Besides consuming delicious Turkish delight and visiting beautiful mosques in Istanbul, my trip to Turkey made me realize how similar some world events are to each other. Specifically, I am talking about how the respective governments handle minority crisis in Turkey, Myanmar, and China.
Minority crisis usually starts when a minority group near a border city rebels against the central government. It oftentimes involves attacks by some armed insurgents from the minority group. In response to the attacks, the central government would typically call the attackers “extremists” or “terrorists”, then handle the crisis by doing one of the two things: 1. Relocating the entire ethnic group (also called “resettlement”, “population transfer”, “forced migration”, etc.) or 2. Retaining and educating the minority group. However, history tells us that while the crisis can sometimes be contained, neither of the approaches is perfect.
The relocation of civilians by government on the grounds of national security is the most frequently used method during rebellions. Many countries have done it in the past: Turkey relocated Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during WWI, the US relocated Japanese American after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor during WWII, and Myanmar has been relocating Rohingyas to its neighboring country Bangladesh for decades. Unfortunately, relocation is messy by nature. History tells us that relocating civilians more than often leds to deaths caused by famine, disease, gang attacks, and misdeeds of authority. When that happens, the relocation oftentimes gets referred to as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, or “holocaust”.
Alternatively, retaining and re-educating civilians by government on the grounds of national security is used by some countries, such as China: Uyghurs, a Turkic minority who resides in Xinjiang (Northwest China) are being placed in re-education camps, where the Chinese language and vocational skills are being taught. Nonetheless, this approach is not without criticism: China is being condemned for political brainwashing and for preventing Uyghurs from fasting during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Different countries handle minority crisis differently. Regardless which approach is being implemented, the government will oftentimes get criticized one way or another. Nonetheless, my horizons on international relations are broadened every time I visit a new country, and I am grateful for that.
除了享受美味的土耳其甜點和參觀壯麗的清真寺，土耳其之行讓我意識到許多世界大事有很多相似的地方。 明確來說，我在談論土耳其，緬甸，和中國政府如何應對各自的少數民族危機。
少數民族危機通常源於在邊境城市的少數民族反抗中央政府，通常它會涉及到少數民族內一些武裝叛亂分子的襲擊。 為了應付這些襲擊，政府通常會將攻擊者稱為 ”極端分子” 或 “恐怖分子”，然後選擇以下兩種方式其一來處理危機: 1. 將整個族群搬到另外一個地區 (也稱為 “重新安置”，“人口轉移”，或 ”強迫遷移” 等）或 2. 保留和教育該少數民族。 然而，歷史告訴我們，雖然這些方法有時可以遏制危機，但兩種方法都不盡完美。
政府以國家安全為由重新安置少數民族平民是叛亂期間最常用的方法，許多國家過去都曾這樣做: 土耳其在第一次世界大戰重新安置過很多亞美尼亞人，美國在第二次世界大戰日本偷襲珍珠港後重新安置了很多美籍日本人，緬甸幾十年來一直將羅興亞人遷往其鄰國孟加拉及其他地方。 不過，搬遷的本質通常都是混亂的。 歷史告訴我們，重新安置平民往往會因飢荒，疾病，幫派襲擊，和不當使用權力而造成很多的傷亡。 當這種情況發生時，搬遷往往就被稱為 “種族滅絕”，“種族清洗”，甚至 “大屠殺”。
當然，一些國家也會以國家安全為由保留 (有些人會説是扣留) 和重新教育少數民族平民: 很多居住在新疆 (中國西北) 的維吾爾族人被安置在再教育營去學習中文和職業技能。 儘管如此，這種做法並不是沒有被批評的: 中國就被責在對維吾爾族人政治洗腦，和在穆斯林齋戒月期間阻止維吾爾族人禁食而受到譴責。
不同國家處理少數民族危機會採取不同方法，但無論採用哪種方法，政府通常都會受到批評。 儘管如此，當我每次遊訪一個國家，我對國際關係的看法都會得到一點的擴大，對此我是感覺不錯的。
#Turkey
