G-7, G-7+1, G-8, G-20 5, 5+1, 3+3, 6+2? …
by
Ali Yurttagül*

The numbers in the second row symbolize the “big” countries that are, or try to be, the architects of the “nuclear issue” with Iran, in which Brazil and Turkey, both G-20 members, stuck their noses into by overstepping the line. As is widely known, the US, Russia, China, the UK and France as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Germany, intervened in Iran’s nuclear issue, and the 5+1 denomination has come to be used specifically when discussing this issue in international relations. Although this grouping is generally known as 5+1, it is no coincidence that Germany opts for using the 3+3 appellation, symbolizing three EU member countries and three others. That France and the UK choose to use 5+1 while Germany prefers 3+3 to designate the same grouping is essentially proof of the fact that the distorted order in international relations established in the post-World War II era is perceived as problematic even among EU member countries. If France, a country which is smaller than India and which does not have an economic performance comparable to that of Germany or Japan, is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has the right to veto, it is perfectly understandable that Germany and Japan find it hard to accept this. If two “big” countries from the “continent” of Europe have priority, while the continents of Latin America, Africa and the nation of India are not even represented on the UN Security Council, let alone have the right to veto, then it follows that there is a clear imbalance in the architecture of the United Nations. Having labored to find a solution to this structural problem, the UN has failed to come up with a solution to date.

Solution sidelined

Turkey and Brazil’s Iran initiative seemed to torpedo the UN order, and the only solution on the table for the Iran issue was sidelined by the five in order to get these two “impertinent” countries back into line. Just to send a message to these two countries, who learned their lesson after trying to conduct things that are “beyond their reach and capabilities” with encouragement from them, the five started to implement new sanctions without providing any alternatives. Since the sanctions implemented against Iran were empty, and the resolution for implementing these sanctions was decided on without even testing the sincerity of the gesture for dialogue made by Iran for the first time, the strong message was not for Iran, but for emerging Brazil and Turkey, according to a Le Monde analysis. I would like to briefly direct readers’ attention to Le Monde’s analysis, which I believe accurately reflects the issue. “The big five saw Turkey and Brazil’s getting into the game as hasty and naive. Moreover, these two countries did not act in close coordination with and fully inform the capitals of the big countries which have been dealing with this issue since 2003. … While no one criticized these two countries’ initiative and international role, the five taught Turkey and Brazil an important lesson of reality, by reiterating that no one can enter the club forcefully.” (Natali Naugayrède, Le Monde, June 16, 2010).

Whether Brazil and Turkey were motivated by the self-confidence of being accepted into the club of G-20, where the world economic architecture is shaped by initiatives that go “beyond their capabilities,” we do not know. Whether Barack Obama and a well-intentioned group acting along with him, as rumor has it, told Brazil and Turkey that they supported them without talking to the other members of the club and were forced to backpedal when the solution was placed on the table in a somewhat unexpected manner, we do not know, either. Based on Aslı Aydıntaşbaş’s analysis of the matter -- from which I got the impression of having reliable sources -- we understand that Ankara acted while keeping Washington informed of their plans. Still, Brazil and Turkey have certainly committed an error in communication. It is a sort of irreverence toward the big five to attempt to play on the “playground” of the club without first notifying Berlin, London, Beijing, and most importantly, Paris, and any good intentions involved in the attempt do not compensate for this disrespect. As I learned from various sources, Ankara informed Brussels via Lady Ashton, who is in charge of the EU’s foreign policy. As it turns out, using this channel must have been perceived by the “Grand Nation” and London as “irreverent.” I do not think even Berlin, which tends read the six as 3+3, not as 5+1, in order to underline the EU factor, is happy with Brussels being regarded as the interlocutor by Ankara.

