Category: East Asia & Pacific

  • Turkey, China move for ‘new cooperation paradigm’

    Turkey, China move for ‘new cooperation paradigm’

    In a move displaying its desire to deepen bilateral relations with China, Turkey has decided to open a new consulate general in this giant Asian nation, with plans to open several more consulates general in the near future. In addition, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu pointed out on Tuesday that developing ties between the two countries should be assessed through the concept of “normalization of history.”

    Shanghai, China
    Shanghai, China

    Wrapping up his six-day tour of Chinese cities on Tuesday with his last stop being the capital city of Beijing, Foreign Minister Davutoğlu told reporters that the new consulate general will be opened in Guangzhou, southern China’s largest city. After having talks with Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping on Monday, Davutoğlu met with his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, on Tuesday.

    In addition to its embassy in Beijing, Turkey already has two consulates general in China — one in Shanghai and the other in Hong Kong.

    Davutoğlu’s visit came weeks after a landmark visit to Turkey by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. During last month’s visit, the two countries located on the opposite edges of Asia took a landmark step in developing their bilateral relationship by defining it as a “strategic partnership.”

    Accordingly, several concrete steps will be taken to strengthen bilateral relations, including intensifying preparations for building a Turkish industrial zone in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, populated by ethnic Turkic Muslim Uighurs, and mutually increasing the number of flights and new destinations. While 2011 will be declared “China Year in Turkey,” the next year will be celebrated as “Turkey Year in China.”

    During Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s planned visit to China, which is expected to take place in the summer, Chinese and Turkish officials will institutionalize the declared strategic partnership through new bilateral mechanisms. Chinese President Hu Jintao, meanwhile, is expected to visit Turkey next year on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the establishment of bilateral relations between Ankara and Beijing. Turkey recognized the People’s Republic of China, founded in 1949, in 1971.

    Both Wen’s and Davutoğlu’s official visits and the two countries’ will for materializing a strategic partnership have been used by some commentators as proof of a so-called axis shift from the West to the East in Turkish foreign policy.

    Yet, Davutoğlu, speaking to reporters ahead of his departure for Turkey, firmly reiterated that Ankara’s developing relations with these global powers are not emerging at the expense of neglecting its cooperation with the West, and these relations should not be considered as an alternative to existing relations with Western countries.

    Turkey’s increasing contacts with China should be assessed within the general strategy framework in which Turkey’s foreign policy is shaped, Davutoğlu went on to say. The minister, who frequently uses metaphors to explain the government’s understanding of foreign policy, this time likened Turkish foreign policy to “an Asian rug.”

    “Every pattern and every color presents a harmony,” he said, reiterating that the basis of Turkey’s foreign policy is the normalization of history. With his conception of the “normalization” of history, Davutoğlu underlines the importance of eliminating Cold War and colonial abnormalities.

    “In a sense, a new Turkey-China cooperation paradigm is emerging via getting out of the abnormal situation of the period following the Cold War,” he said.

    Turkey, which considers China to be like “a continent,” plans to open “a great number of representative” missions in the country. The opening of a representative mission in Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, was not on the agenda of talks between Davutoğlu and Chinese officials. Yet, sources mentioned opening such offices “in every part of the country over time,” signaling that such an option was not out of the question.

    03 November 2010, Wednesday

    SERVET YANATMA/OSMAN EROL  BEIJING

  • Is China in the Bible?

    Is China in the Bible?

    From the December 2010 Trumpet Print Edition »

    Bearded Dragon from CyprusThe scriptural, prophetic identity of the most populous nation on the planet.

    BY DAVID VEJIL

    China: The Next Superpower.” “China: America’s Number-One Enemy.”

    Such headlines have become common. It is logical that the nation with nearly 20 percent of the world’s population, the second-biggest economy and the biggest military (in terms of manpower) would inspire such discussion.

    But will China become the world’s next superpower? The truth is, you cannot know China’s future unless you understand that nation’s identity in the Bible, the only source that can reveal the answer!

    Yes, if you believe the Bible, you can actually know for certain—without a doubt—who will dominate the world very shortly!

    Hundreds of think tanks spend countless hours and vast sums of money in search of an answer to this question. Yet, the Bible reveals the answer—if they would only believe!

