Recent Articles

Turkey - The Speech Delivered by Mr. Ali Babacan

Turkey views

Fergana Valley exports revolutions for “democracy”

US plans to topple Soviet time rulers make Uzbekistan centre of struggle

The background to Fergana agitations from Turkey’s angle

Cultural and social relations with the new republics

Muhammed Salih becomes the Americans’ bomb to undermine cooperation

President Islam Kerimov closely escaped death

US plans to topple Soviet time rulers make Uzbekistan centre of struggle

The biggest and most important of these central Asian republics, Uzbekistan with a population of 26.8 million, was the third leg of the Fergana-Valley-centered disturbances of this year, but unlike Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, President Islam Kerimov did not yield to the demonstrators and suppressed the uprisings with bloodshed and fleeing of the extremist religious factions to the Kyrgyz side of Fergana. President Kerimov’s first visit abroad after these public disturbances was significantly to Beijing last week. It was a big stride to consolidate his shift towards the SCO at the expense of the American engineered GUUAM which is undergoing structural changes to survive after Uzbekistan’s departure at its meeting in Moldova on 22 April 2005.

While Tashkent says that most of the casualties in Andijon were inflicted by Islamic fanatics, Anglo-American sources denied that the people of Andijon were Islamic fundamentalists. The former British Ambassador to Tashkent until 2004, Craig Murray, told the British press that he knew the people of Andijon; they are not fanatical activists, but “moderate Muslims like Turkey.” He then unknowingly rebutted himself by saying that it was true that they wanted a democratic Islamist Government like in Turkey, not like the Taliban (Milliyet, 16th). Who knows it better than the Turkish nation that there is no such thing in the world as a “Moderate Islamic Democracy?” If Turkey is both a democracy and an Islamic nation today (not “Islamic country,” the country has no religion under the Constitution) it is only because it is a secular country that has categorically separated religion from the State Administration. Otherwise you cannot possibly be both a theocratic country ruled by Sheriat and a democracy at the same time. Neither can you enforce the Koran partially and moderately, because it is the word of Allah and an untouchable entity, universal and eternal. How can such a document possibly be the basis of a democratic country; yet the activists of Andijon were saying to the TV cameras that they wanted the rule of the Koran as their Administration. Just because the Bush supporters do not know these realities, Turkey is certainly not going to support their “Moderate Islamic Democracy” fallacy, at home or abroad. Instead, it will bring round to Ataturk’s secular democracy system even those who were once campaigning after that nonsense, like PM Tayyip Erdogan. That is the only way of preserving both Islam as a sacred religion in the consciences and private life of the people and secular democracy as the indispensable political system of the country.