These remarks were delivered at the First Annual Conference of the Middle East Institute’s Center for Turkish Studies.
Good morning all. Before I came here, on the way in Turkey, I was asked a question: “What is the purpose of your visit? Is the purpose to mend the ties between Turkey and the US as well as between Turkey and Israel?” I replied: “I’m not going there to soften or harden anything, I’m just going there to explain the position of Turkey.” As a person who is in the leadership on foreign policy issues in the AKP party, I would like to give you firsthand information on two important issues. First, about the effect of the events – the recent events – on the Turkish-Israeli relationship, and second regarding the US Security Council vote on Iran, and Turkey’s position on that.
First of all, the hardening of the bilateral relationship between Turkey and Israel dates back to the operation in Gaza. Prime Minister Olmert and Prime Minister Erdoğan were very keen on the negotiations between Israel and Syria, and in their last talks they sorted out almost 99% of the outstanding issues between the two countries. When Prime Minister Olmert was leaving Ankara after these talks, he said “there are a couple of words that are still outstanding. Let me go to Israel and talk to my colleagues, and I will come back soon to sort out these problems.” But after he left Ankara, we didn’t hear anything back – except about the Gaza operation.
After that, I would like to share another anecdote – once President Perez and Prime Minister Erdoğan had lunch facing Lake Como in Italy, and I was at this lunch as well, and President Perez told us at that time that the Israelis wished that their neighbors were Norwegians, and the Palestinians wished that their neighbors were Swedes. However, he said, these are not the realities of the region. There should be other ways and means to achieve peace.
Recently, in the international waters of the eastern Mediterranean, a humanitarian civilian ship which was carrying people from different countries was attacked by Israel, and 9 civilians were killed on board. One of them was a US citizen of Turkish descent. This is one of the most tragic incidents of modern Turkish history. Throughout the long years of the Cold War, we were in opposing camps with the Soviet Union, but the Soviets did not kill even one of our citizens. But a country with which we have a long cooperation – which we have long supported – now kills nine of our citizens, and prosecuted one of them.
In our talks here, there have been a couple of issues which involve propaganda, where people were questioning the identities or personalities of the people on the ship – there were some arguments suggesting that the ship was aiming to break the blockade on Gaza and so by questioning the motives of those onboard, they are trying to cover up this whole incident.
Our expectation from Israel is that Israel should issue an apology to Turkey and should also support the establishment of an international inquiry commission under the auspices of the UN Secretary General. If the Israeli side does not meet our demands and requirements, then our relationship will further deteriorate. The commission that was founded by the Israeli side has no credibility in the eyes of Turkey. On the other hand, the support that some of our NATO allies – with whom we cherish shared values, and lose our lives for these shared values – the support that they give to this commission is disappointing.
Our reaction to this incident is not against the Israeli nation or the Israeli state, it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and I would like to say categorically that we are supporting Israel’s right of existence, and that we value and give importance to the security of Israel. I also want to underline categorically that for peace in the region, the Turkish-Israeli relationship should always be continued.
I attended the meetings of our Prime Minister with Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Olmert, and I always witnessed that we found a shared, joint language with which to sort out our problems. However, after the Gaza operation, the Netanyahu government is trying its best to derail the bilateral relationship. In my talks with my American friends, to those who make some suggestions to surmount this crisis, I ask them – “OK, I took note of your advice, but are you giving similar advice to the Israeli side?” And the answer that I receive is that they have not yet talked to the Israeli side. Our expectation from the US Administration is to support an independent and highly credible inquiry commission, under the auspices of the UN Security Council, which will address the sensitivities of the Turkish people.
Given the possible events from Iraq to Lebanon, Turkish-Israeli dialogue and relationship should be extraordinary. However, presently, the relationship between the two countries is like two Formula One cars facing each other head on, about to crash at high speed. Our American friends that we speak with here ask us “Is Turkey aware what the consequences or end picture will be for Turkey losing Israel?” We respond with the opposite question: “Is Israel calculating what will be the end result of losing Turkey?”
Our objectives in Middle East Peace with the US are the same; therefore we want US leadership in surmounting this crisis and in the formation of this independent inquiry commission.
I will say a few words on our negative vote in the UN Security Council. But before, I would like to highlight that there are some circles that are trying to present these two issues as one reaction from the Turkish side – these are two separate incidents and they do not have any relation. Turkey, in fact, received an invitation from the West to join in the nuclear negotiations with the Iranian side. Since the Western community cannot directly talk with Iran, they asked for Turkish mediation, and Turkey gladly accepted this request. And with this declaration or agreement, for the first time in Iranian history, Brazil and Turkey have convinced Iran, can make Iran part of an international deal on nuclear issues. I’m sure most of you know the details and the substance of this deal – this was a deal which is about an exchange of enriched Uranium over a one year period, and also involved certain provisions about Iran’s obligations regarding its nuclear endeavors.
The objective of preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons is clearly the same between Turkey and the US. We are categorically against Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. In the meantime, we do not want any nuclear weapons in our region, and we are always reminding Iran to cooperate with the international community.
There were four different sanctions packages up until now on the Iranian issue. The previous three packages proved not to be effective in deterring Iran, and this fourth one is a kind of softened version of the previous ones, which took the concerns of China and Russia into consideration. So, imagine a scenario in which an Iranian ship sets sail in international waters, in the Persian Gulf, and then there arises intelligence suggesting that there are prohibited materials on this ship. A Gulf country is asked to intervene, to intercept this ship, because of the materials – can you imagine what the result would be?
The reason that we voted no in the Security Council is to ensure the continuation of diplomatic negotiations between Iran the Western world. There are those who try to present this no vote as if Turkey preferred Iran over the US, or as Turkey turning its back to the United States, or Turkey “sliding to the East” – these are incorrect and have nothing to do with reality. In this case, Turkey preferred negotiations instead of the sanctions. With its vote, Turkey declared that the Tehran deal is still on the table – it’s still there.
If Turkey did not keep Iran on the negotiating table by casting the no vote in the Security Council, we might have witnessed very unfavorable developments in Iraq or in Lebanon. If there is a hot conflict between Iran and the West, then Iraq will further destabilize, and probably the government in Lebanon will slide from power and we will witness more developments of instability in the region. By casting a no vote, Turkey actually prevented these possible instabilities and also helped the objective of peace in the Middle East, which it shares with the US side.
After a short while, I believe that the meaning of Turkey’s no vote and its impact on achieving our joint objectives in the Middle East will be well understood by all sides. Just yesterday, or the day before, the ambassadors of the US, Britain, Germany, and France visited our Foreign Minister and they requested the continuation of Turkey’s diplomatic initiatives.
Allow me to make the following analogy: in the past when we reached out and tried to establish a relationship with Syria, we received similar criticisms from the US and some other Western countries. These criticisms suggested that we are objecting to the demands of the West, that we are taking Syria out of isolation, that we are establishing a relationship with an illegitimate regime – but we continued our negotiations with Syria. In the end, we always advise Syria to heed the calls of the international community and to follow the rules of the international community. At the point where we are now, the US is appointing an ambassador to this country.
I want to answer the questions that were asked me when I was here in my talks with my American colleagues, but of course I have to cut short, and with the instruction of Gonul, I will stop here. Thank you very much.
About this Transcript:
Assertions and opinions in this Transcript are solely those of the above-mentioned author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Middle East Institute, which expressly does not take positions on Middle East policy.
Speaker Details
Ömer Çelik is the Deputy Vice President of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP).