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

060826Z May 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 ANKARA 002607 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/SE, PM/DTTC AND PM/RSAT 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: MARR MASS PGOV PREL TU
SUBJECT: TURKEY REQUESTS REVIEW OF US THIRD COUNTRY 
TRANSFER PROCEDURES 
 
REF: A. 30 JUNE 2004 EMBASSY ANKARA DIPLOMATIC NOTE 
 
     ¶B. 24 SEPT 2004 SCWG ACTION ITEM LIST 
 
¶1.  This is an Action Request.  Post has received a 
Diplomatic Note that responds to Action Item No. 4 from the 
Sept. 24, 2004 Security Cooperation Working Group (SCWG) 
meeting held in Ankara, and to the 30 June 2004 Embassy Dip 
Note outlining specific questions Turkey must answer for 
every Third Country Transfer and military equipment disposal 
request.  At the SCWG, the US side invited the Turks to voice 
their difficulties with fulfillment of the US information 
requirement.  The TU Dip Note does that, particularly for 
very old and unserviceable items, and requests a review of 
USG Third Party Transfer and disposal procedures.  Deputy 
PolMilCouns explained to MFA Americas Affairs representatives 
that these requirements are standard and unlikely to change 
but agreed to forward the Turks' concerns for consideration. 
Action Request:  Post requests Department review Turkish 
Diplomatic Note 2005/ALGY/89300 with DOD/OSD/DSCA and provide 
guidance on a response. 
 
¶2. BEGIN TEXT OF TU DIPLOMATIC NOTE 2005/ALGY/89300: 
 
 
      The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of 
Turkey presents its compliments to the Embassy of the United 
States of America and with reference to the 19th Security 
Cooperation Working Group (SCWG) meeting held in Ankara on 24 
September 2004, the follow-up meeting held in ODC/Ankara on 
17 November 2004 and the Note No.1010 dated June 30, 2004 has 
the honor to state the following. 
 
      It will be recalled that the Action items of the 19th 
SCWG meeting have been closed except for the pending 3rd and 
4th items regarding the processing of Third Country Transfers 
and disposal procedures. As stated in the fourth Action Item 
of the SCWG meeting, it was agreed that the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs of Turkey would communicate to the Department 
of State of the USA requesting a review of Third Country 
Transfers and disposal procedures. 
 
      The Turkish General Staff has completed an extensive 
study concerning the general list of questions that was 
forwarded to the Ministry in the attachment of the referred 
Note. The findings of this study explain in detail why it is 
difficult, or in some cases even impossible for the Turkish 
side to provide baseline information as requested. 
 
      The Ministry would appreciate it if the relevant US 
authorities would kindly review the Third party Transfers and 
disposal procedures in light of the enclosed list of 
information. 
 
      A flexible approach as identified in the following 
paragraphs regarding the procedure would help Turkish 
authorities to meet the requests in a more timely and 
complete manner. 
 
-     The consideration of the US side of the method as to 
how the articles in the inventory of the Turkish Armed Forces 
have been acquired and transferred (grant, procurement, 
transfer, etc.) 
 
-     The granting of a blanket approval for the basic arms 
systems to be transferred to the Third Countries rather than 
specifying in the list separately for each spare part. 
 
-     A concrete definition of articles stated within the 
contents of the exchange of Notes concerning end user 
permissions, and statement of points of contacts as well as 
reporting periods would be helpful. 
 
-     Setting a time frame and criteria for the political 
assessment of the concerning countries to which the transfer 
will be made. 
 
-     Facilitating the requests and shortening the procedures 
involved the concerning countries that have signed the 
Blanket Assurance Treaties within the framework of the 
Defense Trade Security Initiative. 
 
   The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey 
avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of 
the United States of Americas the assurances of its highest 
consideration. 
 
END TEXT. 
 
¶3. Following is an attachment to the TU Dip Note that 
generally answers each of the questions posed in the 
Embassy's June 2004 Dip Note. (Note: The Embassy provided 
these questions after consultation with PM/RSAT in response 
to TGS complaints that the Third Country Transfer process was 
too slow and asking what information TGS could provide to 
speed up the review. 
 
BEGIN TEXT: 
 
THE TURKISH EXPLANATIONS 
REGARDING THE BASELINE QUESTIONS 
ON THIRD PARTY TRANSFERS 
 
QUESTION 1:   Who is the proposed recipient of the article or 
service?  Is it a government or is it a private entity? 
EXPLANATION 1:  The proposed recipients of the articles or 
services are the respective Ministries of Defense of friendly 
and allied countries.  However, these recipients may also be 
some private institutions.  There are difficulties in 
pre-determining the name of the relevant company or private 
entity in advance specifically due to the bidding processes 
and conditions. 
 
QUESTION 2:  Who are the points of contact (including name 
and telephone number) for the divesting government, the 
proposed recipient, and any intermediaries? 
 
