Although the risk seems to make things easier for the problem solvers and the concerned people, it is possible that such a growing power might be met with a resistance and antipathy as it gradually affects the power balances in the international arena. Therefore, it seems that while getting closer to the goal of “zero problems”, this closeness paradoxically nurtures a great problem.

 

The persuasion of Iran by Turkey with Brazil for the uranium deal and the international attitudes towards the signature of this agreement are the biggest signs of this development.

 

Although Turkey’s attempts for this goal were supported by the USA and the EU members at the very beginning, it is obvious that they did so because they had the prejudice of failure and it gave them confidence. If you look closer you will see that after the concrete agreement the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany have hurriedly started to work on a new sanction in order to declare that they do not recognize this agreement. And this attitude proves that they panicked when they saw the problem had been solved with an agreement.

 

Is the reason for the panic of the super powers Iran’s compromise or the increase in the roles of new and alternative actors such as Turkey and Brazil with this difficult agreement?

 

Thus the questioning started with İbrahim Karagül’s well-put question” Then, what do you want?” is challenging. They do not want negotiation, and in fact their worries about continuing their system they established somehow have been attracting more attention day by day.

 

On Wednesday, at the meeting of The European Parliamentary- Strasbourg-in the Middle East Study Group, I made a speech in a session in which Turkey’s possible contributions to the peace process in the Middle East were discussed. One of the issues that the European parliamentarians are most interested in today is the sustainability and reliability of the agreement signed with Iran. However, my one-to-one conversations gave me the impression that in contrast to the official statements of pleasure and contentment, Turkey’s new roles are not welcomed. Furthermore, they do not believe that Iran will adhere to the agreement; yet this is not a concern but a wish. They wholeheartedly wish Iran broke the agreement in a short time.

 

Turkey’s involvement in many issues solves the problems; yet it trivializes their roles. Gradually Turkey’s position might be considered as an antipathetic meddlesomeness by them. However, while the problem continues, they invite for taking initiative. The fact that mediation is not a trivial position is understood with the help of these incidents and attitudes. The mediators and the problem solvers naturally gain a right to have a voice in the new situations.

 

The fact that the Armenian resolution has been brought to Turkey’s agenda is in fact a result of it. It is a reaction to the virtual change in the international balances. It is also possible to estimate that with some more power gained, there will be no mention of it. However, we can envisage that until this time, this problem will bother Turkey more with serious risks.

 

The foreign policy vision that Turkey pursues adamantly in this direction bears such a risk. Perhaps it should be known; yet it should also not forgotten that in order to overcome this risk, the only way is to keep on going in this direction and have a strong diplomatic performance.

 

(Prof. Dr. Yasin Aktay, SDE Director)