Apologies, Apologies

Without wading too deeply into the always-controversial issue of the Armenian genocide, it seems Turkey has erected something of a double standard on official apologies.

Turkey is demanding an apology from Israel in the wake of the assault on a Turkish aid ship on May 31. Ankara also wants a commission of inquiry to look into the incident. These demands are perhaps reasonable, considering that all of those killed in the attack were Turkish citizens. If Israel fails to comply, Turkey is threatening to cut diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. This is quite a harsh punishment; the two nations share a long history of military cooperation, and Turkey has historically been Israel's only Muslim friend. A diplomatic break would be a serious step indeed.

But how might Ankara react to a similar call for an apology? A recent campaign to apologize for the Armenian genocide during WWI was incredibly controversial. I am not claiming here that Turkey is responsible for the countless deaths of Armenians a century ago, nor am I suggesting that the deaths were a campaign of genocide (there are lengthy debates on both sides of the issue - we can have that debate some other day). Rather, let's just look at the ferocity of the official Turkish response to the mere suggestion of an apology. The online petition campaign does not use the word "genocide," nor does it seek to compel the government to apologize officially. It just serves as a way for people to publicly express sorrow over a tragic loss of life. Yet already, it is being met with threats of official action: petition leaders have been criticized by the Turkish military and were investigated by a Turkish prosecutor for possible charges of "insulting Turkishness," a punishable offense.

So - Turkey demands Israel apologize for its actions on May 31. Fine. But how does Ankara react when the topic of apology surfaces surrounding its own historical actions? By prosecuting academics and professors who question the "official version" of history, in a blatant violation of free speech.

Ankara's demand for an Israeli apology doesn't carry a whole lot of weight considering Turkey's long history of obstruction and prosecution surrounding the issue of the Armenian genocide and a possible apology for it. Whether or not the Armenian deaths were indeed a "genocide" is, for the issue at hand, not the point. Rather, the issue is Turkey's refusal to even allow free, open, public discussion about an historical tragedy. Perhaps the deaths were genocide, or perhaps they were not an organized campaign of violence. Perhaps an official apology is due, perhaps not. But until Turkey stops its childish stonewalling on the issue and allows free inquiry, we won't know conclusively.

Perhaps Ankara should refrain from demanding open inquiries and official apologies until it is prepared to accept them at home...

Good Riddance

Had a great time in Petra - more about that soon. But returned to Amman today to hear of two less-than-tragic deaths: Abu Daoud, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, and Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Hezbollah's "spiritual leader."

The sad part of this news is certainly not that these men are gone. Rather, I'm disappointed to see that both PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Lebanese PM Saad Hariri are issuing condolences or public statements of sadness. I'm sure this is being done largely to assuage domestic political pressure, especially in Lebanon, but these statements certainly provide ammunition to the crazy right-wingers in the US. I can hear the reasoning already - "Abbas regrets Abu Daoud's death, therefore he's clearly a terrorist sympathizer, therefore all Palestinians are terrorist sympathizers, therefore there's no way we can criticize Israel for its policies towards the Palestinians." Netanyahu is in Washington on Tuesday... let's see if these deaths are brought up either by the leaders or by the media.

Happy Fourth, to everyone reading in the US (and Chile) - for some reason, it's not as big of a holiday here...

Nuclear Jordan

Interesting op-ed in today's New York Times. Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli official, argues that the US should allow Jordan to enrich its own uranium as part of its push to produce nuclear power.

Israel, despite having warmer relations with Jordan than with any Arab state, fears that in-country enrichment will give its Hashemite neighbor the expertise needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Never mind that Jordan has the right to enrich uranium under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Israel has not signed). Never mind that Jordan is closely allied with the US and other western countries. Ignore the fact that "the king has continuously affirmed his willingness for transparency on all matters relating to the production of nuclear power plants." Regardless of context, Arabs + uranium = unacceptable, in Israel's eyes. Mr. Beilin wisely argues against this paranoid view of Israel's security situation. 

On almost every issue, I agree with Mr. Beilin. Jordan has the right to enrich uranium, and given the large reserves recently discovered in the country (11th largest in the world), buying other people's uranium seems a foolish waste of money. More generally, if Israel isn't comfortable with nuclear power in Jordan, of all places, then my hopes are pretty dim for any meaningful Israeli cooperation with its Arab neighbors. Israel should support steps (like reliable electricity) that will stabilize its moderate, peaceful, pro-western neighbor. 

There is one detail Mr. Beilin omits, and this is where America's position becomes complicated. The US recently completed an important nuclear deal with the UAE, giving Abu Dhabi civilian nuclear technology in return for a waiving of its right to enrich uranium domestically. Israel would like to see Jordan also waive this right, which Jordan understandably wants to retain. However, if America signs on a deal that gives Jordan the technology while allowing it to retain the right to enrich, it could sink the UAE deal. From the June 12 Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration views the U.A.E. deal as a model for its nonproliferation drive. American experts say it would be virtually impossible for the Emirates or any other nation to develop atomic weapons without the ability to produce highly enriched uranium at home. 

The White House has good reason to stick to its guns in its talks with Jordan: the U.A.E., in its agreement with the U.S., won the right to negotiate a new deal if another Mideast country concludes a nuclear pact with the U.S. on more favorable terms (emphasis added).

Here's America's dilemma. If we force Jordan to renounce its right to domestic enrichment, we anger a strong ally and possibly force it to get its technology from other nuclear powers (like Russia, China, or Pakistan). If the US does the right thing and gives Jordan nuclear technology without forcing it to waive its right, the UAE deal gets scrapped. The deal is an important part of the framework we are constructing in the Gulf now to isolate Iran and its rogue nuclear program, and its collapse would be a serious blow to that effort. The deal is also essential to the UAE's energy security. 

America has a good reason to seek Jordanian renunciation of enrichment - but it has nothing to do with Israeli security. If we continue to ask Jordan to waive its treaty-given rights, make sure the request is framed as an essential step to save the important UAE nuclear agreement. If our request for renunciation is seen as "the result of Israeli pressure," as Beilin suggests, we've done something wrong; it's about honoring our agreements elsewhere and continuing to isolate Iran.