STRAINS WITH AMERICA

The United States is not well liked around the world these days, mainly because it is seen as a bully that doesn't listen to its friends. Administration officials say that's the price of strong leadership. But they also hope to repair some of the damage in the second term. Can they? That was one of the big topics in the hallways and backrooms of the World Economic Forum in Davos last week. NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth spoke to two key figures who have a strained relationship with Washington: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the International Atomic Energy Agency's director-general Mohamed ElBaradei, who is up for a third term despite U.S. objections. Excerpts:

RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN

NEWSWEEK: What is your advice to the U.S. on Iraq?

It is not possible to qualify the developments in Iraq as positive. The infrastructure of the elections is not the infrastructure of a healthy election. For example, the voter list was not prepared in a fair manner. Only those who had food cards had a chance to vote. What is the situation of those who could not get a food card? The United Nations must be involved in a much more active way.

Could you comment on the fact that some Turks regard the U.S. as the "greatest threat" to Turkey?

Turkey has fulfilled all its obligations to the U.S. regarding humanitarian assistance both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The fact that the U.S. has not been as sensitive as we would have hoped against the [Kurdish terrorist organization] PKK, which is responsible for 40,000 lost lives in Turkey, has created some negative emotions on the part of the Turkish nation. Also, almost 100 of our citizens have lost their lives in Iraq--most of them were truckdrivers of companies that provided logistical support to U.S. troops, and humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq, like pharmaceuticals. These people provided these services without protection. As the Turkish people saw their own countrymen lose their lives without adequate protection--that had an effect. Eighty-two percent of the people who responded to [a recent opinion poll] said the U.S. was a threat to world peace. The attitude of the European nations is not different. In the U.S.-led Coalition, most of the EU countries are not represented. And every day, the countries that are in the force think of pulling their forces back. In the United Kingdom, 75 percent of the people oppose the war.

So in your view, is the war a disaster?

The recent U.S. election shows the U.S. people don't have that view.

Should the U.S. withdraw its troops from Iraq?

The people of Iraq must have their own government. The U.S. should set a timetable [for withdrawal]. Until then, it should help the people of Iraq establish their own military and police. Once the people of Iraq know when the U.S. troops will leave, their confidence in the U.S. will increase, and they will feel, "OK, I am taking over."

You believe there will be no repercussions in the region from a U.S. withdrawal?

I don't think it would be appropriate to withdraw all the troops at once. If the U.N. assumes a role, it would be more comfortable for all the parties.

Members of your party accused the U.S. of genocide after Fallujah. You reportedly kept the U.S. ambassador waiting six weeks for an appointment.

I stated that this classification was incorrect--that it would be incorrect to classify what happened in Fallujah as genocide. As for the ambassador, there was a lack of communication between different institutions. Sometimes the U.S. ambassador calls, and I take his call the same day.

There was a close relationship between Israel and Turkey, but last year you began to accuse Israel of "state terrorism" after the assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin. How are relations today?

The relations between Turkey and Israel continue as they were in the past. Our trade volume with Israel has increased. In Turkey we say, "Friends tell the truth even though it can be painful." You should know how sensitive I am against anti-Semitism. I have said many times that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. Recently I sent my foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, to Israel as a sign of good will.

MOHAMED ELBARADEI

Before the war in Iraq, you said Iraq had no nuclear weapons. Is this what the administration has against you?

I don't know. Someone told me it is dangerous to be wrong but even more dangerous to be right.

The Bush administration is arguing that you are not tough enough on Iran.

It depends how you define soft. Eighteen months ago, Iran was a black box. Now we have a fairly good picture of what is happening in Iran. We understand how complex and extensive that program is. Through our tenacity, Iran's facilities that could produce fissile material are frozen. And we are still going everywhere we think we need to go to be sure there are no undeclared activities in Iran. Between our tenacious verification and the diplomatic process, I hope we will be able to get a package solution to the Iranian issue.

U.S. experts say that Iran has cheated and lied and continues to do so.

If they are still cheating, we haven't seen any evidence of that. We report facts. When they cheated, we said so; when they are cooperating, we say so. We have been supervising their suspension of fuel-cycle activities. Recently, we got access to a partial military site.

How can Iran justify its full nuclear-fuel cycle as part of a peaceful program?

They probably can make a technical justification. The argument they also make is that they have been isolated, so they have to be self-sufficient.

What is the timeline for Iran's getting a nuclear weapon?

It depends whether they have been doing weaponization. We haven't seen signs of that. But they have the know-how. If they resume the fuel cycle, they should be able to get the fissile material within a year or two. If they have that, they are a year away from a weapon.

What is the best way to stop Iran from going nuclear?

You need inspections, but you need to also work with them diplomatically. If a country is suspected of going nuclear, you need to understand why are they going nuclear. You need to address their sense of isolation and their need for technology and economic [benefits]. They have been under sanctions for 20 years.

What role should the U.S. play?

I don't think you will get a permanent solution of the Iranian issue without full U.S. engagement. The U.S. engages with North Korea, so I don't see why they can't engage with Iran.

There is talk of a U.S. strike against the Iranian nuclear program.

Talk about military activities at this stage is very unhelpful. I cannot see how a military solution can resolve the Iran issue.

Does the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapon drive Iran?

Right now, more and more countries are trying to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear know-how. So [either] there are going to be 20 or 30 countries with nuclear weapons, or we must move to say nuclear weapons are a recipe for disaster and we need a security system that does not rely on them.

You have an idea on how to stop countries from getting complete fuel cycles--the key to a nuclear program?

For every country to have an independent fuel cycle is the wrong way to go. Because any country which has a complete fuel cycle is a latent nuclear-weapons country, in the sense that it is not far from making a nuclear weapon. What I propose is to give countries that need nuclear energy for peaceful purposes both the reactors and the necessary technology, but to have the fuel cycles controlled through international entities to make sure that the spent fuel is removed.

Do you think a terror group actually has a nuclear device?

Remember, after the cold war, there was a period of time when lots of nuclear material was not adequately protected in the former Soviet Union. I hope nothing significant went to a terrorist group.

Has Al Qaeda acquired these weapons?

We know they were interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. In Afghanistan there were documents looking at the possibility of developing or acquiring a nuclear device. It is unlikely, but it is a scenario one cannot exclude.

Didn't you warn the administration about the disappearance of the explosives HMX and RDX in Iraq, and do you know where they are?

No, we don't. They are high explosives that could be used for nuclear detonations--350 tons were missing, the Iraqi government reported to us. I told the U.S. forces in Baghdad.