    The Bible is a book primarily about Israel, physical and spiritual. When other nations are mentioned, it is typically in relation to Israel. In biblical times, the interaction between the Chinese and the Israelites was of no major consequence, and so China was rarely mentioned.

    However, the Bible does speak prophetically of China’s role in end-time events. Technological advances in communication and trade have shrunken the distance between China and the modern descendants of Israel considerably (for an explanation of who these nations are, request our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy). Today China has considerable global influence: Witness, for example, the amount of U.S. debt China holds and the huge trade imbalance between the two nations, and the fact that China is the world’s most dominant trading nation.

    An understanding of these prophecies hinges on knowing the biblical identity of the Chinese people. Before delving into this, however, we must gain a basic overview of Chinese history.

    A Brief History of a Great People

    The Chinese people comprise one dominant ethnic group and many small minorities. The ethnic Han comprise more than 90 percent of the 1.3 billion people living in China. Though minority ethnic groups—such as the Uygurs, Tibetans, Mongols and Manchu—make up a small percentage of the Chinese population, in absolute numbers they are still large populations. For example, there are actually more Mongols living in China than in Mongolia.

    These other ethnic groups have been absorbed into China through conquest by the Han Chinese. The Han have long dominated the heartland of China, usually defined by the Yellow River in the north, the Yangtze in the middle and the Pearl River on the south. This rich agricultural region is surrounded by border regions occupied by non-Han peoples, such as Tibet, Xinjiang (home of the Muslim Uighurs), Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, the historical name given to the territory north of North Korea.

    Historically, fierce nomadic cavalry armies from the northern border regions have posed a difficult challenge to the agriculture-based Chinese. The incursions motivated the building of the Great Wall.

    When the Han were strong, just like today, the border regions were under their rule. When they were weak, they lost control of those buffer regions and in some cases were even invaded by their Turkic and Mongol neighbors.

    The foreign invaders all achieved measures of success, controlling portions of Chinese territory for various periods, mainly in northern China. The most complete conquest was the Mongol invasion started by Genghis Khan in the a.d. 1200s: The resulting dynasty fully controlled China for a century.

    All these invasions had one thing in common, however: They all met their end by the Han Chinese.

    No matter which foreign invader occupied the throne, China always remained Chinese.

    One remarkable demonstration of the resilience of their society and culture was the survival, amid all the invasions, of the Chinese language—a feat few other languages have managed.

    This was partly due to the size of the Han population. In a.d. 2, the first available census shows a Chinese population of about 60 million, one fourth of the world’s population at the time!

    To better rule this immense population, nomadic invaders typically adopted Chinese administration techniques and the Chinese language, a language quite unrelated to their own. Eventually their descendents adopted Chinese culture and the agricultural lifestyle as well. When the Han reasserted themselves, they easily absorbed the invaders that remained.

    All the mixing and migrating of different peoples has made it impossible to characterize what a pure ethnic Han is. Nevertheless, prophetically speaking, China refers to all the people of China, not just the Han ethnic group. And at any rate, the Chinese and all the minority groups living in China are of the Mongoloid race, which stems from Noah’s son Japheth.

    The Mongoloid Race

    As Herbert W. Armstrong taught throughout his ministry, Noah’s son Japheth married a woman of the yellow race, and went on to father the Mongoloid people. The Hebrew word Japheth means enlargement, according to The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary,and a glance at the modern world shows that the Oriental populations have been enlarged and multiplied to an unparalleled degree. Japheth’s descendants have long been the most populous people on Earth, with the bulk living in China, Southeast Asia and Japan.

    Genesis 10:2-5 show that the enlargement of Japheth began with the patriarch himself siring seven sons and an untold number of daughters. Obviously, these sons and daughters were a mix between the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races, the latter of which grew more definitive in subsequent generations. Soon after the dispersion at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:8), Japheth’s descendants migrated through Central Asia to the lands they occupy now.

    One of the seven sons of Japheth bears special importance to the prophetic identity of the Chinese and even their nomadic neighbors. That is Magog, the second son of Japheth mentioned in Genesis 10:2.

    Where Did Magog Go?

    Again, the Bible deals primarily with Israel. Since Magog’s descendants migrated to an area largely independent of the civilizations developing in the Middle East, no sons of Magog are listed in Scripture.

