F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: Turkey suspends F-16 purchase from US over Cyprus ban - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-7835.html
Printed on: 12 October 2008

Forum: F-16 News

Turkey suspends F-16 purchase from US over Cyprus ban



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
duplex
PostPosted: Mar 26, 2007 - 09:12 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Apr 14, 2005
Posts: 136

Status: Offline
Quote:
Turkey suspends F-16 purchase from US over Cyprus ban

Turkey has reportedly suspended negotiations with the US over the purchase of an additional 30 F-16 fighters after Washington set the condition that they not be flown over the divided Mediterranean island of Cyprus.

Military sources close to the Turkish Air Force Command (THK) told Today's Zaman that US technology restrictions, including a ban on their usage by Turkey over Cyprus, irked Ankara. "The US condition that fighters should not be used over Cyprus made us mad," said a source at the THK.

The US has not imposed any such restriction on the around 300 F-16s already in Turkey's inventory, said the same sources, adding that the possible adoption of an alleged Armenian genocide bill by the US Congress sometime in April has no direct links with Turkey's suspension of talks over the F-16 purchase.

Turkey and the US have also been in dispute over the price of the F-16s, estimated at around $2.9 billion. The US Congress approved earlier this year the sale of an additional 30 advanced F-16 Block 50 aircraft as well as associated equipment and services under Foreign Military Sale (FMS) credit to Turkey.

US's Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), when it notified the US Congress in late September last year of the Turkish decision to buy additional F-16s, said, "This proposed sale will not adversely affect either the military balance in the region or US efforts to encourage a negotiated settlement of the Cyprus questions." The island of Cyprus has been divided into a Turkish north and Greek south since 1974.

According to well-informed military sources, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) have been attaching great importance on the attitude of the US over Turkey's outlawed terrorist organization the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), reported to have been preparing for attacks inside Turkey in their bases in neighboring northern Iraq.“Rather than Armenian genocide bill, the PKK issue has the potential to turn upside down Turkish-US strategic relations on the part of Ankara. If the US does not take action against the PKK in northern Iraq or allow the Turkish military to stage a cross-border operation, the THK may even consider to abandon the idea of buying around 100 JSF fighters from the US,” stated one air force source.

During the American-Turkish Council (ATC) meeting due to start in Washington early next week, both the PKK and the Armenian genocide bill are expected to top the agenda, in addition to the F-16 and JSF purchases.

Source: Today's Zaman


Also see: <a href="news_article2247.html">Turkey suspends F-16 acquisition over Cyprus ban</a>
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Oct 12, 2008 - 4:11 PM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor






This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
   
 
elp
PostPosted: Mar 26, 2007 - 10:39 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2848

Well, the State Department wouldn't be the State Department if it didn't talk down to everybody and their brother as if they knew better. Laughing

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
Meathook
PostPosted: Mar 27, 2007 - 02:10 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
Elite 2K


Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 2945
Location: Utah
I hear ya - Well I guess we will never really hear what discussions really take place behind closed doors. There is definitely some bad blood over the years in this arena and we supply them both with arms, not good, so I think a moment of pause is required anyway....time will tell.

Anyway, the US does what the US feels is good for US (have to look at what we need too, that's politics I guess)...as they should but it is hard keeping your friends "as friends" sometimes with that attitude (talking out both sides of the mouth to try and make all happy) but what else is there to do?

I am sure you would not want a foreign government dictating us policy (many do try though holding alliance's over our heads, quite the game we all play globally)...hard to know what is right sometimes but I am sure "we the people" never see all the information that goes into these decisions.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Robust
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2007 - 05:41 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 53

Status: Offline
FMS deals are very much standard deals for everyone except for a couple of very close USA allies( FYI, Turkey is not one of them)...FMS conditions do not bothers me at all, we know what to expect...Conditions are set in advance...

What bothers me is that USA policy on commercial weapon sales...I understand security policies or keeping high tech at home etc etc...but the method of approving a deal after signing the contract does not make sense.....You may sign a commercial weapons deal with a USA supplier, you may feel that you have a good deal, good price or some tech transfer rights from the supplier but you may be wrong there...Without the final export license from USA goverment, the contract you sign with USA suppliers are not valid...The final contract goes to Pentagon, US State Depaetment and also Congress for their approval....

To cut the whole story short, USA goverment policies do not provide prior export license for a commercially sold weapon system (worth over 20 million $ I believe) before seening and approviing the contract...For a buyer, it is not an acceptable condition...Why do I sign a contract , if a supplier can not even provide me an export license before signing the deal? Or US attaches some conditions after a contract was signed...Why take the risk of not getting the weapon system? Especially, if the security of my country depends on this weapon? There has been some Turkish signed contracts, either had to be canceled(10 additional 10 AH-1W Cobra, Bell and Turkey signed a 150 million $ agreement back in 1996 but State department objected), or re-negotiated (ALQ-178V5+ due to transfer of jamming algorihtms)after objections from US state department or Pentagon...

Last couple years, for commercial weapon system deals, Turkey is asking prior export license from any suppliers before entering a bid or signing a final contract...Of course, due to very strict USA export laws, USA suppliers could not provide export guarantee, and therefore, are eliminated from many Turkish tenders...USA goverment officials are now upset(as indicated in the above news) because of Turkey's insistance of export license, and tech transfer conditions...As a buyer, if a supplier provides me tech transfer, delivery guarantee, and no conditions attached and a good price,..of course, I will pick that supplier...There are so many players on the market now...Except in the aviation field, US is losing its high tech edge in the arms market....Even look at helo business...US is buying a foreign helo for presidential VIP service...I believe US has to change its export policies and adapt to today's market conditions if USA suppliers want to stay competative in international arm deals....
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Meathook
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2007 - 10:31 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
Elite 2K


Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 2945
Location: Utah
I dont agree, look at ITT yesterday (in the news), they decided to just blow off ITARS, sold Night Vision technology to several foreign countries without permission, put our troops at risk...they got fined big time 100 Million according to the papers and no one went to jail. I feel they (many in that company should not only have been fined but jailed). The Export Controls are there for a damn good reason, when used correctly, they work.

Export license are required for all overseas contracts, if not, then the company should be dealt with until they do. That way the US Dept of State is well aware of what is being sold and to whom, those controls are required for Nation Security as well. ITT is a prime example of greed, now they pay the price and our technology was put out there for many that never should have had it...I don't agree with you, competition is one thing, security and national interests are another.

In Gulf War One, after capturing Iraq Tanks, many were equipped with Night Vision, that was not their technology but ours and greed made that possible, no, those controls are required in my book.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Robust
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2007 - 03:42 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 53

Status: Offline
I am not saying that US should totally abolish the arms export law but the current process of providing export licensing after the contract signed creates problems for US companies on the international market, especially, for NATO countries...Nobody want to cancel/re-negotiate a deal after signing a contract...If somebody promises you something, and you agreed, and but this person comes in the last minute and say I am sorry I can not keep my promisses due to US Export Law....From buyer's point view, it is not a honest practice of business...It is not fair to the other non-US suppliers either...

Do you buy a house if the owner says I "may provide" or "may not provide" you all the curtains, blinds, lights or appliances in the house...I am sure you want something definite, and you want to know what you are going to get in the deal...Otherwise, I may choose a different house...

As you read in the above news article, US official complains that Turkey requires export licenses fro US suppliers to enter a competition with other non-US suppliers...From Turkey's point of view, it is much more safer to deal with non-US supplier because export, and technology transfer guarantees provided, and no conditions are attached...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Meathook
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2007 - 03:48 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
Elite 2K


Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 2945
Location: Utah
I hear ya and would agree it is not perfect/ Too many "hands" in the mix sometimes but I feel it is the requirement of the governments involved to ensure their desires or contract deliverable are clearly outlined and agreed upon, then signed, so there are no hidden agendas.

