Back To Turkistan (Part - 2c)
It is in direct economic and security interests of the United States to support a Unified Turkic state as it supported Europe's stance during the Cold War. A large secular state with a Muslim majority in Central Asia backed by the United States would be a model for the rest of the Islamic world in combating international terrorism and pursuing democratic reform. Such an alliance also would deter Iran and Russia from imposing their influence in the region. But most importantly the US, as a regional sponsor, can play on the issue of the Uyghurs – China's Achilles' heel. China will have to agree to be manipulated by the US if it does not want its Uyghur population to accelerate its separatist movement with covert US help. Considering US' excellent relations with all the Central Asian countries, as well as Turkey and Azerbaijan, it would not meet any resistance in being a sponsor. By assisting new Turkistan in its development, the Americans could also demonstrate that Islam and democracy can coexist, implicitly pointing the Middle Eastern states to the need to follow the same model.
Russia also can use Turkistan to its advantage if approached properly. If Russia succeeds in establishing equal partnership relationships and pursues a consistent, predictable and transparent foreign policy, it can gain substantial commercial dividends from the whole region. It will also be easier to influence one single country than maneuvering between the five, where Turkmenistan is neutral and Uzbekistan is pro-American. Russia also can deter the United States and China with the help of unified Turkistan.
There are several internal factors: different level of economic development in the region; aspirations of the leaders of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan for regional hegemony; the unwillingness of authorities in each of the republics to compromise their independence in favor of a single Center and material comforts; new national ideologies in the republics not considering the interests of the regional cooperation and closeness of the peoples; newly written histories conflicting with each other; putting the achievements of one nation over those of the others; and the orientation of each Central Asia republic for competing powers. Histories primarily focus on the titular nation rather than the common Turkic values.
Recommendations for Integration
While the political unification of Central Asia into a single state seems unrealistic and utopian, it is however essential to revive old spiritual and cultural ties keeping the nations from distancing from each other without altering their territorial boundaries and political systems. This can be done on three levels: state, non-state, and international.
1) On a state level Islam and education can play a major role. It is imperative to restore the authority of SADUM [Central Asian Spiritual Board of Muslims] in a modified form to use it as a single religious authority for the Muslims of Central Asia. Muftis can take turns representing each country of the region every two or three years or form a board of muftis. This should not worry the governments who should understand that by recognizing the legitimacy of a single regional Islamic institution, in addition to bringing the region's Muslims together, they can also easily outlaw other Islamic groups perceived by these governments as a threat and a catalyst undermining their authority. In this connection the authority of the ancient city of Bukhara as a regional Islamic center and SADUM's headquarters and the operation of the famous madrasah of Mir-Arab in Bukhara that used to serve as the supreme Islamic school in the post-Soviet Union should be restored. A compromise can easily be reached in terms of the status of Bukhara versus Tashkent, each claiming to be the center of Central Asia. The new status of Bukhara and the madrasah of Mir-Arab would also play an international role for Muslims worldwide.
Bearing in mind the lack of communication in the region, which is the one of the causes of misunderstandings and misperceptions a University of Turkistan should be founded in Almaty or Samarkand (again as a compromise) to allow students from the region to pursue their Bachelor's and Master's degrees in various fields. The university would give its students a better idea of regional problems and would work on projects aimed at resolving those problems jointly.
On a state level the governments should also coordinate their policy by rewriting and systemizing their histories so that they do not contradict common Turkic values. While each nation of the region learns their history, regional scholars should also develop the history of the Turks of Eurasia to be taught at secondary schools and universities. The establishment of a regional Academy of Science would contribute to that. It is also imperative that regional nations share their famous pre-Soviet period ancestors – scholars, statesmen, religious scholars, poets and writers – as Turks and not as Uzbeks, Tajiks, or Kazakhs.
The regional leaders should establish a Central Asian preventive diplomacy and conflict management center as proposed by the Kazakh Foreign Minister at the UN General Assembly's 58th session to use preventive diplomacy as a tool to secure peace in the region. In order to increase the flow of information throughout the region and to inform its population of each other, the leaders should also encourage the creation of a Central Asian or Turkistani regional television channel and newspapers.
Turkmenistan must also abandon its neutrality with time and take a larger role in regional developments. After all, neutrality does not imply inactivity (passivity) and it should not be used as an excuse for the Turkmen leadership's accountability for the region's current and future problems. Neutrality should not lead to self-isolation and should not be used as a shield from the world community, which would permit the country's leader to suppress its isolated nation.
2) On a non-state level, priority should be given to the work of regional NGOs in all possible fields. The major problem in the region now is the lack of communication, so NGOs can build those bridges linking nations with one another, increasing awareness and understanding, and encouraging the nations in the region to jointly carry out certain projects. Popular music and film festivals and other cultural projects should be revived with the help of NGOs.
3) On an international level, states should support such an endeavor in the Central Asian region by increasing their foreign assistance funds, financially supporting regional NGOs, and rendering technical assistance and know-how. It should especially be the priority for the US, Turkish, and British foreign policies in the region.
Conclusion
One would think that all the myriad of problems in Turkistan should bring the states closer to each other. However, the past 12 years have shown that none of the major problems has served as a consolidating factor. Disagreements over the rational use of water and the maintenance of vital hydro structures, continued border conflicts, and reciprocal accusations on different levels have only contributed to a further deterioration of relations. Different conflicting national ideologies in the countries are further separating the nations from each other. At this point there is a need for a single unifying historic identity, the Turkic identity. The empty geographic term «Central Asia» invented by the Soviets should be used less and should be substituted by the historic term «Turkistan» to give its people the sense of belonging to the great Turkic legacy. It is the task of scholars, journalists, and students of international affairs to frequently use these terms – «Turkistan» and «Turkic people» – to cultivate (foster) the practice so that with time people would become accustomed to it and when asked where they are from, they would not reply “Central Asia”, but rather “Turkistan”, which contains more meaning, a longer and richer history, and a sense of unity.
However the language is still another very important issue which also plays the role of a consolidating factor. What language should be used for communication in the region? Although the languages in Turkistan, except for Tajik, have much in common, they are still not fully mutually intelligible. There also is no common script: Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan use Latin. The rest use Cyrillic. Uzbekistan now is in the process of switching to Latin. So the choice is between the three: Turkish, Russian, or English. If it is Turkish, a language unknown to many in the region, it will again be considered by some in Turkistan as an attempt to impose the Turkish leadership and influence. If it is Russian, known to many in the region except for Turkey, then it will represent a very awkward picture: the Russian language as a consolidating factor for Turkic people. So since there is no single Turkic language, English may be a compromise language. However this task can be delegated to the Academy of Sciences of Turkistan which would bring prominent Turkic linguists and writers together in order to create a Turkic alphabet that would be understandable to all.
Note: Odil Ruzaliev is a graduate student at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, MA, USA
http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=7159
Back To Turkistan (Part - 2b)
For Russia a large Muslim country like Turkistan may provoke similar irredentist movements among the Muslims of Russia. Besides, Russia may lose its influence in the region as well as big economic projects. Today it is easier for Russia to negotiate with each Central Asian leader separately taking into account the interests of each individually and bilaterally without coordinating with the neighbors in the region. On the contrary, it is more difficult to deal with a larger country that may have bigger interests. Russia also fears that a single Central Asian country may fall under the influence of such counties like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran as it was in the first years of these countries' independence. Even though the Central Asian states are secular today, the regime may change in favor of Islamists in the future.
A single Turkic state in the region that carries pan-Turkist ideas may pose a threat to Iran, as the latter is concerned about the possibility of disintegration of its own Turkic population in Southern Azerbaijan.
China would oppose the creation of a Turkic state in Central Asia fearing similar movements like in Iran: Uyghurs would very much want to be part of the new Turkic state. It would be harder for China to influence on the region dealing with one country as opposed to five. So it will continue to resist, now, within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The fight against international terrorism dominates the SCO agenda and China is already taking advantage of its membership in the organization to silence the Uyghurs, unfortunately, through connivance of Central Asian Turks, members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Turkey is a natural supporter of this idea, both for natural reasons and in light of its unfulfilled dreams of becoming a legitimate part of Europe. Economic interests as well as future involvement of both Azerbaijans in this process would weaken the position of the Turkey’s geopolitical rival – Iran.
Back To Turkistan (Part - 2a)
By Odil Ruzaliev, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
PART 2(see PART 1 Turkistan)
Chances of Turkic Unification
Some people in the region still hope that the unification of the Turks of Central Asia into a single state is possible. But the majority knows how utopian this idea is due to the factors to be explained below.