Shaking the international system

Actually, as they acted in good faith to find a solution to an international issue, Brazil and Turkey probably did not realize that they were fundamentally shaking the international system, which is hardly balanced. Thus, they contributed to the process of questioning the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has been in force since 1968 and which gave the five big countries that have the right to veto in the UN Security Council the prerogative of keeping atomic bombs. The five want to keep nuclear armament as their unique priority and seek to keep the nuclear club small and closed, but it is hard to say if they have been successful in this. The non-proliferation summit held in New York in May actually revealed the naked truth on this matter. The summit only managed to secure support for the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East, but the five showed, once again, that they were not ready for Obama’s utopian project. His dream of having a nuclear-free world was not shared even by his closest friends during the latest UN meeting on the matter. We can also say that debates revealed the sad fact that even Obama’s own staff was cold toward his utopian idea. As it has the “smallest” arsenal of nuclear weapons, China says that the onus for the initiative for nuclear disarmament primarily belongs to the “big guns.” As for Paris, which has tended to regard “force de frappe,” or nuclear weapons, as the symbols of national independence since the time of De Gaulle, it does not want any debate on this subject. I can safely argue that Obama’s utopia necessarily questions this symbol of independence, and this considerably bothers the “Grand Nation.” Aware of the importance of utopias in real politics, London’s diplomacy lent support to Obama, which can only be seen as smart move, while Russia and the US, commanding about 90 percent of nuclear weapons, do not appear eager to dispose of their “deterrent potential” in the coming years. However, the club has had a hard time keeping the order firmly in place in recent years. Although it is not a member of the club, India seems to have obtained priority access. Moreover, another aspirant, Pakistan, is disturbing club members. The big latitude afforded Israel, which has been illegally and secretly enjoying club member status, is increasingly becoming a problem, as seen by the last summit.

At this point, Iran is not only giving the club a complete headache but is also rendering the nuclear issue controversial in its worst aspects. Although it is considerably backward in economic terms, as it imports gasoline despite having large oil reserves, it is investing a large amount of its budget in nuclear technology, and one can naturally conclude this is not because of the “scarcity” of its energy resources. Just like France, this country is investing in nuclear technology for strategic purposes and aims to have nuclear weapons if it can. If, like North Korea, Iran has nuclear weapons with its current political structure, it would not be wrong to perceive this as a disaster, not only for the club, but for Turkey and generally the region as well. That’s why Turkey acting with Brazil to prevent Iran’s nuclear armament is not only normal but necessary in terms of its own security.

Actually, everyone, including the club members and the entire West, want Turkey to make an effort to prevent Iran’s nuclear armament. But since Brazil and Turkey have so far refrained from nuclear technology even as a potential source of energy -- which is dirty, expensive and dangerous -- with common sense, they showed great “irreverence” by entering the courtyard of the club. While Pakistan is currently wandering in the courtyard in shabby clothes, it did not enter naked as Turkey and Brazil did. Everyone knows that these two countries wandered into that courtyard not for the sake of championing “non-proliferation” -- which forms the bylaws of this club -- but for ensuring nuclear disarmament, which forms the basis of their Iran initiative. Brazil and Turkey should have known this attitude of theirs, which amounted to questioning the very raison d’être of the club, would not be tolerated. After this experience, they should have understood that every club has its own unique dress code.

Brazil and Turkey seems to have learned their lesson for “attempting to bite off more than they can chew” as, speaking to Financial Times, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim confessed in saying, “We got our fingers burned by doing things that everybody said were helpful.” He also adds that they will not take any proactive initiative, but may provide assistance if an open and clear “assignment” is made (Financial Times, June 21, 2010). It would not be wrong to assume that Ankara, too, has similar feelings. The only difference between Turkey and Brazil is that Iran is next door to Turkey, which is obliged to continue to be proactive in order to prevent another Iraq in the region.

Anyway, returning to the question of whether these two countries’ initiative was an error and whether there are any alternatives, we see a different picture. We see that the five “big guns” which put these two countries in their place and which set the protocol signed with Iran aside, do not have anything to suggest instead. The protocol inked with Iran was not prepared badly nor was it empty, as some sources claimed. This protocol is an initiative that contains important and confidence-building elements proposed by Iran for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue with the six or, more correctly, with 5+1. If the international community is really interested in a diplomatic solution and believes that it can do this through sanctions, it must one day hold the hand Iran extends. Maybe, then, they will need “naive” Brazil and Turkey’s support. In such a case, these two countries should demand from the club administration a guarantee showing that all members are giving their full support to the initiative in order not be accused later of entering their courtyard inappropriately dressed. Maybe, then, 6+2 may become the accepted moniker in the Iran issue, as 5+1+2 would be too long.

*Ali Yurttagül is a political adviser for the Greens in the European Parliament.