Turkey and the Nuclear Summit

Turkish President Erdogan and leaders from 45 other countries are meeting in Washington at Obama’s invitation. The topic of the meeting is nuclear weapons. Obama’s opinion on this topic is not obvious yet. The White House has an administration and a president that wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons. This is an idealistic purpose. A lot of people are blaming Obama for being too much of a visionary about this topic. I think it’s a good thing for the world that America has a government like this instead of like the Bush administration. There is no need to show disdain for Obama being an idealist, especially if his administration is taking realistic steps to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

For example, when Obama signed the treaty last week with Russian President Medvedev, he put Russia and the United States on a path to rid themselves of nuclear weapons. Today, the meeting that started in Washington is a step toward preparing for next week’s big meeting at the U.N. Nuclear Summit. Obama is going to be more convincing in this meeting because of the treaty he signed with Russia. The important issue for this summit is imposing sanctions against Iran. However, there is a hidden problem among common goals. Obama wants a world without nuclear weapons, and Erdogan wants a Middle East without nuclear weapons; these seem like the same idea. However, Turkey’s statement is being interpreted as criticism of Israel, and Turkey is seen as acting as Iran’s lawyer in these discussions.

Obama’s vision of nuclear-free world and Erdogan’s vision of a nuclear-free Middle East are the same in theory, but the two presidents have different styles and methodologies. If the Turkish president had used a more diplomatic style and offered helpful suggestions, the situation would have been different. How would this have worked? Let me explain. If Erdogan acted more carefully and said something like, “Turkey is the only Muslim country in the region that recognizes Israel as a state. As Israel’s only Muslim ally, we have a deep relationship with Israel. Our good relationship allows us to freely say that Israel is making a lot of mistakes with Hamas and Palestine. Israel is using unequal manpower and politics against them, and as a result they are getting lonely in the region. Israel’s enemies are getting stronger because of this as well.”

If Erdogan had said this or used tact like this, all the criticism against him and his ideas would have disappeared. This is why style matters. In foreign politics, method is important as style. Let’s say that Erdogan’s objective is to clear the Middle East of nuclear weapons. What kind of a method is he supposed to use to accomplish his goal? In his speeches, Erdogan keeps saying, “Countries that have nuclear weapons shouldn’t be in a position where they threaten other countries.” Instead, Erdogan should recommend, “For countries that think Iran is aiming to attain nuclear weapons, they shouldn’t threaten Tehran but instead should negotiate in a political way to disarm Iran from nuclear weapons. We should invite Iran to a peaceful Middle East conference to talk about disarming nuclear weapons. We need to save the Middle East from making investments in arms all the time. In the long run, our goal should be to get rid of all the nuclear weapons in Middle East. Israel, Iran and America should do their part to make it happen.”

The president can also add this: “Let’s not forget that just like Israel, Iran has serious security concerns. Iran is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons. America has control over Iraq and Afghanistan, which are both very close to Iran. Israel has nuclear weapons as well as Pakistan. Turkey is an ally to Iran but at the same time has military ties with America and Israel and is part of NATO. Because of these reasons we should understand Iran’s fear.” This kind of wording would have been better for Turkey.