NAMSA FMS SALES TO TURKEY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP05S00620R000601370028-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2010
• Sequence Number: 28
• Publication Date: August 17, 1977
• Content Type: CABLE

E.O. 11652:
TAGS:
SUBJECT:
Approved For Release 2011/05/19: CIA-RDP05SO062OR000601370028-5
w w
',i8o
18o725Z AUG 77
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FROM ? .I
Amembassy ANKARA/MSA
GDS
MASS, NATO, TU
NAMSA FMS Sales to Turkey`"-1`
ACTION: SecState.,WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO Amembassy LUXEMBOURG
USMISSION NATO
USSI1R SHAPE
CINCEUR
AMCONGEN ISTANBUL
MSA-2 I S ' 1 ' N UL I+013 A Y I B A S S A 1 ) O R SPI RE
AMB
ADCM
POL
ECON
DAO
USIS
JUSMMAT/
TCH
AFS
TUSLOG/CC
AFSOUTH/
LNO
CHRON
SM/ `1'SM
MSA:AFC
REF: State 193415 (DTG 1532052 Aug 77) (NOTAL)
MSA
A. F_ I
1. USG decision to count NAMSA "brokerage" sales to Turkey
against annual FMS ceiling per reftel will be difficult
for Turks to accept. It will add to grievances surrounding
application of U.S. Congressional arms transfer restric-
tions and the general deterioration of U.S.-Turkish political
and defense relationships. USG will also undoubtedly be
accused of "applying pressure" on NATO, an international
organization, to bow to U.S. "embargo".which ih Turkish
view has impaired Turkish military participation in NATO.
This new USG action will, we believe, add new impetus to
a:mgp 8/17/77
250
JUSMMAT/TCH:MG Wolfe (draft) POL:GMcRarlan
JUSMMAT/AFS:MG Schrupp (.draft)
hi
OPTIONAL FORM 1520i:
(Formerly FS-413(H)
January 197''
Dept. of Stat,.
Approved For Release 2011/05/19: CIA-RDP05SO062OR000601370028-5
ADCM:AAFrfcis .
 Approved For Release 2011/05/19: CIA-RDP05SO062OR000601370028-5
- --------
Turkish reassessment of utility of its ties to NATO and its
western orientation in general. Also, we expect Turks will
charge that new USG proceduret re NAMSA sales runs counter
to stateiUSG policies in NATO to improve force readiness
and to develop common procurement and other cooperative
programs related to NATO standard equipment.
2. For these reasons, it would be desirable to clarify
following issues before making our approach to the GOT on
the NAMSA problem:
A. Is it correct that FMS "brokerage" sales by NAMSA
to Turkey are those for which special orders are placed
with USG on GOT's behalf for items not regularly stocked
by NAMSA or not subject to common procurement for other
NAMSA consumers? If so, can we tell the Turks that NAMSA
has agreed to identify such "brokerage" sales as specifically
Turkish and that we will only be monitoring NAMSA sales on
Washington end?
B. Reftel implies that chargeability of "brokerage"
purchase by GOT against FMS ceiling will be made in fiscal
year that NAMSA LOA is a signed with USG rather than year in
which items are delivered and/or billed (the latter being
difficult if not impossible to administer). Also, can we
that this new procedure wili* become effective against
assume /aifackixax artazafxtbcixzzLeaczpaza?(x(iDmmzvcikkxha
the FY.78 $175 million ceiling for NAMSA FMS LOA's concluded
/atg~t $tzt}z z&1 x 1 z$cl~ ~zaniclrl .aaraxeat>:ic~es 9tz
commencing in FY 78?
/ C. Impression conveyed in reftel is that Turks will
CONFIDENTIAL
Classification
OPTIONAL FORM 152a~H
(Formerly FS-413(H)r:
January 19
Dept. of Star
Approved For Release 2011/05/19: CIA-RDP05SO062OR000601370028-5
 Approved For Release 2011/05/19: CIA-RDP05SO062OR000601370028r-~5
-- ...-LVIY~ 1zUlw1V11HL Page J j(of
---- T` _.k 0
mor Classification MRN
F be given choice, i.e., GOT can go FMS "brokerage" through
NAMSA and that cost would be applied, against their FMS
ceiling or have NAMSA procure material through commercial
sources (if items are available commercially). However, for
the following two reasons, an FMS "brokerage" case through
NAMSA would not be a viab-ttstr? option for GOT: -
(1) If Presidential Determination for utilization
of FMS funds is submitted so that GOT LOAs can be concluded
early in the fiscal year, FMS funds will already have been
committed to Turkish Armed. Services for specific purchases.
For example, the GOT has already earmarked all of their FY 78
FMS credits in direct FMS dealings with the USG.
(2) It will deny GOT-full use of FMS credits as
determined necessary by the President and agreed to by
Congress. In handling a FMS "brokerage" case for GOT, NAMSA
would procure from the USG by using its own funds/credit and
then bill the GOT. Therefore, for each dollar handled
through NAMSA, the GOT would not only realize a corresponding
reduction in FMS credits, but would have to Vse their national
funds in payment rather than FMS credit money.,-since FMS
credits can only be used in contracting directly with USG.
D. Do we intend to inform other. NATO allies of new
procedure rregarding NAMSA sales to Turkey? We recommend
that Department consider low-key notifications to alert other
i allies who may be subjected to Turkish pressures regarding
- O NF T DLJyT1.1.L11.L_-_-
Classification
OPTIONAL FORM 152a(H)
(Formerly FS-413(H)u)
.January 1975
Dept. of Ste
Approved For Release 2011/05/19: CIA-RDP05SO062OR000601370028-5
 r
U
Approved For Release 2011/05/19: CIA-RDP05SO062OR000601370028-5
'
4V~vA t"L1V 1 "'L,
f
Page,_._ of -
Ciaasification MRN
.S. action. We also suggest that Department review new
procedure* with Turkish Embassy to ensure there is complete
understanding on all sides.
L
CONFIDENTIAL
OPTIONAL FORM 152a(H)
(Formerly FS-413(Ila)
January 1975
Dept. of State
Approved For Release 2011/05/19: CIA-RDP05SO062OR000601370028-5