Turkey faces tough task of balancing act in nuke policy

    In the recent past, at any platform where the issue has been Iran’s controversial nuclear program, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has drawn attention to Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal and stated that it should be examined as well if Iran’s nuclear program is being scrutinized. Israel is believed to be the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East but has never confirmed or denied it. It has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    Yet, such rhetoric has led to criticism among opinion leaders who said that Erdoğan’s stance was encouraging Iran, which is already dragging its feet from engaging in cooperative dialogue with the international community over its disputed nuclear program, and which Washington and its allies suspect is a cover for building a nuclear weapon. Iran denies the charge, saying it aims to generate electricity and use it for other peaceful purposes.

    Moreover, some commentators suggest that Iran is wasting Turkey’s time and misusing Turkey’s sincere and intense efforts at pushing for a diplomatic resolution to the controversy by pretending to be willing to respond in the affirmative to these diplomatic overtures.

    “No,” a senior Turkish diplomat said when asked whether there was a feeling among Turkish diplomats that the Iranians have been “wasting Turkey’s time.”

    “Especially at the moment, definitely no,” the same diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Sunday’s Zaman, in apparent reference to Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s contacts on the issue with the US administration. These took place in Washington on the sidelines of a nuclear security summit hosted by US President Barack Obama early last week. “Turkey does not believe that its efforts are destined to be futile, since it frankly believes that there is still room for a diplomatic solution. Mr. Davutoğlu’s efforts are aimed at yielding a result,” the diplomat said. When reminded of the extremely conflicting messages coming from Tehran, for example, on whether they are into a deal, widely regarded as dead, under which Iran would send much of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for processing abroad, the diplomat referred to internal divisions among the decision-making mechanisms of the Islamic republic.

A pretext for Israel too?

Only days before the summit in Washington, a senior Israeli government official said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had cancelled a planned trip to Washington for Obama’s 47-country nuclear security conference after learning that Egypt and Turkey had intended to raise the issue of Israel’s assumed atomic arsenal at the meeting.

Opposing sanctions as a way of resolving the dispute between neighboring Iran and Western powers over Iran’s controversial nuclear program, Erdoğan has firmly supported exhaustive diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute. However, Erdoğan says Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons although it has never openly acknowledged it, should also be facing pressure to get rid of them.

The censure against Israel turned out to be muted. Nonetheless, some Israeli commentators accused Netanyahu of shying away from a face-off with Obama over stalled Palestinian talks and using the possible censure as a pretext for avoiding it.

Turkey joined the 15-nation Security Council as a non-permanent member in January and will have the seat until the end of 2010.

According to another Turkish diplomat, “If and when there is a vote at the UN Security Council on imposing sanctions on Iran, Turkey has to be in a position which lets it justify its vote with confidence, whether it is eventually ‘yes’ or ‘no’.” The diplomat talked about Turkey’s intense efforts to persuade Iran to act more cooperatively with the West while also urging the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany -- the P5+1-- for a modified approach towards Iran if it really wants to hold a healthy dialogue.

Turkey’s seriousness about pursuing legitimate and justifiable policies obviously deserves appreciation, yet because of the prime minister’s harsh words, that seriousness has remained in the background, with a considerable number of analysts suggesting the presence of political motives behind Erdoğan’s public pronouncements on Iran’s nuclear program. The same analysts argue that by appearing to attack Israel and back Iran, Erdoğan stands to benefit politically.

What is at stake?

Pursuing legitimate and justifiable policies is a prerequisite for a country’s credibility. Time will show whether Turkey’s efforts for a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear dispute will yield a result. Yet, for the time being, signals coming from Washington after talks between US and Turkish officials indicate that Ankara needs to be more careful with its methodology and wording on Iran. Such a signal was best reflected within delicate remarks delivered by US State Department spokesperson Philip J. Crowley.

“And let’s remember that whatever happens involving Iran, Turkey borders Iran, and Turkey will be among the first countries to feel the impact of whatever happens. So we respect that. That’s why Turkey has been deeply engaged in this process. We have an understanding with Turkey as to what needs to happen from here. We have a shared objective, which is that no one wants to see Iran emerge as a nuclear state in the Middle East. That’s Turkey position. That’s the United States’ position,” Crowley told reporters at a daily press briefing on Thursday, emphasizing that Washington comprehends Turkey’s concerns over the impact of new sanctions on its neighbor.

Nonetheless, during the rest of the briefing, Crowley’s emphasis on “international credibility” is worthy of attention.

“Turkey recognizes that there is work being done on a sanctions resolution, and Turkey is part of that process and ultimately will have the opportunity to cast a vote on that. At the same time, Turkey has indicated it wants to continue to see if there’s a way to resolve this through diplomacy. And obviously, at the end, what matters is what -- not only what Iran does, but also what matters is the international credibility, because we all have a very significant stake in this,” he said.

When asked whether US and Turkish officials had discussed any sort of help for Turkey if sanctions on Iran go ahead, Crowley again referred to the same concept.

“There’s an international responsibility, that there are rights and responsibilities when it comes to the development of civilian nuclear energy. And there are countries that are playing by the rules, and there are other countries such as Iran and North Korea that are not playing by the rules. You can look at a country like Libya, for example, that it contemplated a nuclear program and it chose a different path. And we have obviously welcomed that and that’s opened the door for a different kind of relationship between Libya and the United States. Likewise, for a country like Iran or a country like North Korea, there are opportunities here should they choose to abide by their international obligations. But at the same time, that the credibility of the international system is at stake,” he said.

When Crowley explained that during his meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday, Davutoğlu brought up that as a neighbor of Iran, Turkey will be affected by whatever course of action the international community takes, he was asked about Clinton’s response to that.