Looking at the processes in the European Union, one would think that a similar union of Turkistan's 58 million people would bring the same benefits that the Old Continent is expecting from the United States of Europe.
At the first glance, such an entity may seem reminiscent of the Soviet Union: one single great state consisting of several republics without borders and with a single currency and constitution. However, unlike the EU, the Soviet republics were created artificially and not on a voluntary basis; the financing came from the center at the expense of its subjects; the freedom of political activity was absent.
In Europe the process is completely different: fifteen developed states demonstrated their willingness to unite. Ten more countries, – some of them less developed but with good potential for economic growth – will make up the United States of Europe. Unlike the Soviet Union, all of these 25 states are democratic and economically independent. Even if one of the 25 states withdraws from the Union, the system will not suffer.
In comparing the EU to the Soviet Union, one should note that the unification of Europe is an evolutionary process, without pressure and forcing. During the Cold War the presence of NATO was a major factor to united Western Europe against the Soviet threat. Yet, considering the contrary example of the Warsaw Pact, an external threat alone is often an insufficient factor for unity. Economic prosperity and a common ideology are also needed. The economic power of one state [USSR] along with this state's imposed ideology held the system together in the case of the Eastern Bloc. The realities of life also dictate the unification process in Europe that is the preservation and recovery of European values and a uniform position in foreign politics to avoid internal fracture.
While Europe is uniting based on economic achievements and universal political ideals, some propose that, (however paradoxical it may sound) in Central Asia, the regional problems (water, border, Aral Sea) may compel the states to purse further dialogue serving as integrating factors.
However it is unlikely that anytime soon these problems can play such a role. Following the September 11 attacks and as a result of the fight against terrorism and drugs-trafficking, as well as some other internal processes, one may observe border closures, visa regimes, irrational use of limited resources, and the dislocation of military units along the borders. Mass media in each of the Central Asian states also worsens the situation by creating a negative image of the Turkic neighbors.
The absence of democracy and trust between states, a high level of corruption, clan resistance, and alleged ethnic superiority of titular nations of the region have also become a barrier for political and economic intimacy, not to mention unification. It is difficult to imagine a strong fraternal alliance when the average per capita rate of GDP is 3,500-4,000 US dollars a year – even lower than the world's average per capita index ($7,500). EU-member states' indexes are much higher such as Luxembourg ($43,000), Germany ($26,000), Hungary ($13,300) or Latvia ($8,300).
The EU model of unification demonstrates that a country should first of all be able to sustain itself economically, provide basic principles of freedom, create not only a consistent legislature, but also its enforcement mechanisms and only then to consolidate with like countries. Without such preconditions, any unions or blocs are only a search for a free cheese.
From my point of view, currently there are two factors hindering the unification process: external and internal. One of the external factors constitutes a group of states that benefit and do not benefit from a Turkic Union in the region.
Turkistan (Part - 1)
By Odil Ruzaliev, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
TURKISTAN: CONSOLIDATING FACTORS FOR ITS PEOPLE
INTRODUCTION
In this paper I would like to discuss some of the main barriers, disagreements and conflicts among the Turkistani countries hindering integration processes in the region. I will offer some reconciliatory mechanisms that could improve the regional cooperation and promote the economic and perhaps even political integration in the region. I will mention consolidating factors of the past and their irrelevance today, speculate about the possibility of the region's unification into a single Turkistani state conglomerate differentiating the approaches taken by the Soviet Union and the European Union in this regard. At the end I will give recommendations on state, non-state and international levels that could potentially contribute to the integration processes in Central Turkistan.
The purpose of this paper is to revive (remind) most of the commonalities among the Turkistani people, their identity and the need for more unity and integration through a call to widely use the forgotten terms of «Turkistan» to name the current region and «Turkic people» to name its Muslim inhabitants. Although the region is now called Central Asia, the paper suggests that it may keep this geographic name only for the outside world, but should be referred to as «Turkistan» for its peoples to help them create a single, Turkic identity, which eventually should eliminate tensions between the countries and peoples of the region. One may argue that this move is reminiscent of the Soviet identity that was imposed during the USSR contributing to the political, social, and cultural repression of certain ethnic groups, which altered the life-style, history, and cultures of these groups. However, it should be noted that unlike the peoples of Turkistan, a few countries of the Soviet Union had such a common ethnic identity, religion, and language. The Soviet identity, thus, was artificial and imposed. The Soviet identity was used more for the outside world and not within the Soviet Union, where groups still retained their names. For Ukrainians or Moldovans, Uzbeks were Uzbeks and Kazakhs were Kazakhs, and not Soviets. For Americans and others, they were simply Soviets or worse – Russians. The notion of Turks of Central Asia or Turkistanians should be used for the peoples of the region themselves to promote unity and closeness while retaining their main ethnic identities.
However this paper should not be viewed as promoting the revival of Pan-Turkism. This work does not attempt to reanimate or to promote such an expansionist idea that today can only be achieved at the expense of others. One should clearly understand that the time of empires is gone and the only remaining superpower today is struggling very much to preserve its imperial status in the world.
The paper does not aim to make recommendations to pursue this issue at official government levels either. Such a move would be considered a threat by some regional nations like Russia, China, and Iran and could provoke them to take covert actions to undermine the situation in the region or may lead to the deterioration of economic and other relations between these nations and the states of Central Turkistan.
BRIEF HISTORIC PREVIEW
With the Soviets in power in Central Asia in early 1920s, the Jadidist movement sought to define the identity of the peoples of Central Asia and the region's position in the new empire. After defeating all three feudal administrative establishments of the Bukhara, Kokand, and Khiva, the Bolsheviks brought the Central Asians under a single administrative entity – Turkistan – in an attempt to facilitate and centralize control. This was a chance for the Jadidist movement to defend the rights of the region's Muslims under a single authority within the Soviet Union through education, enlightenment, and a larger political representation within the Soviet Union. The fear of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Islamism forced the Soviet regime to apply the Czarist Russia's policy of divide and rule.
This division of the nations of Turkistan into five republics proved problematic: borders were not drawn according to ethnic and geographic lines, and new Soviet symbols such as flags, anthems, new geographic names, and separate history books put the rift between the people with a common history, language, and religion. The gradual inhabitation of Russians in those republics added to those differences: the Russians of Central Asia appointed by Moscow to higher posts played the Muslims of the region against each other. Stalin's repressions in late 1930s beheaded the Jadidist movement and put an end to the unificationist aspirations in the region once and for all.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there appeared an opportune moment to restore the common identity and statehood of the Turkistan nations under Islam’s political leadership. By that time already, the Soviet reign had damaged the historic and cultural links between these peoples. Islam and people’s wavering religious commitment due to a long period of the atheist doctrine could not play fully its role. Inspired by the Turkey’s endeavors to lead the union of the newly-formed Turkic states, some of them promptly introduced the Turkish model of economic development and converted their Cyrillic alphabets into Latin script. However it did not take them too long to realize the extent of the problems inherited from the Soviet times: their [problems] utter incompatibility with any remedy Turkey could offer and inability to dispatch them through any known conventional means of Soviet policy-making.
There are two primary sources to such a stalemate: firstly, the current leaders of Central Asia are the acolytes of the Soviet system, and after twelve years of their countries’ independence, they still approach the puzzles of state governance with skills and means inherited from the Soviets. Inadvertent founding fathers, as they are, the leaders of modern nations of Turkistan did not have to lead the fight for their independence. Independence was upon them leaving them with no choice but to accept it, becoming the victims of the Slavic conspiracy. They were neither democrats, nor dictators, nor nationalist heroes, even though they may have been opportunists. They had never made independent decisions in Soviet times and well aware of the highly- vulnerable nature of their nations' premature births, and fully recognized the risk of their own ouster.
Secondly, since their independence these leaders have been too preoccupied with orientation of their states’ foreign policy looking for a powerful ally among the larger states. They remained completely oblivious to the idea that together, in unity, they could make up a power stronger than an alliance with any other state. They sought a rich country that could solve their problems instead of looking towards each other and working together to solve those problems. They looked for a stronger power fearing the reanimation of Russia's imperial ambitions or other power's influence with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have become engaged in a regional competition riddled with political ambition and individual agenda of the leaders: a competition focusing more on politics than economics virtually harming more than benefiting both states. Finally, territorial disputes represent another factor making the division and subsequent unification especially difficult Central Turkistan's leaders were also aware that, although each republic was named for a local nationality, none was a "national homeland." The Kirghiz, Uzbeks and Tajiks all have border claims for parts of neighboring territories backed by large irredentist populations on which to base them. Stalin's map-making skills were sufficient to ensure that no Soviet republic would have an easy transition to nation-statehood.