    However, Jewish historian Josephus indicated where Magog’s descendants settled. He wrote in the first century, “Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians” (The Complete Works of Josephus).

    In a prophecy in Ezekiel 38, the Bible labels this vast territory of northern Eurasia where the Scyths lived—a region that stretched from the Russian steppes east into modern-day China and Mongolia—as Magog.

    This territory contained many different tribes of people of the white and yellow races, all of whom were called Scyths or Scythians by the Greeks (see last month’s installment in this series). The Ezekiel 38 prophecy demonstrates this as well, listing numerous nations and peoples associated with or dwelling “in the land of Magog.” The people who most prominently settled this land are typically identified as Mongolic and Turkic. The name Mongol is even derived from the name Magog.

    The ancient history of this land is a story about different Turkic and Mongolic tribes vying for control of the area. Whenever a tribe grew strong enough, it would rule the area; in rare cases—such as with the Huns, Seljuk Turks and Mongols—if these nomadic tribes consolidated enough power, they conquered lands beyond their own.

    The resulting conquests led to much cultural and genetic intermixing with the people of Central Asia—and makes their national borders largely irrelevant to defining their ethnic backgrounds.

    Today the land the Bible calls Magog is dominated in the west by Russia—which is reasserting control over the region it once possessed through the ussr—and China in the east.

    Details of the ancient history of Magog and its people remain obscure since the Turks and Mongols didn’t develop a written language until after their contact with the Chinese or Persian civilizations. Though these nomadic peoples have a sketchy history, they still play an important role in understanding China’s prophetic role.

    While the Mongols’ connection to Magog is most obvious, they were just one tribe of a related people that carry the biblical name Magog. Ezekiel 38 is a prophecy about the land of Magog and all the distant “cousins” that live there and are associated with each other, such as the Russians and Chinese. One of the Mongolic nomadic tribes in this area bears a special relationship with China. They are the Khitan, a people responsible for China’s modern name and one of China’s biblical names, Chittim.

    China Is Chittim

    Isaiah 23:1 has a prophecy about “the land of Chittim.” To which modern nation does this end-time prophecy apply? This biblical name refers to both the island of Cyprus and to the nation of China, whose progenitors first populated Cyprus and gave it its name.

    Jewish historian Josephus records that some descendants of Japheth—such as the families of Gomer, Tubal and Togarmah—first settled in southern Europe before migrating east into Asia. Kittim was one such family, originally settling lands to the west of Mesopotamia before moving to the Far East.

    Genesis 10:4 lists the sons of Japheth’s fourth-born son: “The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim” (New King James Version). Kittim is synonymous with the Chittim of Isaiah’s prophecy. Verse 5 mentions that these sons of Javan settled the isles, or the coasts. This occurred shortly after the dispersion of the Tower of Babel, when the sons of Javan migrated to the northern Mediterranean. These tribes gave their names to various cities and islands, such as Cyprus and Rhodes.

    The Mongoloid types of these families, including the Kittim, did not stay in the Mediterranean, however. Over hundreds of years and many generations, some of these families migrated east into Asia from Cyprus, where they are found today, according to research by Dr. Ernest Martin, formerly of Ambassador College.

    The descendants of Javan’s son Kittim came to Asia some time after many of their cousins had already settled there. After their migration through Central Asia, the Kittim made their appearance in modern-day northern China and Mongolia under the name Khitan in the fourth century a.d. In the 10th century, the Khitan people managed to create a dynasty that subjugated the peoples, including the Chinese, in modern-day northern China. Their territory stretched from what is now Korea to eastern Kazakhstan, including Beijing, the seat of government in China today.

    Because the Khitans controlled the overland trade and communication route from China through Central Asia to Europe, China was called Cathay, after the Khitans. The designation first applied to north China, but later designated all of China. It is a name the Russians still use for China today.

    Isaiah 23:1-3 reveal that Chittim, modern-day China, will form a part of a global economic market along with Europe, one that is prophesied to shut out the nations of Israel. It should be no surprise that China will be an integral part of this economic partnership with Europe, as it is now the world’s greatest exporter. These two trading blocs will soon dominate the global economy!

    The history of the Khitan demonstrates what has happened to many of the Mongolic tribes that once roamed the western portions of what the Bible calls Magog. These nomadic tribes were not considered Chinese when they were conquering the Han civilization, but after centuries of living inside China’s borders, much of their populations have been ethnically absorbed by the Han Chinese. Whatever remnants of these Mongolic nomads that have managed to remain distinct, such as the Mongols, are now classified as ethnic minorities in China.

    In the Khitan’s case, their absorption was so complete that an ethnic minority group from their descendants doesn’t even exist!

    The history of these nomads shows just how strong a connection China has with biblical Magog. To a certain degree, they even share the same borders and the same people. But if this explains the Mongolic nomads whose descendants now live in northern China, what about the original Han people who settled and continue to live in China’s heartland?

    Handling the Han

    The history of the Han Chinese is much less obscure. In fact, the Han people record their history all the way back to the time of the Tower of Babel!

    Ancient Chinese records speak of China’s first emperors, Yaou, Shun and Yu.

    One such record, The Shoo King, explains that one of Yaou’s tasks was to deal with the effects of a great flood that ravaged the land: “Destructive in their overflow are the waters of the inundation. In their vast extent they embrace the mountains and overtop the hills.”

    While scholars explain the inundation as a local flood in China, it is clear from the biblical account, God’s sacred Word, that these annals are talking about Noah’s Flood. Consider:

    During Yaou’s lifetime a new leader, Shun, came to power. According to another ancient Chinese manuscript, The Bamboo Annals, Shun is described as having a “black body.” He was obviously not Chinese, and his mother was called “the queen mother of the west,” indicating him as a foreigner. The Shoo King gives the name of Shun’s father as Koo-sow.

    According to Dr. Herman Hoeh’s Compendium of World History, this Shun was none other than the Nimrod of the Bible. Therefore Koo-sow, which can also be spelled Kusou, is Nimrod’s father Cush! And the “queen mother of the west” can only be Semiramis. She was the mother-wife of Nimrod who called herself “queen of heaven,” as documented in Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons. These are the three principal figures of man’s rebellion at the Tower of Babel.

    Nimrod was a son of Cush and therefore of the black race. The Bible describes him as a mighty rebellious leader who caused the people to revolt against God shortly after the Flood (Genesis 10:8-9). He gathered the different races and peoples together to build the Tower of Babel, but was stopped when God intervened and confused the languages (Genesis 11:1-7). The different races and peoples were then scattered to different areas of the world (verse 8).

    At that point, Yu became the next ruler. Yu, China’s first great hero, founded the Xia dynasty; from that point forward, leadership was given on a hereditary basis. The return of government to a Chinese ruler indicates that the Chinese immediately left the area of Babel and broke free from Nimrod and his successors’ rule. Under Chinese rulers, they migrated to their modern-day location.

    The chronology as presented by The Shoo King places the rules of these three kings toward the end of the third millennia b.c. (The Chinese Classics). This time frame also agrees with the Bible.

    The Chinese have preserved the most complete secular history of their civilization, dating back more than 4,000 years. There is a lot of myth and legend included as well, but the general chronology of emperors is verified by archeological finds, as well as what is recorded in Scripture.

    Archeological Proof

    Western scholars and the Chinese themselves, heavily influenced by Western thought after the 1920s, believed the Xia dynasty and the history immediately following were mere inventions, mythical heroes and kingdoms.

    However, an archeological find in 1959 at Erlitou in the western part of the Henan province revealed an early Chinese society dating back to the same time and place that The Shoo King records the Xia dynasty existed! The city found at Erlitou is the largest of all cities found dating to this time period and is believed to be the capital city of the Xia government.

    Since that find in the North China Plain off the Yellow River, archeologists have found some 200 sites revealing the same culture throughout a broad area, demonstrating a rapid settlement and urbanization during 1900 to 1500 b.c. This was the formation of the first Chinese state! (The Chinese Neolithic: Trajectories to Early States).

    The Bamboo Annals records the existence of other Chinese states and how the Xia rulers expanded their control over them. Archeologists have found evidence of other Chinese states, but none contained as many settlements as those closely identified with the city found in Erlitou where the Xia ruled—clearly the center of power of the first post-Flood Chinese civilization.

    Interestingly, the archeological record shows a period of extremely low-population settlement in the period immediately before the Erlitou culture arrived. The archeologists, steeped in evolutionary thought, call the time before the Flood the Neolithic period. They have found evidence of a thriving civilization in China in this time period, followed by a contraction in settlement, with evidence pointing to drastic flooding in the region (ibid.).

    Though the archeologists won’t admit it, this is evidence of a great flood followed by a resettlement of the area led by the Xia dynasty!

    Back to Gog and Magog

    So if history is clear that Shun is Nimrod, who are Yaou and Yu? How do these names fit in our biblical identity?

    A basic understanding of Ezekiel 38 gives us that information. That chapter speaks of the land of Magog and specific people or peoples living in that land: “Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog” (verse 2). Gog and Magog are also mentioned together in Revelation 20:8, showing a close connection between the land and peoples. When Arab historians talked of the Mongols, they used the terms Yagog and Magog.

    According to Dr. Hoeh, Yaou in Chinese history is likely the same person the Arabs call Yagog in their tradition. Every prophetic indication is that China has a strong connection with Gog and Magog. Ezekiel 38:2 refers to China. Along with Russia, China dominates the entire area of Magog and is associated with the nations listed in subsequent verses.

    Therefore, the Chinese Han people were ruled first by a Japhetic descendant associated with Magog—possibly his son, though the Bible doesn’t say specifically. During Nimrod’s rebellion at the Tower of Babel, the Chinese were ruled by Nimrod. After his reign, when God intervened and changed the languages, government over the Chinese returned to the Japhetic line, under Yu’s rule. These people then migrated north and east to modern-day China, setting up their capital in the North China Plain at the end of the third millennium b.c.

    The location of China helps reveal other biblical identities as well.

    Kings of the East

    In a prophecy recorded in Daniel 11, a clash is foretold between “the king of the north,” a German-led European power, and “the king of the south,” a radical Islamic power led by Iran (these prophetic identities are explained in our booklets Germany and the Holy Roman Empire and The King of the South, both free upon request). Emerging victorious, the European army is then prophesied to conquer the tiny Jewish nation now called Israel. At that point, verse 44 foretells, “tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble” this European king.

    Any map will show that north and east of Jerusalem are Russia and China, the two dominant powers of the land biblically referred to as Magog!

    This event is further expounded in Revelation 16:12, where it is prophesied that the “kings of the east” will gather an army that numbers 200 million soldiers! (Revelation 9:14-16). Such a vast army could only be assembled with the massive population of China. Clearly China is one of those kings of the east!

    So back to our original question: Will China become the world’s next dominating superpower after the decline of the U.S.? The answer is no!

    Though it will grow to tremendous world power, even superpower status—especially through economic means, as indicated in Isaiah 23—it will not rise to the top spot. That position will be filled by the European power led by Germany! After a short economic partnership, China will violently contend with the king of the north for global dominance.

    But this war will end when Jesus Christ returns and destroys both powers!

    After that, according to biblical prophecy, Christ will restore His government on Earth, a government that will bring peace and prosperity for 1,000 years. Yet Ezekiel 38 prophesies that not every nation will submit to Christ’s rule voluntarily. Soon after the Second Coming, the people of Asia will form an army in order to attack the people living in Jerusalem!

    This will be the last great rebellion in the 1,000-year period. Christ will utterly destroy it and deliver His people. It is a grand statement from God: “Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord” (Ezekiel 38:23).

    Believing the Bible gives us an understanding of ancient Chinese history that scholars reject, and reveals the future status of China and major events this world power will participate in. But even more, it gives us the final and inspiring end result: Christ establishing His Kingdom on Earth!

    God is offering the wonderful opportunity to know, now, who is the Lord! Horrible wars are prophesied to occur shortly, but God will deliver His people, those who know He is the Lord and rely on Him. That should lead to the next big question: Are you one of those?

    For further study, order a free copy of our booklet Russia and China in Prophecy.

  • Turkey says returning to normal in ties with China

    Turkey says returning to normal in ties with China

    Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu met with Nur Bekri, chairman of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, in Urumqi on the first day of his visit to China.
    Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu met with Nur Bekri, chairman of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, in Urumqi on the first day of his visit to China.

    Turkey’s willingness to build a strategic bilateral cooperation with China should not be regarded as an exceptional move, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has stated, arguing that, on the contrary, such a move is a sign of normalization. Davutoğlu departed Ankara on Wednesday for a six-day official visit to China, with Kashgar, where Muslim Uighurs make up the vast majority of the population, being his first stop during the visit.

