Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become the first Turkish prime minister to visit Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China.
Before this visit which was obviously made after getting a permission from Beijing, Erdogan reassurred the Chinese leadership that he "was not going there to itch the problem." He was referring to the riots in the province in July 2009, just days after President Abdullah Gül's visit. According to the official Chinese data, 200 people died during that riot. Uyghurs claim hundreds of their Turkic compatriots were killed in cold blood by the Han (ethnic Chinese people).
In fact, when I spoke to Uyghur exiles in Istanbul in 2008, they had warned me of an imminent massacre in Xinjiang, where the Chinese state has been allegedly conducting a long-running policy of repression, which included mass arrests and systematic torture against any Uyghur who publicly practiced Islam or exhibited his/her ethnic culture. There are several reports by international watchdogs that confirm these allegations.
* * *
Erdogan, who chose not to talk about the human rights abuses against his Turkic brothers in China, is keen to "itch" the problem in Syria, where an armed opposition -which is mainly Sunni- is still being massacred by another repressive state.
Morever, Erdogan said that the main priority of his visit to China would be the Syrian issue. Apparently, just like what he has recently done in Tehran, he is trying to cut Damascus' bonds to Beijing, as well.
It seems to me that the reason of this double-standard in Turkey's foreign policy is the fact that humanitarian intervention against Syria is a possibly fruitful venture, while China is not ready to be "democratized" in the Iraqi way yet. So, who cares about Uyghurs now?
It seems to me that the reason of this double-standard in Turkey's foreign policy is the fact that humanitarian intervention against Syria is a possibly fruitful venture, while China is not ready to be "democratized" in the Iraqi way yet. So, who cares about Uyghurs now?
* * *
Although I know that international politics is all about national interests, I hardly understand why such double-standards should be so pronounced in Turkey's foreign policy now. When such mistakes and double-standards collect, it may be alarming for the future of any political movement.
Yes, the Turkish government is still strong enough to make even its foes, at home and abroad, shut up and keep praising. But when it loses only a part of its power, when the illusion of its invincible authority is shattered, its foreign policy record may also be questioned in a more critical way.
Then, some may ask:
OK, China was a world power, but why did you go to Xinjiang if you would remain silent about the inhumane repression against Uyghurs?
OK, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni monarchies were financing the Turkish economy then, but must you completely ignore their human rights abuses which have been at a similar level with Syria from time to time?
OK, you had initially supported the Gaddafi regime in Libya, thinking that it would prevail, but wasn't it shameless to pose as the liberator of Libya after you changed sides?
OK, you made another mistake when you supposed that Bashar al-Assad's fall was imminent, but why did you keep up with your out-of-balance policy on Syria, insisting to militarize the problem?
Alas, how could you argue that you defended "principles" in foreign policy, while it seemed that you were only after money and favors, whether from Middle East dictatorships or Chinese communists?
Posts
