Ankara stands firm behind its ‘no’ vote on Iran sanctions

Turkey and Brazil, both non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, were the only states among the council's 15 members to vote against the imposition of a fourth round of sanctions against Iran over a nuclear program the West suspects is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Lebanon abstained.

The fact that the two countries together managed to get Iran to agree to a deal on May 17 almost identical to one proposed by the UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and backed by the US and other world powers only seven months ago was the main reason that led Turkey and Brazil to vote against the sanctions; they have insisted that the door should be kept open to diplomacy with Tehran. Under the deal Tehran agreed to part with 1,200 kilograms of low enriched uranium, or LEU, in return for fuel rods for a medical research reactor.

“If we hadn't said ‘no' then we would have denied ourselves, we would have denied our signatures [on the nuclear swap deal with Iran]; this would have been dishonorable behavior,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said yesterday at the opening of a foreign ministerial meeting of the Turkish-Arab Forum in İstanbul.

“We would not want to participate in such a mistake because history will not forgive us. The next generations will not forgive us,” Erdoğan said at the meeting attended by ministers from 22 members of the Arab League. “Today, we are still working on the resolution of the issue through diplomatic means; these efforts of ours will continue,” he said.

The prime minister's remarks were clearly referring to the fact that Turkey had from the very beginning favored the resolution of the dispute surrounding Iran's controversial nuclear program through diplomacy and not through sanctions or military means.

Turkey joined the 15-nation Security Council as a non-permanent member in January 2009 and will have the seat until the end of 2010. While favoring diplomacy, Turkey, on the other hand, constantly told Iran it must be “transparent” with the IAEA.

Turkey's UN Ambassador Ertuğrul Apakan votes against sanctioning Iran during a session of the UN Security Council on Wednesday.

“If and when there is a vote at the UN Security Council to impose 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',” a senior Turkish diplomat told Today's Zaman back in the autumn of 2009. The diplomat was explaining 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, the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain plus Germany (P5+1), for a modified approach towards Iran if it really wants to have a healthy dialogue.

Questions on timing of ‘Vienna letter’

In remarks delivered ahead of the vote at the UN Security Council, Ambassador Ertuğrul Apakan, Turkey's permanent representative to the UN, made Turkey's arguments clear. Apakan's speech was drafted in coordination with both Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu.

Reiterating Turkey's full commitment to all its non-proliferation obligations, Apakan voiced Turkey's desire to see a restoration of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.

“To that end, seeing no viable alternative to a diplomatic and peaceful solution, Turkey had signed with Brazil and Iran the Tehran Declaration which aimed to provide nuclear fuel to the Tehran nuclear research reactor. It had created ‘a new reality' with respect to Iran's nuclear program,” he said, adding that the agreement was designed as a confidence-building measure, which, if implemented, would contribute to the resolution of substantive issues relating to that nuclear program in a positive and constructive atmosphere. “In other words, the Tehran Declaration provides a new and important window of opportunity for diplomacy,” he said, stressing that sufficient time and space should be allowed for its implementation.

Turkey was therefore deeply concerned that the adoption of sanctions would negatively affect the momentum created by the Tehran Declaration and the overall diplomatic process, he said.

“Furthermore, it was ‘rather unhelpful' that the responses of the Vienna Group had only been received a few hours ago,” Apakan underlined, referring to the fact that the US, Russia and France had dismissed Iran's proposal to swap some of its enriched uranium for fuel for a research reactor in Tehran.

Apakan added that the negative nature of those responses and their having been sent only on the day when the council planned to adopt sanctions “had a determining effect on our position.”

“If the response by the Vienna Group had been more timely and positive, perhaps there would have been no need for the UN resolution,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Burak Özügergin, speaking in İstanbul on Thursday, said in an interview with the NTV news channel.

In Tehran, Iranian atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi, meanwhile, said on Wednesday that Tehran would address the concerns raised by the Vienna Group regarding the fuel deal.

“Iran will answer their questions after studying their letters in detail,” Salehi told the ISNA news agency, adding that the group had raised nine questions about the deal.

“Three countries -- the US, Russia and France -- have given their responses separately. They have raised nine questions ... about the Iran-Turkey-Brazil declaration which talks of an exchange of fuel,” Salehi said, adding the queries were “legal, technical and political” in nature. He did not spell out what the questions were.

The atomic chief said the response by the three countries “was a positive move in principle” and in “contradiction to what is happening in New York.”

Propaganda and seclusion of a country

Turkey's vote against sanctions led to a flow of numerous articles suggesting that the latest move by the NATO member and US ally was another sign of a shift in the orientation of its foreign policy. One article claimed that Turkey has manifestly come detached from its loyalty to America and the Western alliance, while some argued that Turkey was leading itself into isolation.

Most recently, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates joined those debates on Wednesday, suggesting that the European Union's refusal to offer Turkey a swift accession process has partly caused Ankara's foreign policy to shift and its relations with Israel to deteriorate.

In a speech delivered at the Turkish-Arab Forum, Erdoğan labeled charges that Turkey is turning away from the West as “dirty propaganda” and pointed out French investments in Syria and other Arab countries.

“But when it comes to Turkey investing in Arab countries or vice versa, dirty propaganda tries to impede this process. Those who say that Turkey has broken away from the West are the intermediaries of ill-intentioned propaganda. We are open to all parts of the world. We are not open to one and closed to another,” Erdoğan said.

Özügergin, in response to a question by NTV concerning claims about Turkey's isolation, asked: “Since when, does acting in a principled manner lead to the isolation of a country?”

Turkey's vote cast in New York is not meant to be against a certain party or to be in favor of a certain party,” Özügergin continued.

The vote was a requirement of principles put forward within the framework of a certain position which had already been assumed by Turkey, the spokesperson added.