Today’s Turkistani nations’ frontiers are protected by land mines, shackled with border closures, new check-points and border posts, rended by minor border skirmishes involving casualties, and, most importantly, governed through trade restrictions and inability or reluctance to carry out mutually signed treaties. The Central Turkistanian states have repeatedly tried to solve their problems and agree on differences in foreign policy through constant transformation of organizations like the Central Asian Inter-State Council, the Central Asian Union, the Central Asian Economic Community, and the Organization of the Central Asian Cooperation as well as summits of the CIS, the Economic Cooperation Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the summit of the Turkic-speaking state-leaders. However none of these organizations met the expectations of these summits and participation in these organizations. The documents and treaties signed grow parched covered by dust in the archives.
Bilateral Problems
Each country in Central Turkistan experiences problems in dealing with at least one of its regional neighbors. Uzbekistan especially has problems with every country of the region. Turkmenistan's president blamed Uzbekistan for harboring the alleged master-minds of the plot against Saparmurat Niyazov and both countries view each other as strong rivals in a gas pipeline project extending via Afghanistan to Pakistan. The number of border posts on both sides has increased and military exercises and maneuvers in border areas have become more frequent.
The water and gas issue is the prevailing problem in Uzbek-Kyrgyz relations. Over the past few years, Kyrgyzstan, as an upper stream country, repeatedly has released more water from its Toktogul reservoir than was agreed to generate electricity, flooding Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in the winter and risking a shortage of water for irrigation in the summer. Uzbekistan has cut off electricity and gas supplies to its upstream neighbors several times.
When the government of Uzbekistan raised import dues on shuttle-traders, Uzbekistan's major markets lost their customers. The flow of goods into the country stopped and the population could not afford to buy things at expensive supermarkets further enriching some government officials who own or control businesses – one of the reasons why the government had made such a move at the first place. As a result, people flooded the Uzbek-Kazakh border trying to buy goods in the neighboring republic which caused a multi-million dollar ebb into Kazakhstan. In response the Uzbek officials sealed the Uzbek-Kazakh border «to stop poor-quality imports from China». Many small-scale importers and exporters have gone underground and others have been squeezed out of business. In markets around the country prices have risen and fewer goods and less choice are causing growing discontent.
The same situation was observed at the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border. In Kara Su, a Kyrgyz market town on the border with Uzbekistan, the small bridge that used to connect both countries stops in mid-air half-way across. Last January, Uzbekistan's authorities decided to close the border and simply dismantled their side of the bridge. The idea was to stem the spread of imaginary diseases from Kyrgyzstan while keeping subsidized petrol and fertilizers inside Uzbekistan. Another reason was to keep out cheap Chinese imports, from flip-flops to cooking pots, the sorts of things that are freely available in the Kara Su bazaar. The problem did not vanish with the destruction of the bridge. People turned out to be more creative than the government: they began crossing the river on boats. The creativity appeared to be tragic for some of them. So far around 100 people have drowned in an attempt to cross the river in self-made boats and bridges. They could have, of course, gotten to Kara Su legally, through the border posts. But that would result in an extra few miles and in the loss of some nerves or money to be used to bribe the border guards.
Uzbek-Tajik ethnic issues stem from large numbers of Uzbek and Tajik ethnic groups in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan respectively and Uzbek President Islam Karimov's opposition to Emomali Rakhmonov's rule and the support for his rivals like Colonel Mahmud Khudoyberdiev, who allegedly found sanctuary in Uzbekistan.
The economic costs affect not only the border areas, but also the whole region's economy and development. Trade barriers and border closures have been particularly onerous for Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, whose exports have to travel through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to reach Russia and Europe. Corruption and extortion at border posts and along the roads only aggravate the problem.
Integration problems
What made integration unattainable during all these years? Why couldn't peoples with a common history, language, and culture find common ground to fulfill their ancestors' dream of a single state or at least a unified region?
To answer these questions, I would like to point the reader’s attention to the following reasons:
1) Once independence became a reality for these countries, the leaders of Central Turkistan became preoccupied with solving the immediate economic problems in their countries. The denial to the ruble zone by Russia propelled the states of Central Turkistan to introduce their own currencies. The breakdown of raw supplies forced them to restore the fractured economic infrastructure in their countries by building necessary industries. This in turn compelled them to look towards more developed countries for investments and assistance. The communication went outbound rather than inbound regionally. Russia cut the ties linking it to Central Asia that it had once set.
2) Regional economic trade declined and regional business projects were absent due to deteriorating infrastructure and vanishing bridging ties between the newly-formed republics. The peoples of the region were more exposed to the culture of foreign businesses operating in Central Asia and knew more about those countries who became new allies than their own neighbors. Kazakhstan remained more pro-Russian, Kyrgyzstan looked towards the West, Uzbekistan constantly changed model-powers among Turkey, South Korea, China, Russia and the United States; Turkmenistan insisted on neutrality. However, none of the Turkistan states was pro-each other. They existed in the same neighborhood, but did not notice or constructively acknowledge each other. The only institution that more or less united and coordinated the life-styles of the Muslims of Central Asia, the Central Asian Spiritual Board of Muslims (SADUM), dissolved itself following the creations of separate boards of Muslims in each republic headed by a separate Mufti. Thus, even the religious ties in the region were falling apart.
3) Once foreign investments bore some fruit and Central Turkistan had some economic growth, the mistaken opinion prevailed that the regional states could do without partnership with their neighbors. Having most of the essential resources at their disposal: Uzbekistan with cotton and gold; Tajikistan with aluminum, Kazakhstan with oil and Turkmenistan with gas, these countries naively relied on their own capacity to prospect the resources in their sole possession and without Russian interference or counsel anymore. The delusion was also partly due to regional competition or rather the ambition of some of its leaders who wanted to be a model of success for their neighbors as soon as possible. Claims of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan for regional leadership moved the countries of the region, which had just got rid of one such leader in the face of Russia, away from each other and created mistrust among them. This was also one of the main reasons why the Turkic-speaking states of Central Asia resented Turkey's role of an older brother. The principles of equality that these countries had been demanding from Russia in its relations with the Central Asian states were violated by both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
4) The rise of militant Islam in the region further deteriorated the inter-regional relations, especially between Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan with the latter often criticizing the former two for their weakness in dealing with radical Islamic insurgents leading to mining by Uzbekistan of its borders in mountainous areas, which caused human casualties. The border with Tajikistan connecting Tashkent to the Ferghana Valley via Khojent had been closed for a long time since the civil war broke out in Tajikistan. Mutual introductions of visa regimes in the region between some of the states contributed to further alienation. The Uzbek government's erroneous policy of levying a heavy taxation from domestic shuttle traders made the population travel to neighboring Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan for cheaper and deficit goods leaving millions of dollars a day outside the country. This led to more border closures.
However, for the sake of fair judgment, it is important to acknowledge that the regional leaders also made some attempts for closer cooperation and integration, especially at earlier stages. The role of Turkey and regional organizations in this process has already been mentioned. The reason was simple: the leaders did not have enough political experience to run a country independently, nor the necessary expertise in foreign politics. The former Soviet territory and Central Asia were the areas Central Asian leaders knew better. Besides knowing each other personally, they still had strong economic, territorial, and cultural links to each other.
The collapse of the USSR has opened Central Turkistan to the influence of the outside world with subsequent prospects for mutual benefits. The newly-formed states have at first found themselves at a loss trying to pick the right ally. It was during this time, that they created some regional organizations and were very active in attending summits of Turkic-speaking state leaders led by Turkey. At that time Turkey seemed to be a beacon, whose light began to dim very soon by mid-1990s. Turkey's relations with Uzbekistan, the key Turkic state in the region, deteriorated when the secular regime in Turkey could not influence the country's strong religious groups led by Necmittin Erbakan, who was Turkey's prime minister between 1996 and 1997, to break off with anti-Karimov groups based in Turkey allegedly responsible for terrorist attacks in Tashkent in February 1996. The Uzbek government closed all Turkish schools and madrasas (religious schools) in Uzbekistan and ordered all Uzbek students studying at Turkish universities to return home, ostensibly to protect them from Turkish Muslim extremist influences . It became harder and harder for Turkish citizens to get an Uzbek visa. This led to the introduction of a reciprocal visa regime by Turkey, which started in June, 2003. Uzbekistan became the only Central Asian state to receive such treatment.
