Turkey’s Nuclear Future?
By 2015, Turkey expects to complete the construction of three nuclear power stations based on energy needs, being subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguard measures and inspections. These plans have generated controversy within the country among anti-nuclear activists and opposition members of the Turkish parliament.[50]
As official state policy, Turkey complies with the Nonproliferation Treaty, Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, Comprehensive test-ban Treaty (CTBT), and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Even if Turkey were to build a nuclear arsenal it would not be able to deploy nuclear weapons without disrespecting the rule of international law, i.e. noncompliance with the international regimes it has adhered to. In this case, the benefits of acquiring nuclear weapons do not outweigh the costs of economic and political sanctions that the country would face leaving the NATO umbrella and breaking its strategic alliance with United States.
During an interview on the Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel’s program “Today’s Encounter” in February 2006 the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was asked: “Regarding the Iranian nuclear file, we know that the issue is now heading toward escalation, but we also know that Turkey is preparing to launch a nuclear energy program. What are the limits of this nuclear program?” Erdogan responded that: “We have not announced our nuclear program yet, but it is designed for peaceful and humanitarian purposes.” He emphasized that the program was designed for Turkey to secure an energy source without depending on its neighbors.[51]
Proving the energy dependency, on January 3, 2007, Iran cut off the natural gas flow, constituting the one third of Turkish gas imports, to Turkey, based on its high domestic demands.[52] Turkish officials announced that this situation wouldn’t affect Turkey drastically due to its access to the Russian Blue Stream and other Western pipelines. Still, the questionable cut and Turkish energy dependency stirred a lot of debate and concerns on electricity shortage. After Ankara’s contacts with Iranian officials, on January 8, Tehran apologized for “the inconvenience” and resumed pumping gas, claiming that a newly-established Iranian refinery had resolved the issue.[53] Based on these developments, Turkish Ministry of Energy decided to accelerate the nuclear plant project.
The proposal to build one of Turkey’s three planned nuclear power reactors in Sinop, for example, a scenic town on the Black Sea, has elicited strong opposition from Turkish environmentalists, as well from the opposition party in the Turkish parliament, which opposes the efforts of the governing Justice and Development Party (known as the “AK Party” in Turkish) to import nuclear technology. For its part, the AK Party has justified these efforts on the ground that Turkey’s demand for energy is growing but the country lacks natural energy resources to meet these needs.
A February 2006 report on the private Turkish news channel NTV quoted Engin Altay, a member of the parliamentary opposition as stating: “Construction of a nuclear plant is a catastrophic project with zero safety.” The lawmaker expressed concern that Turkey would become a “dumping ground” for third-rate nuclear technology that the United States and European countries had already abandoned. He accused the current government of giving in to “nuclear lobbies” and claimed that Turkey could increase electricity supplies by reducing unregistered electricity consumption.[54]
A U.S.-Turkey nuclear agreement was signed on July 26, 2000, and approved by the Turkish parliament on January 14, 2005. On July 9, 2006, the Government of Turkey formally adopted the instrument of ratification for the U.S.-Turkey Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.[55] The underlying purpose of the agreement was to authorize and set the conditions for transfers to Turkey of U.S. civil nuclear technology, equipment, components, and material, including nuclear power reactors and their low enriched uranium fuel.[56]
The U.S.-Turkey deal received little attention elsewhere in the Middle East, overshadowed by other developments in July 2006, including the conflict in southern Lebanon, Iraq, and growing international concern over the course of the Iranian nuclear program. However, the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera television station, which promotes “Arab nationalist” views, was critical of the agreement, declaring: “The Agreement is seen as a diplomatic triumph for the U.S., which seeks to bring Turkey’s nuclear program under its direct control and influence, whereas, for Turkey, it’s nothing but a weak attempt to develop civilian nuclear capabilities.”[57]
The Al-Jazeera report also quoted two opposing viewpoints within Turkey on the issue of Turkey’s future nuclear program. One source, Inci Gokmen, a chemistry professor at Ankara’s Middle East Technical University, was quoted as saying, “Except for Finland, no Western countries have established nuclear power plants since 1978.” She continued, “Nuclear plants contain extremely complicated technologies. Also, Turkey will have to import fuel for those power plants... We should benefit from domestic and renewable energy sources instead.”[58] Al-Jazeera also quoted Zafer Caglayan, Chairman of the Ankara Chamber of Industry, who supported a future nuclear program stating: “Those who oppose the establishment of nuclear power plants in Turkey should not forget that there have already been plants (established) in neighboring countries... Nuclear power plants in Turkey will create a great atmosphere for investments.”[59]
Within Turkey, the agreement fanned debate over the future of nuclear energy in the country. So far, that debate has been framed in terms of the country’s energy needs and safety and environmental concerns. It is possible, however, that national security issues will also become a factor in the discussion, with some elements in Turkey arguing that mastering nuclear technology through a peaceful nuclear power program will provide an essential foundation upon which Turkey could build, if at some future time it became necessary for it to develop an independent deterrent to counter a nuclear-armed Iran. Such national security considerations, it may be noted, appear to be a factor motivating Egypt’s recently announced plans to restart its nuclear power program.[60]
Conclusion
The government of Turkey, at the time of this article, led by the ruling AK Party has been responsible for a consistent strategy of pressuring Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA and the EU-3. At the same time, the Turkish government has defended Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as long as there is transparency in the process. The state, and the secular media have advocated a diplomatic solution, opposed to economic sanctions, which would hurt Turkey’s trade with Iran. On the other hand, the pro-Islamist press not only condemns sanction, but argues that Iran has a right to develop its nuclear program and even nuclear weapons. The Islamist media has also consistently stressed that Turkey should not allow its territory to be used in a military strike against Iran. While the secular media generally acknowledges a threat from a nuclear armed Iran, it also criticizes the United States for its double standards in the region, in particular its “turning a blind eye” to the Israeli program.