Turkey’s new role in the UN Security Council
by
HİLAL ELVER*

This new Turkish foreign policy outlook was very clearly woven into the speech. Such an emphasis was a departure from the traditional Turkish foreign policy that slavishly followed European and American policy on almost all issues. Within this framework Turkey had previously preferred to play a passive role, especially on matters pertaining to the Middle East. Besides depicting this major policy shift, the prime minister discussed several important global and regional problems, offering specific observations on Turkey's approach.

The major global problems of our time such as the financial crisis, climate change, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and disarmament were touched upon by virtually all leaders. Of course, each year there are some speeches that are rather unique and capture the most media attention. This year it was the exotic, colorful, angry, long and rambling speech of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi; also prominent was the controversial presentation of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, who seemed to repeat this year what he had said in the past, but it was still widely commented upon. But overall, it was US President Barack Obama's first appearance at the UN General Assembly that seemed to be the genuine highlight of this year. His speech was strongly criticized by his American opponents at home, yet most of the world community was happy to applaud this popular leader of the United States, especially as a welcome change from the long and unpopular Bush presidency. Even last year's star performer, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, this year seemed rather serene, comfortable with the new American leadership. He made a sly joke that the sulfur he had smelled last year was now gone, being replaced by the sweet smell of hope!

The Palestine/Israel conflict

The Palestine/Israel conflict also is a standard item on the agenda of the major leaders in the world, especially for Muslim countries, as well as for Israel and the US. This year, there was something different -- a white elephant in the room in the shape of the Goldstone report. The report was released to public just days before the UN General Assembly annual meeting. For many, this was a tactical mistake. The report was regarded as dashing hopes that peace talks could be soon restarted, despite the strong push in that direction by President Obama. Not surprisingly, the report resulted in an angry response from the Israeli government and from the Jewish lobby. At first, the US and the major European governments mainly ignored the report. Soon, however, the US government made clear its concerns. It engaged in damage control, insisting that the report should only be considered within the framework of the UN Human Rights Council, claiming that it had no relevance for the UN General Assembly and should never be put on the UN Security Council agenda.

However, if we read the 575 pages of carefully written, heavily documented conclusions, we will realize that the report made strong recommendations to the effect that if both parties to the conflict fail to prosecute perpetrators within six months, then the Security Council should refer the matter to International Criminal Court for further action. There has been some argument among international lawyers as to whether a report of this character should have made recommendations, rather than construing its mission as limited to fact-finding. Earlier reports on the Gaza attack of last winter were available, including those prepared by the European Union, the United Kingdom and by several human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Almost all the facts and conclusions in these various reports were similar to those in the Goldstone report. In this sense, there seemed no reason for the UN to sponsor yet another report. In many respects, the international community already knew what had taken place in Gaza from a human rights and international law perspective. What makes the Goldstone report different is its concrete suggestion of the consequences that should properly result from the conclusion that serious unlawful and criminal acts had taken place. Both Israel and Hamas were charged in the report with significant breaches of international humanitarian law.

In the first week of the UN General Assembly meeting there was an active diplomatic effort in Washington and New York to diminish the impact of the report to the extent possible. Delegations representing governments were asked not to make any mention of the Goldstone report in their annual presentations. This effort was somewhat successful considering that none of the Arab countries, even including the representative of the Palestinian Authority, referred to the Goldstone report. Of course, there was no way to influence such free spirits as Gaddafi and Ahmedinejad, yet these leaders did not raise concerns on these counts as their opinions would not be taken seriously in any event, except perhaps in their home countries. Even so, Washington probably let go a sigh of relief when Ahmedinejad failed to ask the UN to implement the recommendations of the Goldstone report.

Only two leaders discussed Goldstone report

There were only two leaders who did discuss Goldstone report. One was the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the other was a big surprise, Prime Minister Erdoğan. As expected, Netanyahu strongly denounced the report, although his speech was mostly dedicated to proving that the Holocaust did occur, an effort to demonstrate that Ahmedinejad's denial was a lie. Netanyahu took a long time to make his case, going so far as to wave blueprints of Auschwitz before the audience watching on TV and sitting in the General Assembly. There was really little need to provide such an elaborate explanation of why the Holocaust was real. Every decent person knows that the Holocaust happened and that it is considered one of the most heinous crimes in human history. Netanyahu argued throughout his presentation that Iran is now the most dangerous country in the world and that strong measures must be taken to oppose it. He went further by laying blame on, really insulting, those delegations who remained in the chamber while Iran's president delivered his address instead of boycotting his presence by stalking out of the room.

Netanyahu dismissed the Goldstone report as “biased and unjust” and mainly treated it as a gift to terrorism. He went on to defend Israel's attack on Gaza in December of 2008 by comparing it to the bombing of Nazi cities during World War II in retaliation for German rockets fired at London and other British cities. Netanyahu defended this leveling of German cities, pointing out that it had been widely approved of even though it resulted in hundreds of thousands civilian casualties. He was suggesting that despite Israel's comparative display of restraint in Gaza, it had been harshly criticized, complaining that Israel was held to a higher standard that was applicable to other countries, implying even that such criticism amounted to a new surge of anti-Semitism. More disturbingly, Netanyahu seemed to be echoing George W. Bush when he asked UN delegates whether they will stand with Israel or with terrorists. This was precisely the belligerent rhetoric that Bush had used after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack with the intention of mobilizing the entire world to engage in a “great war on terror.”

 Prime Minister Erdoğan was the only leader other than Netanyahu who made reference to the Goldstone report. Most governments at the UN were used to Turkey playing it safe with respect to controversial global policy issues; therefore the prime minister's reference to the report was a sea change. He set forth a rather detailed account of what happened in Gaza during the 22 days of ceaseless attack and pointed out that the entire Gazan population was suffering as a result of Israel's continuing blockade imposed on the necessities of life. During a press conference after his speech, Erdoğan made clear his view that “there should be accountability for anyone guilty of war crimes in Gaza.” Moreover, he focused on the report's recommendations, announcing Turkey's willingness to bring the situation to the attention of the Security Council. This seems to mean that if Israelis and Palestinians do not bring the perpetrators of the Gaza crimes to justice in the next six months, which is almost inconceivable, then Turkey will assume the responsibility to bring this failure before the Security Council for further action. No matter what the outcome in the Security Council is, such a move by Turkey would be widely noticed as evidence of the Turkish commitment to the rule of law, to accountability for war crimes and to a challenge directed toward the impunity of governments and their leaders. Such global diplomacy would be particularly impressive as it would cut against the grain of what most observers regard to be Turkey's past and present geopolitical interests. Only the future will tell whether this Turkish promise to the world community will be kept, or somehow forgotten.