Rethinking Ankara’s response to the Uighur massacre
by
MEHMET KALYONCU*


Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's historic stand off against Israeli President Shimon Peres was apparently a genuine expression of the world's collective frustration with Israeli practices against the Palestinians.


Mr. Erdoğan's reaction mesmerized Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia and was even admired by some Westerners. As such, his growing popularity gave him a unique opportunity to create awareness among the world's leaders about inhumane practices perpetrated by certain states. The unfortunate incidents that recently took place in Urumqi, the capital of China's Xinjiang autonomous region, presented yet another sad example of such practices, thereby stressing the gravity of the problem.

However, not only did Mr. Erdoğan's uncalculated sentimental rhetoric risk his role as an objective supporter of the oppressed, including his ability to help the Uighurs, but Ankara's presumptuous attitude, demanding an explanation from the Chinese government regarding what happened in Urumqi, is likely to have cost Turkey a historic opportunity to assume a mediating role between the Chinese government and one of its major minorities as well. Turkey's prospects for such a role will further lessen if the so-called Mother Uighur, Rebiya Kadeer, who is considered by the Chinese government as a main instigator of the protests in Urumqi, visits Turkey. It is not difficult to imagine how the ultranationalists in the country would manipulate her visit to organize a series of public protests denouncing the Chinese government.

Nevertheless, according to recent news reports, during his lengthy telephone conversation with his Chinese counterpart, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu expressed that Turkey respects China's territorial integrity and does not have any intention of meddling in its internal affairs, but from a human rights perspective is concerned with the deteriorating situation of the Uighurs. Should it manage to view the Uighur-Chinese conflict merely from a human rights perspective, not a nationalistic one, and act accordingly, Ankara may still seize the opportunity to mediate between the Chinese government and its Uighur minority. As such, Turkey would not only fortify its image as an international peacemaker, but also possibly become a sought-after mediator for the resolution of the other major conflicts. However, in order to become an able mediator, Ankara must refrain from sentimentally loaded rhetoric on the Uighur issue. In addition, the Turkish public should help their government do so by avoiding hateful protests against the Chinese government.

The Urumqi massacre:

Internal Chinese matter

Ankara's initial position vis-à-vis the outbreak of violent clashes between the Uighurs and the Han Chinese, and the Chinese security forces' brutal suppression of the Uighur protests, could best be described as confusion followed by hesitation and a misguided reaction. There was confusion because the clashes between the Uighurs and the Han Chinese took place less than a week after Turkish President Abdullah Gül's visit to China's Xinjiang region, which is also known as East Turkestan. Could some, both inside and outside Turkey, connect the outbreak of violence with the Turkish president's visit to the region? Though there has not been any implicit or explicit reference to his visit in relation to the conflict in the major Western media, the Doğan Media Group's Hürriyet daily ran news reports in Turkey with headlines such as “After President Gül's visit, violence has broken out in the Xinjiang region.” President Gül was wisely quick to stress that Turkey has always viewed the Uighurs as a means to improve friendship between China and Turkey.

Prime Minister Erdoğan was in a relatively different and rather awkward position regarding the ongoing violence among the Uighurs, the Han Chinese and the Chinese security forces. He initially deplored the violence against the Uighurs and then described it as genocide-like. Though the target of that accusation was somewhat vague, the Chinese Foreign Ministry's rapid response, when it described the conflict as an internal matter, suggested that the Chinese government took note of the prime minister's accusations. Moreover, apparently giving in to the populist demands and provocation that he should say “one minute!” to the Chinese government as he did to the Israeli president in Davos, Prime Minister Erdoğan has not softened his rhetoric against the Chinese government. Consequently, he stated that Turkey would bring the issue to the UN Security Council, where China is a permanent member. He also announced that so-called Mother Uighur Kadeer, a millionaire businesswoman and American citizen living in Fairfax County, Virginia, would be granted a visa to visit Turkey. Kadeer and Uighurs in general welcomed the prime minister's harsh criticism of the Chinese government and especially his description of the violence as “genocide-like.”

