Thursday, 14 January 2010
For more than six years the United States and western allies have been pressing Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment program, which Tehran insists is for civilian purposes. Despite the emergence of hope for a solution to this crisis by the October 1st Meeting in Geneva, an escalation has been witnessed, specifically in the recent weeks. Both Iran and western countries have determined deadlines and an aggressive approach has been adopted on both sides.
Although the Obama administration shows a willingness for an engagement policy, they are also discussing new sanctions to be applied towards Iran. But as usual, it is not very easy to take such a measure within the Security Council due to the disagreement among the veto holders of the Council. The first crack came from the Chinese side explaining that it will not support new sets of sanctions at the moment since there is still some room for diplomatic solutions. There will be new round of p 5 + 1 meetings at the end of this month in which they will try to come to a consensus on new sanctions. In a statement, the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the U.S. remains interested in engaging with Iran, even as it considers ways to pressure Tehran through sanctions. She also added that since there is a small group of decision makers in Iran, the best way to pressure Iran to come clean on its nuclear ambitions is to impose sanctions aimed at the country's ruling elite[1]. While not mentioning any name, it seems that she indirectly meant The Revolutionary Guard Corps which is already subject to sanctions by the United States. But it can be said that maintaining the unity among p5+1 will not be that easy.
Another alarming declaration came from Head of U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus, saying that the US has developed contingency plans in order to deal with Iran’s refusal to curb its nuclear program. Although he stated that he thinks there is still some time to engage Iran in diplomacy, he also stressed that “it would be almost literally irresponsible if CENTCOM (United States Central Command) were not to have been thinking about the various ‘what ifs’ and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies.”[2]
Actually, Petraeus’ statement was thought provoking for the countries of the region, and Turkey was one of those countries who reacted to the recent pressure over Iran’s nuclear program. Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, criticized major powers for pressuring Iran while tolerating Israel’s assumed nuclear arsenal. From the beginning Turkey’s position on the Iranian nuclear crisis is clear. It always reiterates that Turkey is against the development of nuclear arms by any country in the region, it supports the peaceful nuclear program of Iran, it asks Iran to be more transparent and flexible to solve this crisis and it urges the western countries to use diplomatic tools rather than the coercive measures that may also harm the countries of the region. The Turkish Prime Minister’s reaction to the latest statement from the head of CENTCOM is understandable in that sense because the statement came from an official who is also the head of both fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq. This statement is more serious than any previous ones. It shows the back-up plan of the U.S. Government for another possible front, and this for sure is something that can cause disconcert for the countries of the region.
Turkey’s concerns about the possibility of another front to be opened near its territories and harsher sanctions that can affect its interests are a strong driving force behind its efforts as a facilitator in the crisis. Actually, Iran, despite some internal disagreements on the issue, recently said that it would accept the swap formula[3] on Turkish soil which is a welcome development. Turkey spent a lot of effort for the realization of this formula as a solution since the end of last year. Nevertheless, today we are speaking about the same vicious circle: once again sanctions and once more remarks relating to a military attack. This is the main reason behind Turkey’s reaction to skirmish statements that may lead to another conflict in the region. But in that between a few words can be said in relation to the method used by the Turkish Prime Minister for criticizing the western approach. It is for sure that as a country of the region, Turkey has the right to criticize the unfair and biased policies, but this should be done in a diplomatic way, in good timing and on an appropriate platform. Otherwise, it could be interpreted in a way that may harm the sense of your aim and policy both within your country and outside. While Erdogan mention that "We convey this message all the time to our Iranian counterparts to ease the tensions. We tell all sides that the problem could not be solved through any means other than diplomacy and peaceful negotiations,"[4] and say “We accept that acquiring nuclear technology for peaceful and civilian purposes is a sovereign right for countries. But we have told Iranian authorities numerous times that we are against nuclear weapons,”[5] the words that remain in the mind are those criticizing the West as being unfair in asking Iran to stop its program and does not care about Israel’s nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that he is right about the necessity of fair policies, but especially when speaking or dealing with some chronic problems the words should be chosen diplomatically; rather than use statements that can be interpreted as political tricks in order to gain support from the public opinion or those that could avoid the real picture. It is better to use more effective and constructive tools in order to contribute to a solution.
Consequently, Turkey, with its multidimensional foreign policy has an ambitious goal of “zero problems with neighbors” and tries to play the mediation game in major regional problems. Keeping in mind that allies also have the right to criticize each other, it is also important to remain calm and select the correct words which could not avoid the real picture and harm your constructive efforts. Last but not least, Turkey as a state with its unique character of having good relations with all sides should be more careful to keep the balance and if it aims to play the mediation role for a stabilized region, a difficult task in itself, it should be more careful. Taking into consideration the sensitive character and mindset of the countries of the region, more constructive and effective tools will be required rather than just criticizing; otherwise all efforts spent will remain fruitless.
[1] ‘Clinton: Iran Sanctions could Target Elite’, The New York Times, 11 January 2010
[2] ‘Petraeus: U.S. has plan to deal with Iran's nuclear program’, CNN, 10 January 2010
[3] The swap formula has been accepted by the Iranian side at the 1st October Geneva Meeting. In this framework, Iran would send its low enriched uranium to Russia and France and in return it would be sent nuclear fuel for its nuclear research reactors. But because of some political concerns and lack of confidence, the idea of sending the enriched uranium to Russia was not welcome inside. Later on, former director of IAEA proposed Turkey as the country for the swap. While Iran was not so enthusiastic about this idea, it did not reject it. The Turkish government spent a noteworthy effort for realization of this proposal but after the latest decision of the IAEA Board, Iran reacted negatively, and declared that it will operate 10 more centrifuges. However, a few weeks later, the Iranian government again showed their willingness to swap formula through Turkish soil.
[4]‘Turkish premier calls for fairness in dealing with Iran's nuclear program’, Anadolu News Agency, 13 January 2010
[5] Faruk Akkan ‘Erdogan calls for just stance on Iran over nuclear program’, Today’s Zaman, 14 January 2010
A Mutually Irresolvable Trust problem
