For many people, talking about the Kazakhs, Turkmens, Uzbeks and Azerbaijanis was an empty dream and a legendary dialectic. In fact, there were those who lived in the issue in just those dimensions. Anyway, with the end of the Cold War the iron curtain the Soviet Empire erected between us was removed, and after many long years, we came face-to-face with our relatives. Union with brother nations not only excited us, it gave us hope as well.
Now look at this situation: A fight breaks out in a construction site where 4,000 Kazakhs and 600 Turkish laborers work and hundreds of people brawl. There are seriously wounded workers and some are taken to the hospital. About 400 laborers returned to Turkey after the incident. The scenes on TV were not pleasant. Apart from those with head injuries and black eyes, there were those who returned home on stretchers. A fight this big doesn’t result from a small argument. It is apparent that feelings of brotherhood have been quite abused and worn down.
We have to remember Turgut Ozal once again. When he spoke of a Turkish presence from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China, the hearts of some Turkists began pounding. It is needless to mention the anger of the status quo bureaucracy. They didn’t want to see our power or our people outside the country. But Ozel was not talking about an expansive Turkish empire. With our own experience, he wanted to show the way to new independent Turkic realms and contribute to their independence – that’s all. There was benefit in economic and cultural cooperation to the region and the world.
After he died, the same vision was not maintained. Those pretending to lead were given a cool reception because approaches that took the Central Asian countries lightly couldn’t bring friendship and brotherhood to the region. Eventually, a certain degree of antipathy developed, turning into a condescending attitude. The vision Ozal attempted to extend to the Balkans became a stage for selfish dialectics and even an incorrect intervention that, at times, resorted to abuse. Supposedly there was a small group advocating Turkism; unfortunately, they were smashed under their pride. The arrogant talk and sometimes luckless initiatives made in the name of Turkism by a small group far removed from self-sacrifice and gratuitousness and knowing nothing of altruism caused suspicion, not love. While there was blockage in state policy, the efforts of NGOs consumed themselves.
The work done by TIKA recently gives hope that new horizons can be opened for long-neglected Central Asia. State Minister Besir Atalay and his team imply they can look at this matter from a broader perspective. Maybe it’s necessary to begin this work with bad examples. I’m sorry to say that some companies that went to Central Asia after independence made unforgivable mistakes and damaged the trust felt in Turkey. The condescending approach of some Turkists opened other wounds. Now there is an important opportunity for us to ask, “Where did we go wrong?”
Moreover, there are those who have managed to continuously succeed in this geography. Maybe it’s necessary to begin from those examples and find new ways for solutions. For example, Turkish schools founded with a spirit of selflessness and nourished with love are continuing their existence with respect and are building bridges between societies. Think for a moment: If Kazakhs had a general enmity toward Turks, every year thousands of Kazakh families wouldn’t take their children by the hand, and line up on the school grounds. This means that brotherhood among the people is still fully alive.
They say that one calamity is worth a thousand words of advice; it’s true. The evaluations to be made on vision and methodology after the upsetting incident that took place in Kazakhstan will be a vehicle for preventing new fighting and for consolidating brotherhood. Doesn’t profound vision always emerge after this kind of incident?
October 26, 2006
