Developments as civil rebellion against the dictators are consequences of not fulfilling the rightful demands of the communities and not being able to assort with the changing world conditions. With the repressions that the local communities have experienced for years under a rough regime, the life which repressive leaders and families in these countries spend in a rich and even extravagant way turned the pent-up reaction of the Middle East communities into mass actions. For instance “ When we have a look at Libya with six and a half million population, it is seen that even they obtain 25-30 billion Dollars income from the petroleum and natural gas reserves they have, this richness doesn’t spread to the country-wide but kept in control of a small part of the population particularly the Gaddafi family.[i]”

Democracy and freedom demands of local communities’ being ignored for years is one the main reasons that creates the rightfulness and profundity of the rebellions of fraud, poverty, and dictator repression in the country. The role of public diplomacy and social media in process of turning the public demands into a mass action shows how the globalization effective and directive is.

 

The civil rebellion experienced in North Africa and Middle East affecting the other countries as in a domino effect rises the suspicions that the process is directed. After having good relations with the tyrant leaders in the Middle East, the Western powers, particularly the US exhibiting a counter attitude towards these leaders show that the authoritarian leaders were not useful for the West anymore. Non-governmental organizations’ originated from West, supporting and setting ground for the rebellions initially, and soon after “Humanitarian Intervention” in Libya under the leadership of France, with support of the US and England, are the proofs that the basis of these rebellions in North Africa and Middle East are prepared beforehand and that the West wants to use the rightful demands of the local communities in its own interest.

 

USA’s attack on Iraq in 2003 resulting in heavy economic costs, creating a negative image of the US, Iran’s gaining strength in that region and the balance of the region turned upside down caused the US’s not to gain exactly intended results from Iraq. While the US was stuck in the mud of the Middle East, countries such as Russia, China and India progressed in economy and commerce. This fact made it necessary for the US to use soft power instead of hard powers in the region. With the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 and Russia’s increase of efficiency in Eurasia with the failure of colorful revolutions and China’s increased strength in world eco-politics show that the US doesn’t have the luxury for waiting time in Middle East. The civil rebellions in Middle East happening in no time at all have evidential value.

 

The influence of the countries such as India, Russia, Japan and particularly China on a global scale is increasing. It strengthens the probability of world’s power weight’s changing direction from Transatlantic to the Far East and the probability of USA inclining to this region in the second quarter of 21st century. USA needs to turn the balances in the Middle East exactly in its own favor to be able to incline to the Far East and the Middle East and to be able to develop a policy against increasing effect of China. For this to happen it is necessary to democratize the Middle East countries and integrate this region with global capital.

 

Developments in the Middle East show that an event experienced in any country has the potential of affecting the regional and even global dynamics. Considering the fragile dynamics in the Middle East and the Turkic republics having similar political regimes with Middle East, the Turkic republics have the risk of experiencing the similar events. The colorful revolutions happened in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan show that the countries in the Eurasia geography have the probability and experience of having the similar events in the Middle East. Furthermore it has been twenty year since the Eurasia Turkic republic gained their independence and their experience of the globalization with the independence is sensitizing the social and political balances. For instance if we discuss Kyrgyzstan, there is dynamics ready to explode in the country with the reasons of recently happened conflict between Kyrgyz and Uzbek Turks and state authority not existing properly. In a country which is ready for provocation such ad Kyrgyzstan, there is risk of civil rebellion that can turn into infighting.

 

On the other hand, there are huge similarities between Turkic and Arab governments in respect to the regimes. In both region countries there are leaders who came in and remained as a leader. These leaders necessarily show tyranny incline. The leader of Uzbekistan is Niyazov Kerimov since its foundation, just as Mubarak in Egypt or Gaddafi in Libya ruled for many years. In the same way Separmurat Niyazov was President in Turkmenistan since its independence till his death and he ruled the country under one-man system. We can see that in Turkic republics there are regimes based on dynasty like in Arab countries. In Azerbaijan Ilhan Aliyev came in right after Hayder Aliyev, just like how after Hafız Esad his son Bashar Esad took over the ruling in Syria.

 

It is not possible for Turkic republics to bring democracy in no time at all before formalizing state authority and system. These newly independent countries give the protectionist reflex and the period of transition of a leader in the regime something obligatory. This protectionist reflex reached such a format that: After the independence of these countries Turkey’s approach to them was perceived as a new “elder brother” after the Soviets. However, these communities’ being under a tyrant regime since they gained their independence after living under the repression of Soviet Union, are the risk of the repression accumulated in society to turn into mass activities. In this regard, Nazarbayev and Kazakhstan serve as a model on behalf of the Turkic republics. Even though Nazarbayev rules the government since its independence he didn’t turn his administration into a tyrant regime, he encouraged the institutions and the community to a democratic structure as well as performing studies to provide national integrity. Moreover, despite the claims of Russian saying that he could create a civil conflict, he made Turks dominant in the North of the country and Uzbek Turks dominant in the South of the country, and carried out the processes of nationalizing and democratization in a good way. However the authority gap can come up after Nazarbayev has the risk of a chaos in the country.

The similarities between the Turkic republics and Arab governments are seen not only in their regime but in also in their economics. The Turkic republics that have natural sources particularly the natural gas just like the Middle East countries have problem in spreading these sources as an income to the community. On top of the poverty, fraud is another great problem of these countries.

 

Central Asian Turkish Governments’ risks are not only about internal dynamics but also bring external threats. Local and global factors such as China, Russia, Germany, India and Iran’s increasing pressure in the region and the US’s intensifying its Middle East policy in future utilizing NATO causing a breakdown of the balances in the region. Concurrently Afghanistan originated radical Islamic organizations are threatening the safety in the region. This region is exposed to ideological blockade and ethno-theological operations which are ethnic-ideological-spiritual operations with the effect of globalizing. All of these external factors increase the probability of rebellions in Central Asia.

 

 

The period of restructuring the Middle East, started with 11 September 2001 attacks and continued with 2003 US Iraqi invasion, and continues with the civil rebellions started as “Arab Spring.” Economic distresses started in Europe, formalization of the revolts in Syria, and potential of Iran to be affected by the rebellions create an equivocacy for the West. With the elimination of these equivocacies and resulting in its own favor, the probability of US engagement to the Central Asia in the second quarter of 21^st century will increase. For the Turkic republics which gained their independence recently comparing with the Middle East countries, and soon found itself in globalizing process and still has the reminiscent from Soviet system, thus the period from now on has risks in it. With the Russian all along and increasing Chinese influence, presence of USA that will want to increase its population in the region with development of the process in the Middle East resulted in how it wanted, can cause Eurasia geography major fractures. In the extent of these fractures and in scope of the effect of Arab Spring in Iran, the rebellions can be spread to the Central Asia.

 

Turkey, with an older process of state building and democratization plays a key role for the Arab and Turkic governments. Turkey taking Arab communities’ rightful demands into consideration; supporting democratization not for the imperialist interests but for the freedom and peace of Middle Eastern communities, will fulfill its historical mission. When we think of the probability of the spread of the rebellions winds, blow in Middle East, into Central Asia steppe; the impact of these winds on these countries can be reduced with the support of Turkey. As a result of Turkey’s developing the relations with Turkic republics in every sense[ii] the chance of Islam Cooperation Organization to take place in restructuring the Middle East and Turkestan geography will increase and also it will decrease the prevent Eurasia from being a game arena of the global actors.

*SDE Intern

---