Then people (contractors, companies etc) and government can be or should be accountable for their contracts and decisions...but as long as there are "humans" involved there are bound to be mistakes or misunderstandings (possibly even areas that were omitted or not mentioned)....but I hear ya.

If an agreement is made, signed, monies exchanged, then those involved should stand bye their agreements unless there are errors or security issues that were left out, then it needs to be readdressed and sorted out (hopefully).

However, as you indicated, there is always "fallout" from deals gone bad...such as this debate or relations could suffer (news article below)...

Quote:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Tuesday said Turkish anger over proposed U.S. congressional resolutions could have a negative effect on that country’s support for the U.S. military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Our two nations should oppose measures and rhetoric that needlessly and destructively antagonize each other,” Gates said in a speech before the American-Turkish Council in Washington, D.C. “That includes symbolic resolutions by the United States Congress, as well as the type of anti-American and extremist rhetoric that sometimes finds a home in Turkish political discourse.”

Two recently introduced bipartisan congressional resolutions condemn the 1915-1917 mass killings of 1.5 Armenians as “genocide” — something long acknowledged by historians but that Turkey denies.

Gates said that, partly as a result of that tension, the war in Iraq is “one of the most difficult matters we have had to work through as allies.”

Turkey, a NATO ally, would like to wipe out the Kurdish militant group popularly known by its old initials — PKK, for Kurdistan Workers’ Party — that is based in northern Iraq. More than 20 years of Turkish conflict with the separatist group has produced some 30,000 total casualties, according to the U.S. State Department.

The U.S. wants to maintain the relative stability that much of northern Iraq enjoys.

“We recognize that every Turkish citizen killed by the PKK is a setback for success in Iraq, and a setback in our relationship with Turkey,” Gates said. “As President Bush has underscored, the United States is committed to the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq, and opposes policies or groups that would undermine that integrity in any way.”

Gates said that the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Turkey “has undergone some turbulence in recent years,” later adding, “All relationships need work to remains strong.”

But ties remain strong, Gates said, noting that Turkey has provided access to Iraq from its Incirlik Air Base, has commanded two security force rotations in Afghanistan and is a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter project. Gates also said 16 U.S. Navy ships made port calls in Turkey last year.

Turkey, as well as other NATO members, has a vital interest in a successful outcome in Iraq, Gates said.

“Whatever disagreements we might have over how we got to this point in Iraq, the consequences of a failed state in Iraq, of chaos there, will adversely affect every member of the Atlantic alliance, and none more so than Turkey,” Gates said.

Yet while Turkey will continue to play a role in that effort, the U.S. needs other countries in the region to do their parts to help stabilize Iraq, Gates said.

“Iraq’s neighbors will have to play a constructive role going forward, even if they haven’t done so in the past,” Gates said. “Especially in encouraging political reconciliation and reduction of violence within Iraq. This is certainly the case with Syria and Iran, who have not been helpful.” Gates has voiced similar thoughts since becoming defense secretary.

Gates has previously called for greater dialog with Iran. But in his speech, he seemed to express some pessimism over the efforts.

“In dealing with a regime like Iran’s, one has to be realistic,” Gates said. “The American search for elusive Iranian moderates is a recurring and mostly fruitless theme since the revolution in 1979.” But he said the recent regional talks in Baghdad “were a good start” and that the U.S. is open to higher-level exchanges.

“We should have no illusions about the nature of this regime,” Gates said of Iran. “Or about their designs for their nuclear program, their intentions for Iraq, or their ambitions in the Gulf region.”
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Purplehaze
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2007 - 04:01 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 1198

Status: Offline
Even though Turkey is a NATO ally they are treated different, same goes for Greece. Due to all of there conflicts over the years when either of there aircraft visit a US base NATO STANAGS state what we can and cannot provide for them. When any other country visits they just give us a fuel card and we charge them for it, different story for the other two. We have to write "replacement in kind" on there fuel receipts and then what happens is the fuel is replaced. Same goes for other commodities they may need. Those two are treated like two step children.

Purple
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Meathook
PostPosted: Mar 28, 2007 - 04:04 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
Elite 2K


Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 2945
Location: Utah
Yep, we don't always get the same decent or equal treatment by some Allies, it goes both ways based on past performance, makes sense too. If we are treated bad (or not as we expect or agreed too) then I guess...what goes around, comes around.

With the countries you mentioned, everyday is a new adventure in diplomacy
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
nomad
PostPosted: Mar 29, 2007 - 07:51 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Posts: 25

Status: Offline
Purplehaze wrote:
Even though Turkey is a NATO ally they are treated different, same goes for Greece. Due to all of there conflicts over the years when either of there aircraft visit a US base NATO STANAGS state what we can and cannot provide for them. When any other country visits they just give us a fuel card and we charge them for it, different story for the other two. We have to write "replacement in kind" on there fuel receipts and then what happens is the fuel is replaced. Same goes for other commodities they may need. Those two are treated like two step children.

Purple

Very interesting
I guess that explains a lot of things (why Greece purchase from other countries france or Europe)
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Purplehaze
PostPosted: Mar 29, 2007 - 09:44 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 1198

Status: Offline
Quote:
Very interesting
I guess that explains a lot of things (why Greece purchase from other countries france or Europe)


They still bought 16's from us. It is really a shame that they can't get along. If they could it would be so good for that region.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
nomad
PostPosted: Mar 30, 2007 - 09:19 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Posts: 25

Status: Offline
Purplehaze wrote:
Quote:
Very interesting. I guess that explains a lot of things (why Greece purchase from other countries france or Europe)


They still bought 16's from us. It is really a shame that they can't get along. If they could it would be so good for that region.


purplehaze I am Greek. Yes its a shame that Greece and Turkey can 't have good relations.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Otto
PostPosted: Apr 02, 2007 - 10:47 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: May 06, 2005
Posts: 113

Status: Offline
You know what, every time we, Turkey, got military system sales permit problems with the US Congress, I get pretty happy.

In 1936, it was US's and UK's military aid, which stopped the usage of our own aeroplanes designed and produced in Turkey. With the membership started in 52, Western weapon systems rushed into to the country, which paralised the arms industry, thanks to our thoughtful politicians.

Then İt was the arms export ban in 74, when we realised that we gotta do something. And weapon industry started to flourish, day by day many aerial, maritime and land based systems are now designed and produced by national companies. All thanks to US bans and conditions.

US was not a close ally and will never be for many countries. They do whatever is best for them only. They will be a close ally when they start to respect others and care about mutual understanding. Or we will witness more Iraq's in the days to come.

By the way, Meathook, not much to say about the Armenian thing but just go around the net and read about the war time and what the Armenians did, how they betrayed the country they lived peacefully for 600 years and learn about how powerful the Armenian community in the US and what their real aim is about Turkish and Armenia relationship.

Read the Middle East history before and after Ottoman administration.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Meathook
PostPosted: Apr 02, 2007 - 11:29 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
Elite 2K


Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 2945
Location: Utah
I'll pass....thanks though, I'll deal with todays issues, there tough enough as it is
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
kobra191
PostPosted: Apr 02, 2007 - 03:27 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Feb 02, 2004
Posts: 7
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Meathook,
I stand by Otto on this one. You brought up the Armenian issue. You can't just say I'll pass. It has nothing to do with the subject. Read both sides claims and give an objective decision.

It might be a good idea to buy 30 of Netherlands F-16s, since they can't fly them due <a href="news_article2253.html">personnel and spare parts shortage</a>.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel