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 007157 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/05/2013 
TAGS: MARR ELAB ECPS ECON TU
SUBJECT: DEFENSE AND ECONOMIC COOPERATION AGREEMENT 
INSPECTIONS OCTOBER 20-24, 2003 
 
 
(U)  Classified by Charge Robert Deutsch. Reasons: 1.5 b and 
d. 
 
 
¶1.  (C) Summary: The annual Defense and Economic Cooperation 
Agreement (DECA) inspections occurred the week of October 
20-24, 2003 in Ankara, Izmir and Incirlik.  While talks 
between the two sides became tense during discussions of a 
small number of specific issues, the overall mood of the 
inspections remained positive, and both sides agreed that 
positive steps had been made in resolving outstanding issues. 
 Differences remained on the issues of dependent hires, 
carrying of weapons off base by Air Force Office of Special 
Investigations officers (AFOSI), the maintenance of an Air 
Postal Office (APO) service, and the clean-up of a U.S. 
landfill in Incirlik.  Progress was made in most of these, 
however, none were resolved outright. Although they appear 
minor, the Turkish General Staff pursues them energetically 
during the inspection as a means to remind the US side of the 
military's more general unhappiness with declining US 
assistance levels.  End summary. 
 
 
¶2.  (C) Although most issues that arose during the 2003 DECA 
inspection were amicably resolved, several issues saw 
significant differences which the participants could not 
bridge.  These issues were: 
 
 
-- Dependent Hires: Participating in the DECA discussions was 
Murat Ayhan Basaran of the Ministry of Labor.  Basaran used 
the forum to inform the U.S. side that in February 2003 
Turkish Labor Law No. 4817, concerning the employment of 
foreigners in Turkey, went into effect.  Basaran, who claimed 
to have received authority from the Minister of Labor to 
resolve this outstanding DECA issue, sought to find a way in 
which the U.S. could work with the Turkish side to fit its 
dependent hires into the parameters of the new law.  The 
Turkish side proposed that as a first step the U.S. provide a 
list of dependent hires and their positions, and that these 
employees begin the application process for formal approval. 
The U.S. side explained its reservations regarding the issue, 
primarily that they did not want Turkey to influence 
dependent hires through quotas or lengthy bureaucratic 
applications.  The U.S. side insisted that dependent hires 
was an extremely sensitive issue, and explained that if 
service personnel could not be assured that their spouses 
could work on-base in Turkey, then they might opt not to 
serve in Turkey.  In this sense, the U.S. judged dependent 
hires to be "mission critical" issue. The U.S. side explained 
that these jobs relied on the U.S. base economy, they did not 
compete with or detract from the local economy.  After a 
lengthy, heated discussion, both sides agreed that this issue 
could not be resolved during the DECA inspections.  For its 
part, the U.S. side prefers to pass it up the command chain, 
obtain a position and then meet with the Turks to convey that 
position. In side bar discussions between PolMil officer and 
MFA Head of America's desk Cihad Erginay, Erginay questioned 
the wisdom of the U.S. reluctance to bring closure to this 
issue.  He insisted that Turkey was not seeking to change the 
situation, and that they only wanted to accommodate U.S. 
practices into the Turkish law.  He offered assurance that 
Turkey would remain flexible in the administering of this law 
to U.S. interests, and suggested that having a written and 
legal agreement for U.S. dependent hires was also in American 
interests as it could offer protection from possible future 
moves to end this practice. 
 
 
-- AFOSI Activities: The Turkish side raised strong objection 
to the practice of AFOSI officers carrying weapons off 
Incirlik base.  The Turks insisted that the U.S. must respect 
Turkish laws.  In response, the U.S. stated that this was 
done only when duties so required.  In addition, the Turkish 
side raised objection to AFOSI officers traveling off base 
and meeting with local security officers from the Turkish 
National Police, the Jandarma local city police, etc.  The 
Turks (who were mainly from TGS) insisted that such 
activities should be coordinated through the Turkish 10th 
Tanker base commander at Incirlik Air Base.  AFOSI reps 
insisted that it was essential for them to travel to areas to 
where U.S. military personnel would be traveling in order to 
assess the security environment.  Such assessment required 
direct contact with the local Turkish authorities, and would 
only be hampered by routing all such work through the 10th 
Tanker Base Commander.  The Turks were unmoved and insisted 
that AFOSI activities ran counter to the DECA and the  NATO 
SOFA.  This paragraph states, "The Turkish Installation 
Commander shall be responsible for relations with local 
Turkish authorities...."  U.S. lawyers disagreed, insisting 
the Article 6 of the NATO SOFA sanctioned such AFOSI 
activities "when they are authorized...by their orders."  It 
was agreed that this issue could not be resolved during the 
inspections but both sides would continue to pursue 
resolution at the appropriate level. (Comment:  The real 
issue the Turkish Military has with AFOSI is likely a desire 
for greater control:  The Turks objected to any actions taken 
by a U.S. investigative service that were not coordinated 
with the Turkish base command, be it carrying weapons or 
conducting liaison meetings with local counterparts. End 
comment.) 
 
 
-- APO:  The Turkish position regarding the APO was quite 
clear.  Like many other countries in which the U.S. operates 
an APO, Turkey wanted a legal agreement to codify this 
operation.  The U.S. insisted that the issue of personal mail 
was even more sensitive than that of dependent hires. The 
Turks requested that the U.S. side allow them to peruse a 
sample APO agreement from another country.  The U.S. side 
countered by proposing that a meeting be held in Ankara at 
which a draft agreement could be discussed with the Turks on 
text.  Final agreement was reached to hold this meeting at 
which the U.S. side would bring a sample APO agreement and 
discuss the agreement with the Turks. 
 
 
-- Land Fill: A rather contentious environmental issue was 
the future of a U.S.-used land fill on Incirlik.  The U.S. 
had completed an environmental survey and determined that the 
land fill could be completely sealed off through an 8 million 
dollar encasement project.  The Turks accepted this idea but 
demanded a time frame for the initiation and completion of 
the work.  The U.S. side repeatedly explained that limited 
resources and shifting priorities made it impossible to offer 
a date by which this project would be completed. The issue 
was not resolved; and discussion was simply dropped. 
 
 
¶3.  (C) Comment: The GOT - and TGS in particular - has long 
grumbled about how the U.S. has failed to live up to the 
letter and spirit of the DECA.  While the issues discussed at 
this year,s DECA inspections appear minor, they reflect 
TGS,s concern that Turkey is not getting a fair return for 
allowing the US to use it bases.  TGS has advised us that 
they intend to use this year,s HLDG to reiterate their 
displeasure at what they perceive to be a gap between the 
letter of the DECA and the USG,s track record on 
implementation.  We hope that they leave the HLDG convinced 
that our relationship is about much more than aid that 
continues to be relatively robust given Turkey's level of 
development.  Such an outcome would facilitate resolution of 
DECA-related issues.  End Comment. 
DEUTSCH