    Turkey already has exemplary relations with Western countries, and its bilateral relations with globally rising powers such as Brazil, China, India and Russia have been expanding recently, Davutoğlu said, while speaking to a group of journalists on board a plane en route to Kashgar from Ankara.

    “The basis of our entire policy is the normalization of history. Our relations being good with China at the moment is not something abnormal; it was abnormal to have bad relations,” Davutoğlu was quoted as saying in apparent response to comments displaying developing ties between Turkey and China as proof of a so-called axis shift from the West to the East in Turkish foreign policy.

    With his conception of the “normalization” of history, Davutoğlu underlines the importance of eliminating Cold War and colonial abnormalities. “[The] end of the Cold War — [Francis] Fukuyama claimed [it] was the end of history. I claimed history had begun because there was an abnormality [during] the Cold War and that history will try to normalize it,” Davutoğlu said at the time.

    Turkey’s developing relations with these global powers are not emerging at the expense of neglecting its cooperation with the West, Davutoğlu said. “They should not consider these relations as an alternative [to existing relations with Western countries],” he stressed, while underlining that Turkey has been continuing its intense diplomatic contact with Western powers as well.

    Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu met with Nur Bekri, chairman of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, in Urumqi on the first day of his visit to China.

    “My trip to Brussels is no longer news,” the minister said and added that US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan were meeting six or seven times a year while the US and Turkish leaders met at most two times a year a decade ago.

    Davutoğlu’s visit to China came weeks after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Turkey during which the two countries took a landmark step in developing their bilateral ties, which they have begun to define as a “strategic partnership.”

    During the visit, China and Turkey agreed to use their own currencies, rather than dollars, in bilateral trade, while Wen and Erdoğan signed eight deals in areas including transportation and trade. In October 2009 Erdoğan announced that Turkey and Iran had prepared a legal framework to transition to agreements in national currencies. According to Davutoğlu, Ankara’s policy that insists on using diplomatic means to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program has increased China’s interest in developing bilateral relations with Turkey.

    “They have noticed the big potential,” Davutoğlu said, arguing that maintaining stability in the Middle East would be highly beneficial, particularly for Turkey and China.

    Ankara and Beijing have both increased their commercial ties with Iran, signing deals on oil and gas fields to the frustration of Western powers, who suspect the Islamic republic of seeking to build a secret nuclear weapons program, an allegation the latter denies. China reluctantly backed the last round of UN sanctions on Iran while Turkey, along with Brazil, voted against the sanctions. Both China and Turkey have defended their trade with Iran as legitimate.

    Bilateral cooperation in the military field is a significant aspect of relations between Turkey and China. In September, they held joint aerial exercises at Turkey’s training range in the Central Anatolian town of Konya, where Anatolian Eagle exercises are taking place between NATO allies and friendly countries. Some eyebrows were raised following the exercises, with reports suggesting that the US and Israel were watching with concern the growing military cooperation among Turkey, China and Iran.

    Increasing support to Xinjiang

    Davutoğlu told reporters that his visit to China is part of an action plan jointly drawn up by Turkey and China following the violent clashes between local ethnic-Turkic Muslim Uighurs and the dominant Han Chinese community in June 2009. Calling the clashes, which came days after President Abdullah Gül’s landmark visit to this country last year, as a tough crisis, Davutoğlu said the crisis had now been overcome, with high-level visits taking place between the countries at a regular pace. The clashes that broke out in July in Urumqi left 197 dead and several hundred wounded, according to official Chinese numbers.

    Davutoğlu, who proceeded to Urumqi following his visit to Kashgar, highlighted the symbolic importance of his itinerary. According to him, better relations between Turkey and the Chinese administration will help Turkey increase its contribution to people living in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, populated by ethnic Turkic Muslim Uighurs.

    With Ankara and Beijing planning to have at least one leader-level visit per year, Erdoğan will pay an official visit to this country next year, Davutoğlu announced.

    29 October 2010, Friday

    SERVET YANATMA/OSMAN EROL  KASHGAR/URUMQI

  • Teens dip their lids to war hero

    Teens dip their lids to war hero

    Monash ErenTwo young Gallipoli descendants are among the first Victorians in decades to touch the helmet that once protected our greatest military mind.