Overall Turkey lacked sufficient resources and the political will, even though it claimed leadership in this integrationist process. After decades of waiting for an invitation to the EU in the hope of improving its economic situation, Turkey was not in a position to offer sufficient economic incentives. Turkey also did not consider the national sentiment of Central Asian states who, unlike the East Turkistanis resisting their Chinese oppressors, did not wage a constant underground struggle for independence from the Soviets in the hopes of achieving liberation and unity with their brothers from Turkey. On the contrary, Turkistan was integrated into the single Soviet system. The same can be said about the 20 million Turks of Russia – Tartars, Bashkirs, Chechens, Dagestanis, and others.
The difference between the Soviet Turks and the Turks from China is that the post-World War II Soviet party leadership did not have an explicit discriminatory domestic policy specifically targeting any of the fifteen titular nations. China, unlike the Soviet Union, does not pursue the policy of «friendship among peoples».
Bearing in mind that language is one of the most important aspects of integration, Turkey did not have enough resources to invest in the educational system of the Turkic states. In fact, the literacy rate in the Central Asian states was much higher than that of Turkey. During the first "Turkic summit", held in November 1992 in Ankara, Turkey employed Russians to interpret between the Central Asian and Azeri participants, who spoke Russian to each other unlike the representatives of Turkey. Turkey had also the disadvantage of being territorially separate from the region, creating a transportation problem.
Turkey also could not openly challenge Russia's geo-strategic interests in the region. Doing so might have jeopardized economic relations with Russia, which is one of Turkey’s top-five export-import partners. Turkey’s vulnerability to Russia became evident during the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh in 1991-1994, during which Turkey avoided explicit involvement by not providing military support to the Azerbaijanis.
And finally, Turkey's new role of «big brother» to the Central Asian Turks, who had just got rid of another big brother, was met with resistance. Apparently, Turkey had learned little from the history of the Soviet Union. So, overtime the popular slogan «Turkistan – Our Common Home», which referred to Turkey, fell into disuse in Uzbekistan. The Latinisation of the Uzbek alphabet, which had been initiated by the late Turkish president Turgut Ozal, came to a halt.
One thing is crucial for Turkey to understand today: the Turks of Central Asia share many commonalities with Russians and some other non-Turkic nationalities of the former Soviet Union due to historic events. However, the situation is changing with the diminishing status of the Russian language in the educational systems of the region's states due to the growing popularity of the English language.
PART 2Back to Turkistan
Note: Odil Ruzaliev is a graduate student at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford, MA, USA
TURAN ( TÜRK GLOBALİZMİ )
Alperen
Dünya egemen güçleri tarafından bütün insanlara sıkı sıkıya belletilmeye çalışılan bir kavram var; Globalizim, Yani Globalleşme veya Türkçe söyleyişle Küreselleşme. Daha açık bir ifadeyle dünyanın bir köy haline gelişi.
Bunun siyasal,sosyal ve ekonomik bir sürü boyutu vardır. Sovyetler Birliği'nin dağılmasından sonra, Dünyanın tek kutuplu hale gelişi Amerika'yı globalleşen yani bütün dünyanın bir köy haline gelişinin muhtarı yapmıştır. Tabiiki buna bağlı olarak uluslar arası sermayenin egemen olduğu bir dünya kurulmuş bunun efendiliğini Amerika yapmaya başlamıştır.Kendi mantığı içinde, sermaye ve onun simgesi olan marka bazında dünyayı, tüketiciyi ve tüm insanları yönlendirmektedir. Şurası unutulmamalıdır ki globalleşen dünya içerisinde milletler kendi menfaatlerini en üst düzeyde koruyabilmek için mahallileşmektedirler.
Küreselleşmenin hüküm sürdüğü Avrupa'nın ortasında (Yugoslavya, Bosna-Hersek, Makedonya gibi) mikro milliyetçilik dalgası hızlı büyümektedir.Biz globalleşmeye karşı olup nehirleri tersine akıtacak değiliz.Önce kendi köyümüzü kurup o köyde muhtar olduktan sonra küreselleşmeye gitmenin devlet ve millet olarak tarihi geçmişimize faydası olduğuna inanıyoruz. Ezelden kurgulanan genlerimizle, sosyal ve felsefi boyutumuzla, biz fert olarak dünya yüzünde, bir Türk, yada biz Türkler, ya da şimdiki küreselleşmeye göre ifade edelim bütün Turani boy ve oymaklar ne ifade ediyor. Geleceğe ne bırakmayı umut ediyoruz. Netice olarak bu dönemde Turancılık ne anlama gelmektedir? Önce bu kavramları "maceracılık veya tehlikeli kavramlar" diye nitelemeleri tartışalım. Atsız Çok haklı olarak 40 yıl önce şöyle diyordu:
"Tehlikesiz yaşamak isteyenler intihar etsin. Hayat ve kâinat tehlikelerle doludur. Tehlike fertler için de, milletler içinde, topraklar içinde vardır. Korkunç bir deprem birkaç saatte Anadolu'yu suların altına gömebilir. Dünyaya yakın geçen bir kuyruklu yıldızın boğucu gazları birkaç milleti birden yok edebilir. Dünyayı yörüngesinden Çıkaracak büyüklükte bir göktaşı küremize çarparak dünyanın kıyametini koparabilir. Birkaç millet birleşerek bir gece Türkiye'nin üzerine 500 hidrojen bombası fırlattıktan sonra özel giyimli askerlerini yurdumuza sokabilir.Bütün bu ihtimaller var diye uyuşuk uyuşuk oturup yalnız fabrika kurmak, futbol maçları seyrederek bağırmak, defile ve güzellik müsabakaları yapmak, üniversitelerde bir takım bayağıların eserlerini tahlil etmekle mi vakit geçireceğiz? Bunlarla millet yaşamaz. Millet bir hayvan sürüsü değildir. Millet milli bir hedef ister. Ancak o hedefi gördüğü zaman sürü olmaktan çıkıp insanlaşır, bencil olmaktan kurtulup fedakârlaşır. Bizim için en kutlu hedef Turancılıktır. Eskiden nasıl bir idiysek yine birleşeceğiz diye kendisini bir ülküye adamaktan daha kutlu ne olabilir? Bütün Türkleri birleştirmek hakkımız ve görevimizdir, bizden zorla koparılanı zorla geri almak adaleti yerine getirmektir. Turancılık bir büyüklük düşüncesidir. Büyüklük düşüncesi asil bir düşüncedir."
Ebetteki Turan yolunda önümüzde birçok problem vardır. Hatta bunların en büyükleri kendi içimizdeki açmazlardır. Turan yolunda sıralanan problemlerin başında son yıllarda ufuklarını kaybeden yöneticiler gelmektedir.Ayyûka çıkmış ahlâksızlıklar, ihânetler, çapsızlıklar öğürtü veriyor. O cücelerden en ufak bir ümidimiz bile yok. Yeni Turan düzeninde yok olacaklarını çok iyi bildiklerinden var güçleriyle beynelmilel tuzak olan küreselleşmeye sarılıyorlar, milli yapıyı yok ediyorlar. Böylece mukadder âkıbetlerini geciktirmeye çabalıyorlar.Ama korkunun ecele faydası yoktur! Yok olup Gidecekler! Onun için gelin biz onları o içinde debelendikleri çirkef havuzlarıyla baş başa bırakalım. Biraz gerilere uzanalım. Sonra daha yükseklerden ilerilere bakarız. Tarihte Turan birliği defalarca kurulmuştu.
Oğuz Hanın kurduğu ilk Turan birliği idi sonra Büyük Hun Devleti tam bir Turan devleti idi. Bünyesinde yüze yakın millet yer almıştı. Cengiz imparatorluğu zaten Turan devletinin en büyük ve kısa yaşayanı idi. Atilla Hunları Macarları Finlileri Bulgarları ve daha nice onlarca Turani boyu birleştirip Roma'yı bu Turan devletinin haraç veren paryası haline getirmişti. Bu konuda son Büyük Türk İmparatorluğu bizce Tarihin en büyük Turan devletlerinden biri olan Osmanlı Devletidir ki şu anda o coğrafya üzerinde (Osmanlı Coğrafyası) kırka yakın devlet kurulmuştur.Önümüzde duran Türk Dünyasının bütünleşmesi, Turan birliği, Siyasi birlik şeklinde ifade edildiğinde. Dünyayı korku basıyor. Neymiş, Türkler 'Turan Devleti kurarlarmış. Fakat onlar tarihimizde "Turan" adlı bir devletin yokluğunu, bilakis Turan'ın Terminolojisinin dünyanın yarısı civarında yaşayan Türkleri birleştiren ; Onlarca devleti bir ad ile anlatan adı Turan olmayan nice Turan devletlerinin ve Medeniyetinin olduğunu bilmeleri gerekir.
