEST:  Embassy requests that Washington give 
careful consideration to its reply to Turkey's questions (Ref 
C).  The alternative would appear to be Turkey placing itself 
on the sidelines of PSI. 
EDELMAN