Unless necessary measures are taken by Ankara, Turkish-Chinese relations are likely to be strained in the coming weeks. The Chinese government holds Kadeer primarily responsible for instigating the Uighurs in Xinjiang to rebel against the Chinese authorities. In this context, coupled with the prime minister's hitherto criticism of the Chinese government, Kadeer's announced visit to Turkey will most likely cause further tension in Turkish-Chinese relations. There is no need to mention that right-wing parties such as the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Felicity Party (SP) would take extreme advantage of Kadeer's presence in the country to bring themselves into the spotlight with various public activities.

Whether or not Kadeer is responsible for instigating the protests as the Chinese government argues, and regardless of whether what happened was really “genocide-like,” as the prime minister argued, the prime minister was wrong to say that for diplomatic reasons. Ankara should be prepared for tough direct and indirect measures by the Chinese government, which may not necessarily materialize immediately. One of these measures could be China's opposition to every proposal brought to the UN Security Council by Turkey. Another one, and a much more painful one, could be the Chinese-American diaspora's alliance with and financial support for Turkey's traditional sources of headaches in Washington. Is it difficult to grasp that there are countless organizations in Washington and in the other capitals which would readily exploit the prime minister's description of the recent Uighur massacres as “genocide-like” and Beijing's frustration with such a remark?

Obviously concerned with the possible ramifications of Ankara's critical stance, Foreign Minister Davutoğlu sought to soften Turkey's position and compensate for any damage already done. During his telephone conversation with his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, Davutoğlu stressed that Turkey does not have any intention of meddling in China's internal affairs and respects China's territorial integrity while hoping that those responsible for the violence will be brought to justice immediately.

Mediation between the Uighurs and the Chinese government

The Turkish foreign minister's apparently impartial and yet non-neutral approach to the conflict was a move in the right direction. Ankara should maintain its impartiality between the Uighurs and the Chinese government by constantly stressing its belief in the conflict being an internal Chinese matter yet manifest its non-neutrality regarding the conflict by advocating the betterment of the socioeconomic and political conditions of the Uighurs in the China's Xinjiang autonomous region. Maintaining a neutral distance from all parties to the conflict, Ankara can position itself as an able and desirable mediator between the Chinese government and its Uighur minority. For the former, Turkey's mediation would be preferable, for it would give the Chinese government an opportunity to settle one of its potentially explosive internal problems via the cooperation of a rather insignificant partner (compared to the US or the EU) that is unlikely to use the mediation process as leverage against China. For the latter, Turkey's mediation is preferable because the Uighurs have confidence in Turks' genuine sympathy for their long suffering.

As a potential mediator, Ankara should impartially analyze the conflict and point out that the satisfaction of the mutual interests of the Uighurs and the Chinese government does not necessitate independence for the Uighurs. It rather necessitates the cessation of discrimination against the Uighurs in access to the labor market and of the coordinated influx of the Han Chinese into the region to change its demographics. Moreover, it necessitates the Chinese government's revocation of legislation which restricts the Uighurs' practice of religious and cultural traditions. Finally, it necessitates that the Chinese government give an appropriate share of its economic development to the Xinjiang region by bringing in major industries and thereby providing the Uighurs with employment opportunities. In response to the gestures from the Chinese government, and utilizing the resources of the Uighur diaspora, Turkey should urge the Uighurs in the Xinjiang region to further integrate into Chinese society and benefit from the expanding socioeconomic and political opportunities, not only in their autonomous region, but more importantly in Beijing.

Following such a constructive course, both the Uighurs and the Chinese government would be better off. Certainly, Turkey would benefit tremendously from it, not only by bolstering its image as an international peacemaker, but also by avoiding the backlash that the otherwise sentimentally driven and critical stance against the Chinese government may cause.

From: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-180947-109-rethinking-ankaras-response-to-the-uighur-massacre-by-mehmet-kalyoncu.html