Ne komiktir ki Turan korkusu altında kalanlar, Türklerin küçük memleketlerde bile kendilerinin han, bey olarak yaşadığını, bu yüzden hep kendi aralarında savaştıklarını da iyi bilirler. Bir tek Türkistan üç hanlığa bölünmüştü.. Bu durumda Özbekistan, Kazakistan, Kırgızistan, Türkmenistan apar-topar bütünleşmeye gidemezlerdi. Bu da önemli bir gerçek idi. Ama dünyadaki bu Turan Korkusu niye? Çünkü büyük bir milletin medeniyeti, Tarihi tabanının birleşmesi, Kendine dönüşü (onları göre tehlike) olabilirdi.
Bizim bildiğimiz ise; "Türk tarihi ve milletinin bir bütün olduğunu, beş bin yıl önceki Oğuz Hanın bir çerisi ile bu günkü halktan birinin mahiyet farkının olmadığını. Onu farklı kılanın yüreğindeki kızılelmayı yitirmiş olması yada Büyük Turan düşüncesini beyninden atmış olması olabileceğini, Yüreğimizdeki Kızılelma ülküsü ve beynimizdeki Büyük Turan düşüncesi ile Kuzey Sibirya'dan Mançurya'ya, ya da Amerika'nın öteki ucunda bulunan Turan Soylu bir Kızılderili şefinden, Yemen illerinde kalmış Türkçe konuşmakta inat eden Anadolu Türkü Şeyh efendiye kadar biz büyük ama çok büyük bir millet olarak düşünmek elbetteki Büyük Turan yolunun başlangıcıdır. Büyük Turan Devleti denince de zaten bu büyük milletin (her nerede yaşıyorsa) bulunduğu mekan ve yüreğindeki Kızılelma anlaşılması gerekir"
Rusya'nın çöküşünden dört yıl sonra Türk Cumhuriyetleri'nin Cumhur reisleri İstanbul'un Çırağan Sarayında iki gün Türk Dünyasının problemlerini hep Rus dilinde, başka bir medeniyete ait bir milletin dilinde konuşarak çözmek istediler, ve önemli problemlerde birbirlerini anlamadılar. Bu doğal bir hâl idi. Çünkü Türkler arasında diğer bir medeniyet aracılık yapmakta idi. Yeni Turanda aşılması gereken en büyük mesele Dil kısmetini çözmektir. Dil meselesi aşıldığında neler olmaz ki; Bir düşünün, bütün yer yüzünde var olan Turani halkın çocuklarının mesela: "Ulu Tanrı, Güzel Tanrı, Gök Tanrı" diye başlayan OĞUZ ATAMIZIN Biz Evlatları için ettiği duayı her sabah okuyarak güne başladıklarını,ebediyete kadar var olacak olan Turan Birliği o gün kurulmuş olacaktır.
Ve bu gün gelmiştir.
Hazreti Ali'nin Bir vecizesi O gelen günü müjdelemektedir. "Gözü Olana Sabah Işımıştır"
http://www.ozturkler.com/alperenden1.htm
Manas Dessany
Dünýäniň iň uly dessan “Manas” ýeke gyrgyz milletine degişli bolman, eýsam hemme türki halklaryň ruhy we medeni baýlygy bolup durýar. Görogly-beg ýaly batyr han Manasyň rowaýatynyň bugün hem müňlerçe şahalaryny uly-kiçi herkim uly gyzyklanma bilen diňleýär.
Manas dessany bilen baglanşykly ors dilinde sahypa hem döredilipdir. Gyzyklanýan bolsaňyz girip görüň: http://www.manas.kyrgyz.ru
Bu sahypadaky (http://www.kyrgyz.ru) forumyň Türki halklar bilen baglanşykly bölümi hem bar. Bu bölümde türkilik bilen baglanşykly pikirleriňizi paýlaşyp bilersiňiz: http://www.kyrgyz.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=562&st=15
http://www.kyrgyz.ru
Центральная Азия или Туркистан?
UzLand.Info
3 ноября
В ходе состоявшейся конференции по Центральной Азии и Ближнему Востоку в Университете Юты (США) в Солт Лейк Сити, магистр бостонского Университета Тафтс из Узбекистана Одил Рузалиев представил принципиально-новую работу на тему региональной интеграции. Идеи, предложенные во время его выступления, примечательны тем, что являются уникальными и до сих пор неозвученными экспертами по Центральной Азии. "Рецепт", составленный Рузалиевым, направлен на более тесную интеграцию в регионе, принимая во внимание напряженную обстановку между братскими-тюркскими народами и разногласия, увеличивающие разрыв между ними с каждым годом.
В качестве одного из первых, наиболее необходимых шагов, магистр из Узбекистана предлагает вернуть в обращение термины "Туркистан" вместо Центральной Азии и "тюрки или тюркские народы" вместо "центральноазиатских". По его мнению, подобное возвращение к основным корням отразится на общественном мышлении народов, населяюших этот регион, а также возродит культурную общность этих народов - тюркское своеобразие и национальные черты узбеков, казахов, кыргызов, туркменов и других народов, считающих себя тюрками.
"Советский режим разъединил некогда близкие народы, "подарив" им новые земли, алфавит, историю, а также посеяв семена будущих проблем, которые каждый из них сегодня пожинает. Эти проблемы выражаются в скопившихся экономических кризисах, неразрешенных территориальных притязаниях и амбициях и культурном "расчленении" народов населяющих современный Туркистан."
"Несмотря на общность религии, языка, культуры и истории", пишет Рузалиев, "эти факторы все же не послужили основанием для тесной интеграции и разрешения общих проблем...Провозгласив свою независимость с распадом Советского Союза, государства Центральной Азии бросились писать новые истории, разрабатывать новые идеологии, сократили уровень общения в регионе, порвали прежние связи и на их месте создали новые, неэффективные; инициировали исскуственную и бесполезную борьбу за лидерство в регионе, не решив свои внутренние проблемы".
Рузалиев предлагает возродить некогда существовавшее Духовное управление мусульман Средней Азии и Казахстана, используя Ислам как один из механизмов сближения между народами. "Учитывая пассивные взаимоотношения между мусульманскими учреждениями в регионе и тревогу лидеров стран региона по поводу использования Ислама некоторыми группами в террористических и антиконституционных целях, эта идея прежде всего должна быть с вниманием воспринята руководителями стран Туркистана, поскольку только с помощью регионального централизованного исламского учреждения будет возможно возрождение Тюркского ислама с его глубокими суфискими традициями полными терпения, поощрения просвещения и гармонии. Единый исламский центр в регионе со штаб квартирой в Бухаре смог бы в значительной мере противопоставить культурно-духовное просвещение взамен радикализации населения, чем каждая страна в отдельности. Муфти единого регионального управления мусульман Туркистана мог бы избираться каждые несколько лет по очереди из каждой республики. Это также способствовало бы восстановлению роли Бухары как одного из исламских центров мира".
Рузалиев также за выработку единой истории Тюрков, которая преподавалась бы в каждой из республик. "Кроме этого учебники истории каждой из титульных наций в регионе должны быть пересмотрены специальной региональной комиссией историков на предмет последовательности (совместимости) и систематизированы. Создание Академии Наук Туркистана и Туркистанского Университета способствовало бы учащению контактов и сближению связей между учеными и студентами региона. Также немаловажно то, что тюркские народы смогли бы гордиться великими историческими предками в такой же равной мере, как и отдельные титульные нации, присвоившие историю и заслуги исторических личностей".
Автор призывает Туркменистан отказаться от своего нейтралитета и участвовать в региональных процессах чаще, а не прикрываться им как повод для пассивности для продолжения феодально-абсолютистской политики в отдельной закрытой стране. Это, по мнению автора, один из трех уровней интеграции - государственный.