    Mitchell Hutchinson, 15, and Ekrem Eren, 16, ( son of John H. Eren MLA ) were invited to the Shrine of Remembrance, where Sir John Monash’s tin hat will go on public display for the first time before Anzac Day. They held in their hands, just as the great commander Monash held in his hands the lives of their great-grandfathers–and many others–from 1915 to 1918. Ninety years ago the fore fathers of the two Aussie teens were enemies on the Turkish battle field where Monash was a colonel under that helmet.

    Mitchell’s great-grandfather, William Paul McKenzie, was a Digger in Monash’s 14th Battalion, while Ekrem’s great-grandfather, Hamdi Isteni, was a Turkish officer. (under the command of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk..)

    The Herald Sun, Tuesday, April 12 2005

  • One-sided thinking on Gallipoli an injustice

    One-sided thinking on Gallipoli an injustice

    John MonashMartin Flanagan

    LEGENDS are like earthquakes. They happen. Afterwards, we try to understand the forces that created them. Anzac is an Australian legend that has a roughly analogous place to the Civil War in the American psyche. Both are stories of young nations encountering the horrors of modern warfare for the first time – that is, wars fought with repeating rifles and machineguns and appalling casualty rates. Both conflicts represent massive and unprecedented change.

    As popular culture, however, what the Civil War has that Anzac doesn’t is the view of both sides. In 1983, when his yacht, Australia 2, won the America’s Cup, owner Alan Bond acknowledged that at one stage his crew had been losing but added “it was just like Gallipoli, and we won that one”.
    It would be interesting to know exactly how that comment was received in lounge rooms across Australia. Did it feel “right” to most who heard it? My guess is that it did.
    Gallipoli was a military disaster. We should note that in justice to the young men who died there. Do we owe them less than we owe those who die in bushfires like Black Saturday? We should also note it in justice to future generations. The voices that urged Australia into the invasion of Iraq were of the same character as those that propelled Australia to Gallipoli in 1914. In the context of Anzac, we also need to note the extent of the debacle to appreciate the stature of the major Australian characters who emerged from it – like, for example, General Sir John Monash.
    The planning at Gallipoli was a farce. Six weeks before the landing, by way of military intelligence, the British officer commanding the operation, General Sir Ian Hamilton, was equipped with two small guidebooks on Turkey and a text book on the Turkish army. Ellis Ashmead Bartlett, an English journalist covering the campaign who correctly foresaw from the outset that it was doomed, said intelligence would be acquired “at the point of a bayonet”. And it was.
    Monash was an engineer. Born in West Melbourne to Jewish German immigrants, Monash was of the century just beginning, a man who understood steel and concrete and modern automation. His battles were meticulously planned. The British prime minister Lloyd George described Monash “as the most resourceful general in the whole of the British Army”. Monash is a giant figure in Australian history.
    Propaganda was involved in shaping the popular view of Gallipoli from the start. Take the case of John Simpson Kirkpatrick, the man with the donkey. Within six weeks of his death, he had been conscripted into the propaganda war, a newspaper report describing him as ”a six-foot Australian” with ”a woman’s hands” who said in a British-Australian accent, ”I’ll take this fellow next.”
    Simmo was a five-foot-eight Geordie with a stoker’s hands who spoke in dialect and had fierce Labor politics. His first biographer, a fan of Churchill and acquaintance of Sir Robert Menzies, stripped him of his politics. There was no mention of boozing or fighting. The real Simmo was left in a grave at Gallipoli.
    What the Australians won at Gallipoli was huge respect, including from their enemy. It really is time we started making clear to young Australians that the Anzacs didn’t die protecting Australia from being invaded. Rather, we were invading a country on the other side of the world – to wit, Turkey – with whom we had no difference as a people outside the larger politics of the day.
    Surely it is time we owed Turkey, and Turkish Australians, that respect. Look at the respect Turkey shows our dead.
    I ask this question most seriously. Does any country in the world – other than Turkey – permit a people who tried to invade it to commemorate the fact of that attempted invasion on their shores each year? I know of not a single one. Imagine if the descendants of the Japanese pilots who bombed Darwin held an emotional service beneath the Japanese flag on the shores of Darwin Harbour each year.
    My impression is that within Turkey the legend of Anzac got absorbed into the legend of Ataturk, the so-called father of modern Turkey, who, as a young man, championed the Turkish defence at Gallipoli.
    It was Ataturk who declared to the mothers of Australia that their sons lay in friendly soil. A group of about 80 Turkish Australians march each year in Melbourne on Anzac Day. Anzac Day would not be the same without them.
    Martin Flanagan is a senior writer.