EXPLANATION 2:  Intermediary institutions or people are not 
involved in third party transfer operations of the articles. 
The points of contact of the divesting government can only be 
determined after the plan for the transfer of articles is 
completed.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to cancel this 
question. 
 
QUESTION 3:  If intermediaries are involved, what is their 
role? 
 
EXPLANATION 3:  Intermediary institutions or people are 
not/will not be involved in third party transfer operations 
of the articles.  Therefore, it will also be appropriate to 
cancel this question. 
 
QUESTION 4:  What defense article/defense service/technical 
data is to be transferred?  Please provide as much as 
possible. 
 
EXPLANATION 4:  The information regarding the defense 
articles/defense service/technical data to be transferred to 
third parties will be provided as usual. 
 
QUESTION 5:  Is this a temporary or a permanent transfer? 
 
EXPLANATION 5:  This question can not be addressed at this 
stage, since this issue can be determined according to 
bilateral agreements on the basis of the respective situation. 
 
QUESTION 6:  How did Turkey originally acquire the defense 
article, defense service or technical data?  Was it through 
Foreign Military Sales (FMS), the Military Assistance Program 
(MAP), the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program, drawdown, 
or through a direct commercial sale (DCS)? 
 
EXPLANATION 6:  The source and method of acquisition of the 
US-originated articles added to the inventory of the Turkish 
Land Forces between 1950-1970 are not definitely known, 
because this information is not included in the records. 
However, information regarding the articles added to the 
inventory of the Turkish Land Forces through the FMS 
programme after the 1970,s is limited by the FMS contracts 
and inventory records.  It is also understood from various 
contacts with the US authorities that the records of these 
articles are not available in the US records either.  In this 
respect, it would be appropriate to cancel this question. 
 
QUESTION 7:  Was the defense article, service or technical 
data acquired with national funds or as a grant from the 
Government of the United States? 
 
EXPLANATION 7:  The source and method of acquisition of the 
US-originated articles added to the inventory of the Turkish 
Land Forces between 1950-1970 are not definitely known, 
because this information is not included in the records. 
However, information regarding the articles added to the 
inventory of the Turkish Land Forces through the FMS 
programme after the 1970,s is limited by the FMS contracts 
and inventory records.  It is also understood from various 
contacts with the U.S. authorities that the records of these 
articles are not available in the US records either.  In this 
respect, it would be appropriate to cancel this question. 
 
QUESTION 8:  Does Turkey wish to request retention of net 
proceeds?  If the articles were acquired by grant and were 
delivered prior to 1985, Turkey may request a waiver to 
retain the net proceeds from the disposition. 
 
EXPLANATION 8:  Especially in the case of overseas 
operations, as the return of the disposed article is 
expensive and it is not found appropriate by the USG to bring 
back US-originated articles already reserved for disposal, 
and as the cost of the disposal process is almost the same as 
the disposed article itself, it would be appropriate not to 
demand the net proceeds of the disposed article by the USG. 
 
QUESTION 9:  What is the proposed recipient,s planned 
end-use for articles? 
 
EXPLANATION 9:  It is in conformity with the internationally 
established practices for the third party, as the last user, 
to officially declare the reason for the use of the article. 
Therefore, this information can be provided by the Turkish 
side. 
 
QUESTION 10:   If defense services (e.g. training) are to be 
provided, a detailed account (level and type of maintenance, 
access to which specific systems, flight training syllabi, 
etc.) must be provided so this information may be conveyed to 
the relevant US services for a technology review. 
 
EXPLANATION 10:  The issue of providing service (training) to 
the third parties can be added to the agenda only if the 
granted US-originated article is used in providing that 
specific service.  This issue can be evaluated on the basis 
of the respective situation. 
 
QUESTION 11:  What is the original acquisition value of the 
defense article, service or technical data? 
 
EXPLANATION 11:  The original acquits ion value of the 
defense article, service or technical data cannot be 
obtained.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to cancel this 
question. 
 
QUESTION 12:  What is the estimated current value of the 
defense article, service or technical data? 
 
EXPLANATION 12:  It would be appropriate to cancel this 
question due to the following reasons: 
 
-     Only a subjective evaluation can be made regarding the 
actual value of the articles which are granted by the US, yet 
not longer produced in the US, as well as of the training 
provided in previous years. 
-     The actual price of the defense articles, services and 
technical information can not be known, as there is no 
accounting record for the re-utilization of the articles in 
the inventory. 
 
QUESTION 13:  When did Turkey originally acquire the defense 
article, service or technical data? 
 
EXPLANATION 13:  The source and method of acquisition of the 
US-originated articles added to the inventory of the Turkish 
Land Forces between 1950-1970 are not definitely known, 
because this information is not included in the records. 
However, information regarding the articles added to the 
inventory of the Turkish Land Forces through the FMS 
programme after the 1970,s is limited by the FMS contracts 
and inventory records.  It is also understood from various 
contacts with the US authorities that the records of these 
articles are not available in the US records either.  In this 
respect, it would be appropriate to cancel this question. 
 
END TEXT. 
EDELMAN