Остальные два уровня - негосударственный и международный. "На негосударственном уровне большая роль должна отводиться региональным неправительственным организациям (НПО) в разных сферах, которые должны вносить свой вклад в улучшение взаимопонимания между тюркскими народами и учащение контактов посредством различных программ, в том числе и культурных. Создание регионального телевидения (Туркистанского ТВ) наподобии межрегионального телеканала "МИР" также может послужить хорошим источником информации о жизни народов региона.
Третий уровень, международный, предусматривает необходимость в активной вовлеченности некоторых стран (США, России, Турция, ЕС) в этом процессе, оказывая финансовое, экономическое, техническое и, наконец, политическое содействие. Вновь зарождающийся интерес Запада к нашему региону со времен открытия Западом Великого шелкового пути может принести экономические, а в первую очередь, энергетические дивиденды этим странам только при случае стабильности в регионе.
Одил Рузалиев подготовил свой доклад на английском языке и скоро приступит к переводу на русский.
http://www.uzland.uz/2003/november/03/02.htm
ТУРКИСТОН БАЙРОГИ
«Туркистон мухторияти», «Кўкон мухторияти»... Бу жуфтликларни эшитмаган одам бўлмаса керак. Улар коммунистлар ёздирган «СССР тарихи» ва «Ўзбекистон ССР тарихи» китобларида хам ер олган. «Ойни этак билан ёпиб бўлмас» деганларидек, тарихимизга оид бу жумлаларни халк хотирасидан чикариб бўлмаслигининг далолатлари булар.
Туркистон... Туркия туркларининг Ота Ватан деб айтадиган юртлари. Туркистонликларнинг ўзи учун эса кувиб етилмаган, ушланмаган буюк орзу. Бу орзу - бутун туркистонликларни бирлаштирувчи марказлаштирилган давлат - Туркистон давлати.
Хеч шубхасиз, тарихда бу орзунинг хаётга энг якин нуктаси Амир Темур замонида бўлганди. Аммо бобомиз ўз йўлини танлади ва бутун императорларнинг килганини том тескарисини килиб тириклигидаёк бир бутун давлатни ўгилларига бўлиб берди. Орзулар орзулигича колди, кадим туркларнинг таъбири билан айтсак - якинлашган саринг узоклашиб борадиган марра - кизил олмага айланди.
Аммо Туркистон гояси хам, Туркистон сўзи хам унитилмади.
Парчаланган Туркистон русларнинг мустамлакасига айланганда хам бу номдан кечолмадилар, мустамлака ўлка Туркистон генерал-губернаторлиги, деб аталди. 1917 йили Чор императорлигининг кулаши туфайли Туркистонни мустакил давлатга айлантириш имкони тугилгандек кўринди. Шу йилнинг апрелидаёк Туркистон ишчи ва солдат шўроларининг Тошкентдаги съездида иштирок этаётган ерли туркистонликлар алохида тўпланиб Туркистон Ўлка Марказий Мусулмон Шўросини ташкил этдилар. Мустафо Чўкой раиси этиб сайланган бу Шўро Туркистонда мустакил давлат куриш истаги билан ўртага чиккан биринчи Миллий харакат бўлди. Аммо истак бошка, мавжуд вазият бошка. Буни Мусулмон Шўросининг аъзолари хам яхши тушунишарди. Мана Мустафо Чўкайнинг хотираларидан бир парча:
«Бизнинг йўлимизда икки буюк тўсик турарди. Буларнинг бири миллий харакатларимизнинг асосий душманлари бўлса, иккинчиси ўзимизнинг ўртада колганлигимиз ва муташаккил харакат йўлидаги тажрибасизлигимиз эди. Бу тўсикларнинг энг кўркинчлиси хам ана шу иккинчиси эди.
Миллий марказимиз курилгандан сўнг камчиликларимиз анча ойдинлашиб кўрина бошлади. Атрофдан миллий марказга кела бошлаган материаллар янги вазиятни англаш ва унга караб ишлашда тартиб йўклигини кўркинч бир кўринишда очмокда эди...
Миллий марказнинг махаллий ташкилотларини яраштириш, уларга бир турда шакл бериш хакидаги уринишлар кўпинча натижасиз колди. Мархум муфти Махмуд Хўжа Бехбудий Афанди, Носиржон Тўра, Обиджон Тўра, Обиджон Махмуд, Мир Одил ака ва бошкалар каби кишиларнинг гайрат ва хикматлари соясида Самарканд ва Фаргона вилоятларида район ва вилоят ташкилотларини бир даража йўлга кўя билган эдик. Бошка ерларда эса ишлар бизни сўнг даража кайгуртирадиган ва Ишчи ва Солдат шўроларини севинтирадиган бир вазиятда бормокда эди».
Бу киска иктибосдан кўриниб турганидек, вазият ўта мураккаб бўлишига карамасидан миллий харакатчилар хеч чекинмасдан олга кетабердилар. Нихоят, 1917 йил 8 декбрь куни Кўконда фавкулодда Курултой тўпланди ва Туркистон мухторияти тузилгани эълон килинди. Туркистон мухторияти бу кадим ўлкада ташкил килинган ва замонавий давлатчилик атрибутларини (белгиларини) яратишга интилган биринчи мустакил давлат эди. Унинг биринчи атрибути эса - ушбу сахифада кўраётганингиз ой-юлдузли ок-кирмизи-кизил байрок.
Туркистонликларнинг мустакилликка интилишларининг тимсоли бўлган бу байрок, минг афсуски, узок вакт хилпиролмади. Мухторият икки ойгина яшади. У сўздагина интернационалист, амалда эса рус шовинизмининг янги шаклда тамсил этган коммунист-большевиклар томонидан конга ботирилди, йўк килинди.
Бу хам яна бир маглубият эди, вактинчалик маглубият...
Орадан 70 йил ўтгач йикилган байрокни янгидан кўтариш истагидаги миллий-демократик харакатлар ўртага чикдилар. Уларнинг биринчи кадамлари зафарли бўлди. Туркистон худудида Москва тарафидан курилган беш жумхурият мустакилликка эришди. Аммо, Мустафо Чўкай замонидан бери тугаб битмаган ички низолар хали хам ўз актуаллигини йўкотмаганди. Натижада, янги маглубиятлар каршисида колдик. Мустакил беш давлатнинг салкам хаммасида хокимият - ўша коммунист-большевикларнинг меросхўрларини кўлида. Туркистон байроги хали хам халкларимиз боши узра хилпираётгани йўк.
Лекин, хеч ким инкор этолмайдиган бир хакикат бор дунёда. Халк, миллат факат тарихи ва бугуни бор бўлгани учун бор эмас, тарихи ва бугуни бир бирига боглик бўлгани учун, бу куни тарихнинг давоми бўлгани учун бор. Бу богларни узган, авлодлар яратган кадриятларни, улар кўтарган байрокларни боши устига кўйолмаган, ўзининг асл фарзандлари бошлаган ишларни давом эттиролмаган халк халк бўлолмайди.
Биз халкмиз. Миллатмиз. Демак, хеч шак-шубхасиз, парчаланган Туркистон бирлашади. Бу балки Туркистон федерацияси бўлар, Туркистон конфедерацияси бўлар, ёки Туркистон Бирлиги бўлар. Нима бўлса хам, миллий-демократик харакатларнинг талаби билан бошланган интеграцион жараёнларнинг натижаси бир бутун Туркистон бўлажак.
Ва, иншоолох, бир бутун ўлка узра ой-юлдузли ок-кирмизи-кизил байрок янгидан учишга бошлаяжак.
http://www.birlik.net/
East Turkistan.net
Communist China's Policy of Oppression in East Turkistan
Harun Yahya
China entered the twentieth century as the remains of an empire fragmented and crushed under pressure from especially Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Russia. After imperial rule had been overthrown, no powerful central authority was established for decades. When the Communist Party came to power in 1949, China soon turned into a state of fear. That process cost the lives of tens of millions of people because of the repressive and totalitarian methods the communists used to enforce their bloody ideology. The Chinese Communist Party resorted to violence to remain in power, and implemented one of the most savage and ruthless form of communism ever, enforcing one single way of living and thinking for the entire Chinese people. Throughout that period, those who refused to abide by the rules of their communist leaders were ruthlessly exterminated.
 |
In recent years, there has been much talk about the increased freedom and liberalization in the economic arena in China. Yet the freedom is limited to specific areas, and the cruel and oppressive system in China has, in fact, not changed.
|
It is commonly assumed that the savage implementation of communism has come to an end. People no longer receive food in return for vouchers, no longer are required to wear uniforms, nor suffer torture because they are unable to learn Mao's "Little Red Book" by heart. Yet communism, adapted by the regime to the new world order, is still alive and well in all its ruthlessness.