    April 24, 2010

  • Turkey Analysis: Is Ankara Now in a “Radical Axis of Evil”? (No.)

    Turkey Analysis: Is Ankara Now in a “Radical Axis of Evil”? (No.)

    Ali Yenidunya in EA Middle East and Turkey

    turkish airforce

    Our question for today: is Turkey still a pro-Western country looking forward to entering the European Union. Or has Ankara, “unfortunately, joined the radical axis formed led by Iran and supported by Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah”.

    Let’s start with a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on 11 October:

    We also had wonderful, friendly relations with another country, with military cooperation, with full diplomatic relations, with visits by heads of state, with 400,000 Israeli visitors to that country. That country is called Turkey.

    What prompts Netanyahu to use the past tense? Is it because Turkey ejected Israel from a planned international air force exercise or because Turkey and Syria held joint military exercises in late April? Is it because Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told off Israeli Prseident Shimon Peres over Israel’s bloody war in Gaza in World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2009 or because Turkey did not stop the Freedom Flotilla which tried to break the Gaza siege?

    Is it because Turkey conditionally accepted NATO’s planned anti-missile system, saying that  it should not be presented as a defence against Iran? (On Friday, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said: “We do not perceive any threat from any neighbour countries and we do not think ouur neighbors form a threat to NATO.”) Or is it because of a joint Turkish-Chinese air-force exercise held two weeks ago?

    If I may offer an alternative to the “radical axis” thesis at this point….

    Ankara’s new foreign policy under the Justice and Development Party is not a revisionist manoeuvre but a reflection of its rising autonomy due amidst Washington’s decreasing power — from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Iraq to the rest of the Middle East — coupled with regional powers taking more initiative, economically and politically. Ankara, like its regional neighbours, wants to get benefit from this international conjuncture.

    And in order to become a stronger regional power, Ankara had to give up its discourse based on antagonism towards its neighbours (no need even to mention the need to solve its Armenian, Kurdish and ecumenical Greek Orthodox problems). The next step was to increase trade, boost bilateral relationships, build trust with old enemies, and raise your credibility with statements showing you are standing with the “weak”. Erdogan did this for Gazans and for Uighur Turks in northwest China. (How fast do we forget that Erdogan blamed a Chinese official of committing a “a near genocide” after the killing of 184 people last year in the conflict?)

    Some other facts: Turkey signed eight new trade agreements with China in early October, bypassing the US dollar for direct business between the Turkish Lira and Yuan. The goal is to achieve a trade volume of $100 billion in ten years from the current amount of $17 billion. As for the “existential threat” of Iran, the trade volume between Iran and Turkey was $1.4 billion in 2000 but it was $8 billion in 2008. (And of this, only $236 million in 2000 were Turkish exports; by 2007, the figure was $1.3 billion.) Turkey is now carrying out around 14 to 15% of its trade with its neighbours as opposed to 3 to 4% in the previous decade.

    As a champion of privatisation, Turkey is still a relatively “liberal” — perhaps neo-liberal — country, both economically and politically. This is still the same Ankara trying to be a part of European Union, following the adjustment of domestic law to the harmonization code of the EU in 2001 and in 2004. That is not to say Ankara is doing a great job fulfilling all of the democratic criteria to become a member state of the EU, but it has a pro-Western identity.

    I call my closing witness. Who would like to see a stronger Turkey (with reduced tension with Israel, of course) that has close relationships and is diplomatically and economically capable of holding negotiations with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan?

    Talking to BBC’s “Record Europe”, US Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton said: “Turkey is becoming a greater global and regional power. Its economy is growing dramatically. They are extending to countries and try to be effective on their own as well as with us.”

    Increasingly autonomous? Yes. Radically evil? No.

    Article originally appeared on EA WorldView (http://www.enduringamerica.com/).