The idea was neither Turkey's nor Brazil's. I remember writing about this some time ago. The idea belonged to Egyptian Muhammad Al Baradei who was the President of the Atom Energy Commission back then. The currently is on the news as a candidate for Presidency of Egypt. He has left his office at the Commission and is now busy with being a trouble for Hosni Mubarak. I remember that he had come up with this nuclear swap idea in October 2009. His objective was to activate a confidence building process among parties rather than solving the issue. Then, Turkey and Brazil stepped in. after all, they were member to the United National Security Council, though non-permanent. They believed they can accomplish the task and thus they stepped in. However, the permanent members of the UN Security Council were in another universe. The decision to embargo Iran was approved despite the swap agreement. In fact, President Obama introduced another decision that involved more serious measures and that has the potential to affect Turkish firms in early July. This decision in a way expanded the scope of the United Nations' embargo decision. Then how come was Turkey and Brazil offside about the Iran issue? What lessons can be learned about the global governance system? What does this incidence imply concerning the G20? If you want to hear some partial answers to these questions, please read on.

Let us start with the first issue: Was Turkey offside about the Iran issue? Yes it was. Turkey has taken seriously the nuclear swap idea the international community brought forward to discuss and has stepped in at full speed. It has taken seriously all the options the Americans have voiced immediately.  It has spent time to convince the Iranian government which was not (or which pretended not to be) eager. In fact has achieved to convince Iran. Then, it was told that the deal is not on the table anymore. Is this good? No, it is not. There exists a severe coordination problem. This is the first point to emphasize.

And the second one: This is about a very sincere statement by Brazilian Foreign Minister Mr. Amorim. The statement related directly with the issue in question clearly sets forth the global governance problem. He said: "Turkey and Brazil are temporary members of the United Nations Security Council. We stepped in for nuclear swap that was brought forward by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. It appears that meanwhile they have changed their mind. But we were not told. It is not a healthy thing that the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council act as a different group and hide information to themselves." This is the exact lesson we have to learn from the Iran issue and Brazilian Foreign Minister has made a highly appropriate and sincere statement so that we all can learn our lesson. The conclusion to derive is an obvious one: the global order founded by the winners of the World War II has to be restructured. At the heart of the current global relations order lies an outdated poem of balances. It is evident that yesterday's balances are inapplicable today. What misled Brazil and Turkey is the same: Security Council members' hiding information from each other is a bad thing.  This is bad also for the structuring of the new normal. It would be better if everyone knew in time that the option proposed earlier is no longer on the table and even discuss whether this is the right decision to take. Unfortunately, this was not how the things worked.

The third conclusion to derive goes as follows: We can say that Turkey started to value empty worlds increasingly in foreign policy. A sudden shift from outcome to rhetoric is observed. In fact, an eager searcher can even find out some ideological policy preferences.  However, the Iran issue and Turkey's vote in the United Nations Security Council must be debated out of this framework. Turkey is a neighbor to Iran. The border between Turkey and Iran is a border of balance rather than a border of friendship. Turkey does not want Iran to make bombs or be subjected to military intervention. The impacts of the military intervention in Iraq have not yet been erased off our geography. The key message revealed by the Security Council's votes on Iran is that the time to revise the global relations mechanism designed after the WWII and centered at the Atlantic Ocean has come. It is necessary to read the debated brought by the Iran issue as the need to establish a new global governance mechanism. This is the third point to state.

The fourth one: United Nations Security Council must adopt a guiding role for the G20. Turkey would better be more active and more cautious in the G20. In the current milieu where the new normal is sought to be shaped being a G20 member is like being at the eye of the storm.

Fifth, if there is not a plan that makes sense and proves beneficial for Turkey, all the efforts will go to waste. As a foreign guest closely monitoring developments in Turkey said in a meeting at TEPAV, "Moving fast does not necessarily mean making progress." As the strategy genius Timur has acknowledged in 14^th century, "A skillful plan is more valuable than the energy of 100.000 warriors." If there is not any skillful plan, you have to spend too much energy without any guarantee of success.

Turkey needs skillful plans in not only foreign policy but also in domestic affairs; the Kurdish issue and many others.

To whom this might concern.

This commentary was published in Referans daily on 06.07.2010