In the eyes of the Communist Party, people are of value only as long as they can produce, and are allowed to think only within boundaries set by the Communist Party. They can freely express only thoughts in harmony with the party. The labor camps that exist through China, the system that humiliates and exploits millions of people in those camps, the mass executions in full public view, the torture methods widely employed in the prisons and the sale of the internal organs of those condemned to death, all reveal the ugly face of the communist administration. Despite all this, however, for the last 20 years a number of media outlets have been spreading the propaganda that China is rapidly preceding down a liberal and democratic path. One important point is often ignored: The fact that China has moved to capitalist practices in the economic field and has opened its gates to foreign investors in a number of areas, does not mean that there has also been a change in the country's political structure and ideology. On the contrary, the inhuman practices still common demonstrate that nothing has changed in the mentality of the ruling Communist Party. This will be clarified with a great many examples in subsequent chapters of this book.
A major area of communist savagery is East Turkestan, home to the Muslim Uighur Turks. Located at the westernmost point of China, East Turkestan has been under occupation for the last two centuries or so, and for the last 50 years in particular has suffered great oppression from the despotic regime of the communist Chinese administration. As a result of Chinese propaganda, East Turkestan is known to the world as "Xinjiang," or "Sinkiang" meaning "new borders" in Chinese, and most people are very unaware of the human drama going on there. Yet East Turkestan, the majority of whose population are Muslims of Uighur origin, is the scene of violence and oppression by the communist Chinese administration, the like of which is found in no other region of China. Torture, executions, labor camps and religious oppression have long been features of daily life in East Turkestan.
 |
The people of East Turkestan have been crushed by the repressive communist system for more than half a century. Muslims are prevented from living their religion, and are trying to survive under particularly difficult conditions.
|
Muslims are arrested, kept for months (or even years) in Chinese prisons, which are notorious for torture, solely because they want to live by their religion. Many of those who fight for freedom and democracy for Turkestan are executed. Moreover, China's assimilationist policies have prevented the majority Muslim population of East Turkestan from speaking their own language, living by their own culture, from going on the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), performing their daily ritual prayers and fasting, and even forbidden them to determine their family size. The Muslims of East Turkestan expect people of good conscience all over the world to help them wage a war of ideas to bring communist oppression there to an end and make a concerted effort to inform the whole world about their plight.
China has turned East Turkestan into a closed region by restricting all means of communication, preventing the true dimensions of their human drama from being heard by the outside world. Yet that is no excuse for forgetting and behaving as if nothing were going on. For this reason, it is most important that all possible means be taken to stop the silence that prevails in the whole world on the subject of East Turkestan. If the true dimension of the inhumanity going on behind closed doors is revealed, this will not only help the wronged people to have their voices heard, but will also attract the world's attention to bring justice to East Turkestan.
The aim of this site is both to identify the basic causes of this communist oppression that has been going on all over China for more than half a century, and to make the voice of the wronged people of East Turkestan heard. Initiatives taken to allow the Muslims of East Turkestan to enjoy peace and security can only succeed if the fundamental causes of their oppression are documented and brought to the attention of the world.
This work documents that the fundamental reason behind the oppression in East Turkestan is the materialist philosophy and communist ideology that dominate the Chinese state. The violence caused by materialist philosophy, which regards life as a fight for survival (and suggests that progress is only possible by means of conflict) can only be eliminated if people turn to, and live by, the morality God commands. God has commanded people to live by justice, tolerance, love, compassion, respect, sacrifice, sharing, self-denial, and forgiveness. God has made it clear that ethnic differences are no justification for conflict, and that people must respect each others' races, languages, and beliefs. The acceptance of that moral code world wide is the only way to secure peace and tolerance. An intellectual war must be waged against the materialist ideology that is the fundamental support behind those who have oppressed others. For this reason this is the most important area required for peace and justice to prevail.
To oppose the oppression and injustice in the world, efforts must be made to spread the morality of the Qur'an, which is the real solution to this problem. A new age will dawn with the spreading of the morality of the Qur'an, by the will of God, in which injustice and oppression will be replaced by peace, security, and justice. The Qur'an bears good tidings about that new age:
God has promised those of you who believe and do right actions that He will make them successors in the land as He made those before them successors, and will firmly establish for them their religion with which He is pleased and give them, in place of their fear, security… (Qur'an, 24:55)
The aim of this site is both to identify the basic causes of this communist oppression that has been going on all over China for more than half a century, and to make the voice of the wronged people of East Turkestan heard. Initiatives taken to allow the Muslims of East Turkestan to enjoy peace and security can only succeed if the fundamental causes of their oppression are documented and brought to the attention of the world.
This work documents that the fundamental reason behind the oppression in East Turkestan is the materialist philosophy and communist ideology that dominate the Chinese state. The violence caused by materialist philosophy, which regards life as a fight for survival (and suggests that progress is only possible by means of conflict) can only be eliminated if people turn to, and live by, the morality God commands. God has commanded people to live by justice, tolerance, love, compassion, respect, sacrifice, sharing, self-denial, and forgiveness. God has made it clear that ethnic differences are no justification for conflict, and that people must respect each others' races, languages, and beliefs. The acceptance of that moral code world wide is the only way to secure peace and tolerance. An intellectual war must be waged against the materialist ideology that is the fundamental support behind those who have oppressed others. For this reason this is the most important area required for peace and justice to prevail.
To oppose the oppression and injustice in the world, efforts must be made to spread the morality of the Qur'an, which is the real solution to this problem. A new age will dawn with the spreading of the morality of the Qur'an, by the will of God, in which injustice and oppression will be replaced by peace, security, and justice. The Qur'an bears good tidings about that new age:
God has promised those of you who believe and do right actions that He will make them successors in the land as He made those before them successors, and will firmly establish for them their religion with which He is pleased and give them, in place of their fear, security… (Qur'an, 24:55)
http://www.eastturkestan.net/
Türkistan Birleşigi
Türkistan Birleşigi, Ykdysady we Jemgiýetçilikli Arkalaşygy
Taryhy taýdan aslymyz, dilimiz we däplerimiz bir bolan türki halklar Ýewropa Birleşigine garanda meňzeş arkalaşyk gurmana has açykdyr. Emma şu wagt ykdysady we syýasy durnuklulygy kämilleşdirmän beýle arkalaşygyň gurmana çalyşmak gaty üstünlükli bolmany biler. Globallaşýan dünýäde öňürti ýerli globallaşmanyň ähmiýeti uly. Bu barada pikirlerimizi paýlaşalyň.
Siziňçe türki döwletler birleşiginiň gurulmagy barada meseleleriň düýbi haçan atylyp başlar? ses beriň
A FINAL TECHNICAL NOTE
A FINAL TECHNICAL NOTE
Until now one issue has been studiously avoided, namely how to render the word "Turk" in various languages. It follows from the discussion above the use of the word "Turk" can be a sensitive issue for an Uzbek or a Kazak or a Tatar. To make matters worse, in Turkish there has been no tradition distinction between different groups in the usage of the word "Turk", in other words there used to be only one word "Turk" and it was for the Turkish government "Turk hukumeti" as well as for the Turkic world "Turk dunyasi", Kazan Tatars "Kazan turkleri", Kazaks "Kazak turkleri", etc. (More recent adjectives such as "turki" have come to be used as well, but the problem persists.) As a result, many well-intentioned individuals reject the distinction in English usage between Turkish and Turkic, Russian "turetskii" and "tiurkskii" (a distinction also maintained by probably all Turkic groups that formed a part of the USSR), while others defend the distinction with equal passion. Given the surprising level of sentimental attachment to one view or another by members of T-N and T-L, some members have instituted the term "Turk*" as a neutral term to sidestep the English debate over Turkish versus Turkic (a debate which is still difficult for many of our friends from Turkey to fully understand). It is a small step that some have taken in the interest of better understanding among the various groups.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/turkistan.htm
C. CURRENT SITUATION
<<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<>
<<><<><<><<> C. CURRENT SITUATION <<><<><<><<><<><<><<>
<<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<>
At present, there are six sovereign republics recognized by the international community whose titular population consists of Turks or closely-related peoples: Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. A number of states have significant populations of Turks living in national-territorial units claiming various degrees of autonomy or even sovereignty such as the Xinjiang Uighur AR (East Turkistan) in the People's Republic of China ; Bashqortostan, Chuvashia, Tatarstan, Tuva, Yakutia (Saxa), and many others in the Russian Federation; Northern Cyprus; and others. (Perhaps Karakalpakistan in Uzbekistan belongs on this list, too.) Other states have significant populations of Turks without official recognition as national-territorial units such as the Crimea in Ukraine; the Uzbeks in Afghanistan or Tajikistan; the Gagauz in Moldova; the Azeris in Iran; and others.
