Tweet
Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Aug 14 2009
Pan-Turkic after Pan-Islamic?
by CENGÄ°Z AKTAR
Following the unrest that broke out in the east of Turkestan,
officially known as Xingjiang, in People's Republic of China, Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an's remarks have raised Turkey's
international pretentions to a new level. Official Turkish foreign
policy led by the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, has
evolved along an Islamic line since the end of 2004, despite the
academic rhetoric from the architect of this policy, current Foreign
Minister Ahmet DavudoÄ?lu.
Despite sumptuous expressions such as `a strong Turkey vision; zero
problems with the region/periphery/basin; maximum mutual interests;
global vision', in the background diplomatic activities have been
based on religious brotherhood. For the sake of real politics,
overlooking what is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan and in
Iran after presidential elections; becoming a Hamas supporter
unconditionally while trying to broker peace in the Middle East;
adopting a religious stance in the cartoon crisis in Denmark and
rejecting Rasmussen's candidacy as the new NATO secretary-general on
the pretext of not moral nor political reasons but for religious
justifications... the prime minister's statement on China added a new,
pan-Turkic dimension to the course of this line.
Since 1923 the Republic of Turkey has always avoided foreign policy
based on ethnicity and religious brotherhood. The sole exception is
the patronage or Turks living in Western Trace and in Cyprus, being
shaped in the framework of an arch-old rivalry with the
Hellenistic/Orthodox world and Greece. Despite grave issues in
neighboring Bulgaria, Turkish policy regarding Turks living in this
country has never been similar to that of Turks living in Greece. The
feeling of brotherhood and kinship with Central Asian republics
intensified in the aftermath of the Soviet disintegration but has
never been channeled into policy. The sympathy some have for Chechens,
though they are not Turks, has never gone beyond the activism of
Caucasus associations. The same goes for the Uighurs.
We have heard ethnic motives in the foreground for the first time, as
Turkey supported Azerbaijan against Armenia. It is no exaggeration to
say that ErdoÄ?an's `almost genocide' remark regarding the
Uighur unrest has led to a new platform.
Dangerous and unproductive policies
Adding a pan-ethnic dimension through excessive nationalism to the
already supra-national ummah dimension of religions, will not serve
any good to anyone. To tackle human rights violations committed in
these countries on the basis of democracy not of race and religion,
should be the moral stance of a Turkey that yearns for respect. It
should be being able to talk about Tibet in addition to the Uighur
situation in China. Because otherwise, while you are preoccupied with
pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism others may push their pan-Kurdism,
pan-Arabism, pan-Hellenism and pan-Orthodoxy to the fore. You name
Uighurs as freedom warriors but others see them as terrorists. Others
name Kurds as freedom warriors but you say they are terrorists. At the
end as it is the case today, the arm race just accelerates together
with wars.
Likewise, to have a final say in such matters you need to solve
internal and external problems first; I mean building a firm basis of
democracy. No one will listen to what a Turkey with a serious Kurdish
issue has to say about human rights violations in other countries.
But in the end, all these international claims may simply be
calculated heroism targeting national public opinion. In fact,
regardless of their political choices the majority supports Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an's scolding everyone abroad as the
way he lashes out at others in the country. They feel proud as his
remarks become a remedy for a lack of confidence since the collapse of
the Ottoman Empire. But let's not make any excuses for our
complexes. This is rather a social psychological treatment, not an
active foreign policy. Just like a soccer game, it functions to keep
society as a whole.
But the fiasco side of the issue in foreign politics is self-evident:
it is to have no one with us, ridiculing ourselves and suddenly being
like a spare prick at a wedding although our reaction is right in
essence in events such as the Uighur unrest in China, the cartoon
crisis, Rasmussen's becoming NATO secretary-general and Israeli
attacks in Gaza.
Aug 14 2009
Pan-Turkic after Pan-Islamic?
by CENGÄ°Z AKTAR
Following the unrest that broke out in the east of Turkestan,
officially known as Xingjiang, in People's Republic of China, Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an's remarks have raised Turkey's
international pretentions to a new level. Official Turkish foreign
policy led by the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, has
evolved along an Islamic line since the end of 2004, despite the
academic rhetoric from the architect of this policy, current Foreign
Minister Ahmet DavudoÄ?lu.
Despite sumptuous expressions such as `a strong Turkey vision; zero
problems with the region/periphery/basin; maximum mutual interests;
global vision', in the background diplomatic activities have been
based on religious brotherhood. For the sake of real politics,
overlooking what is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan and in
Iran after presidential elections; becoming a Hamas supporter
unconditionally while trying to broker peace in the Middle East;
adopting a religious stance in the cartoon crisis in Denmark and
rejecting Rasmussen's candidacy as the new NATO secretary-general on
the pretext of not moral nor political reasons but for religious
justifications... the prime minister's statement on China added a new,
pan-Turkic dimension to the course of this line.
Since 1923 the Republic of Turkey has always avoided foreign policy
based on ethnicity and religious brotherhood. The sole exception is
the patronage or Turks living in Western Trace and in Cyprus, being
shaped in the framework of an arch-old rivalry with the
Hellenistic/Orthodox world and Greece. Despite grave issues in
neighboring Bulgaria, Turkish policy regarding Turks living in this
country has never been similar to that of Turks living in Greece. The
feeling of brotherhood and kinship with Central Asian republics
intensified in the aftermath of the Soviet disintegration but has
never been channeled into policy. The sympathy some have for Chechens,
though they are not Turks, has never gone beyond the activism of
Caucasus associations. The same goes for the Uighurs.
We have heard ethnic motives in the foreground for the first time, as
Turkey supported Azerbaijan against Armenia. It is no exaggeration to
say that ErdoÄ?an's `almost genocide' remark regarding the
Uighur unrest has led to a new platform.
Dangerous and unproductive policies
Adding a pan-ethnic dimension through excessive nationalism to the
already supra-national ummah dimension of religions, will not serve
any good to anyone. To tackle human rights violations committed in
these countries on the basis of democracy not of race and religion,
should be the moral stance of a Turkey that yearns for respect. It
should be being able to talk about Tibet in addition to the Uighur
situation in China. Because otherwise, while you are preoccupied with
pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism others may push their pan-Kurdism,
pan-Arabism, pan-Hellenism and pan-Orthodoxy to the fore. You name
Uighurs as freedom warriors but others see them as terrorists. Others
name Kurds as freedom warriors but you say they are terrorists. At the
end as it is the case today, the arm race just accelerates together
with wars.
Likewise, to have a final say in such matters you need to solve
internal and external problems first; I mean building a firm basis of
democracy. No one will listen to what a Turkey with a serious Kurdish
issue has to say about human rights violations in other countries.
But in the end, all these international claims may simply be
calculated heroism targeting national public opinion. In fact,
regardless of their political choices the majority supports Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an's scolding everyone abroad as the
way he lashes out at others in the country. They feel proud as his
remarks become a remedy for a lack of confidence since the collapse of
the Ottoman Empire. But let's not make any excuses for our
complexes. This is rather a social psychological treatment, not an
active foreign policy. Just like a soccer game, it functions to keep
society as a whole.
But the fiasco side of the issue in foreign politics is self-evident:
it is to have no one with us, ridiculing ourselves and suddenly being
like a spare prick at a wedding although our reaction is right in
essence in events such as the Uighur unrest in China, the cartoon
crisis, Rasmussen's becoming NATO secretary-general and Israeli
attacks in Gaza.