As a result of exciting intellectual debates in the 19th century and as a result of conscious policies over the course of the 20th century in more than one state, various groups who might be called "Turk" have created distinct literary traditions (even though a unified literary language for most of the Turks was possible until the early Soviet period), distinctive historical traditions, separate national myths, and a culture of mutual suspicion and distrust. The competing ideas of Marjani and Gaspirali (local territorial nation versus common shared identity as [Muslim] Turks) find their resonance today in the attempts by many newly-independent states to revise or (re)create their national myths, while at the same time other groups reexamine the shared linguistic, cultural, and historical heritage that is readily apparent to most Turks. This, however, often comes into conflict with the cherished old and new national myths of the different modern nation-states such as Azerbaijan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. It must be said that while the newly-independent states tend to focus on (re)building their new nations, they are sometimes resentful of the message that there is no difference between the Turks of Turkey and the Turks of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and other regions, or that the Turks of Turkey should place a role of leadership among all the Turks. For this reason communication between members of all the various groups of Turks is all the more important.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/turkistan.htm
B. BACKGROUND
<<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<>
<<><<><<><<><<> B. BACKGROUND <<><<><<><<><<><<><<>
<<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<>
Different groups of Turks--or peoples closely related by culture, history, and/or language to peoples calling themselves "Turk"-- consider various lands in Anatolia, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Central & Eastern Europe, China, the Middle East, Siberia, the Volga region, and elsewhere as their traditional home, depending on which group they belong to. By the end of the twentieth century there are also significant emigre communities living permanently in Europe, North America, and elsewhere.
Peoples who call themselves "Turk"--or who are closely related by culture, history, and/or language to peoples calling themselves "Turk"--have a state tradition known from history going back to the middle of the first millenium C.E. The first state associated with the name "Turk" was established along the Orxon River in present-day Mongolia in 552 C.E. The earliest indigenous historical source concerning the Turks (the "Bugut" inscription in Soghdian from the second half of the 6th century) is connected with this state, which is known as the "First Turk Empire". Many consider the people of this state as the origin of all the Turks. The earliest indigenous sources written in the language of the Turks (the so-called "Orxon inscriptions" written in a runic alphabet, probably dating from the end 7th-early 8th centuries) are connected with its successor, the "Second Turk Empire". It is likely, however, that there were other groups speaking closely-related languages or dialects at the same time living in other parts of Eurasia. Accordingly, some people feel that the origin of the Turks is to be sought among even earlier peoples and states of Eurasia, though this subject remains controversial because of the difficulty in proving any single theory or hypothesis.
Over the next fourteen and a half centuries (from the mid-6th century to the end of the 20th century), the Turks and their linguistic kin participated in extensive migrations and numerous state formations too numerous to list in detail here. Suffice it to say that various groups of Turks participated in major states stretching west from Mongolia, the Tarim basin, and Central Asia as far west as the Balkans, the Black Sea, Anatolia, and the Middle East. Briefly, this included states such as the Khazars and Volga Bulgaria, the Uyghurs, the so-called "Qaraxanids" and the Xwarezmshahs, and the Pechenegs and the Kipchaks. Some groups participated in major world religions such as Manichaeism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, while others remained shamanistic. Some maintained a nomadic lifestyle, while others sedentarized and participated in urban high cultures and canonical and secular literary traditions. In short, there was already tremendous variety in their daily life, culture, and even language. Indeed, on the eve of the Mongol invasions we can already discern the broad brushstrokes of the same linguistic-cultural distribution that is valid in our own day.
The Mongol World Empire established by Chingis Xan in the early 13th century united the Eurasian steppe and its affiliated sedentary centers much in the same way as earlier steppe empires such as the Scythians, the Huns, and the Turk Empire. For the Turks of Eurasia it meant a new ruling dynasty and system of tribal organization, as well as the Turkification of many new ethnic groups. The states of the Mongol World Empire such as the so-called Golden Orda (Horde) and the Chaghatay Xanate, whose dominant languages and cultures were mostly Turkicized and Islamized by the 14th century, gave rise to numerous smaller states after the 14th century and the formation of new confederations such as the Uzbeks and the Kazaks. The xanates of Kazan, Astraxan, and Siberia, and only much later the Crimea and the Kazaks were conquered by an expanding Russian Empire. Only in the 19th century were Xiva, Buxara, and Qoqand and later the Turkmen subjugated during the period of colonial expansion by Russia (not to mention England and China). Although the one can discern the preponderant influence of the Turks in the population of the Mongol World Empire, the cultural differences between the Turks of the Ottoman Empire and the Turks of the Russian Empire became greater as a result of the Turko-Mongol cultural synthesis and later the influence of Russian culture.
One of the significant contributions of the 19th century was the strong influence upon various groups of Turks of the idea of the nation state. In the Middle Volga Shihabaddin Marjani/Mercani forcefully argued for a Kazan Tatar territorial nation, while in the Crimea the educational reformer and publicist Ismail Bey Gaspirali (Gasprinksiy) argued for a broader shared identity for all Turks (outside of the Russian Empire he also argued for a shared identity for all Muslims). Both ideas had a lasting influence, but in our own day we see that in the Russian Empire the rise of smaller territorial nations (such as movements among the Crimean Tatars) is really the legacy of Marjani/Mercani, who completely undermined Gaspirali's idea by the time of the latter's death. As is well known, following World War I and the establishment of the USSR, Turkey set upon its own course to invent a territorial nation whose identity was to be known as "Turk", based firmly upon the notion of a territorial nation in Anatolia. As though in a different universe, in the USSR following the national delimitation of 1924 (and subsequent changes in status) many groups of Turks (including the Uzbeks, Kazaks, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, and others) were given the status of territorial nation based upon names that were known in the past, but which now had new and distinctive meanings representing discontinuity with the past. The most profound result of these policies is that over the course of the 20th century the Turks of the Republic of Turkey have viewed themselves in isolation from the Turks in the USSR, while each of the over 100 new territorial nations in the USSR created new national histories in which each had a separate and distinct past going back to the most remote era based upon its new territorial delimitation.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/turkistan.htm
Turkistan
INTRODUCTION
TURKISTAN, "Land of the Turks", is a Newsletter and a Discussion List intended to disseminate information (T-N) and promote discussion (T-L) about topics relating to the culture(s), history, and language(s) of the people(s) known by the name "Turk". (Please see below.)
TURKISTAN has meant different things at various times. In earlier periods the term "Turkistan" usually referred to a region in Central Asia, as used for example by the 17th century historian and ruler of Xiva (Khiva), Abulghazi Bahadur Xan (Khan). Later, in the 19th century, "Turkistan" conveyed a specific administrative-territorial division of Russian colonial rule in Central Asia. Beginning in the late 19th century, there also arose the idea of the broader shared identity of those peoples who are Turks, and it is in this broader, inclusive sense that this term is used in this Newsletter and Discussion List.
Why is there a need for such a list? TURKISTAN can now link members of many far-flung communities and the scholars who study them without regard for vast distances and political boundaries. Another important need that TURKISTAN can fulfill is as a forum for helping many people to understand what the "Turk" in TURKISTAN might mean for them personally.
TURKISTAN is not intended as a vehicle to advocate any political point of view, ideology, movement, secessionist movement, or violence of any sort, nor is TURKISTAN intended as a forum for negative, derogatory, or inflammatory comments about any ethnic or national group, political point of view, ideology, movement, religion, or state. On the other hand, one may argue dispassionately that some groups of Turks have been demonized in order to justify imperial expansion, or denigrated to justify colonial rule, or have become the "significant other" in the construction of national ideologies by other modern nations. It is important to recognize and understand that these are universal aspects of human history and the human condition, as demonstrated by social scientists. It is also important to recognize that each of the modern nations of the Turks has its own cherished national myths that only serve to obscure a better understanding of the past and the world that many groups of Turks have shared with many other peoples for over fourteen centuries. Thus, the goal of TURKISTAN is a better understanding of the world around us through a better understanding of ourselves.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/sota/turkistan.htm
