Diplomacy
Chinese Academy responds to Erdogan’s ‘Uyghur’ speech at UN
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s emphasis on ‘Uyghur Turks’ while talking about the Organisation of Turkic States in his speech at the 79th General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) in New York has drawn reactions from the Chinese public.
In his speech to the UN General Assembly, President Erdoğan said that the Organisation of Turkic States is gradually becoming a centre of attraction and that with the contributions of observer members Hungary and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Organisation has become an exemplary model of cooperation.
Stating that they will further strengthen unity and solidarity as the Turkic world, Erdoğan said, “We are in close dialogue with China to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Uighur Turks, with whom we have strong historical, cultural and human ties, within the framework of respecting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are committed to taking the friendly relations we have established with all countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to a higher level.
The Chinese Academy responded to Erdoğan’s speech on relations with China in the context of the Uyghurs and the Organisation of Turkic States.
‘Violating the basic principles of international relations’
Prof. Dr Guo Changgang, director of the Institute of History at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and director of the Centre for Turkish Studies at Shanghai University, said Erdoğan’s remarks were a violation of China’s sovereignty and the basic principles of international relations.
Prof Guo Changgang said:
‘I believe that when Erdogan talks about ‘working to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Uyghur Turks, with whom we have strong historical, cultural and humanitarian ties, through close dialogue with China and respecting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity’, first of all, he is violating the basic principles of international relations. Secondly, it is an interference in the sovereignty of other Turkic-speaking countries, because he is acting as a representative of these countries as if he were their master. Thirdly, it is not only a lack of respect for China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also a gross form of interference. The Uyghurs are part of the larger Chinese family; if Erdogan believes that there is a historical cultural link between Turkish Turks and Chinese Uyghur Turks, this link should serve as a bridge for Turkish-Chinese friendship and a facilitator for Turkish-Chinese relations, not as a ‘weapon’ or a tool to increase bilateral tensions. I don’t understand how Erdogan, as a politician, can make such statements that lack international relations and political wisdom.’
‘One of the main reasons for this is probably Erdogan’s aforementioned logical stance,’ said Prof Guo, noting that since the establishment of a ‘strategic cooperation relationship’ between China and Türkiye in 2010, the relationship has not progressed further and has not reached the level of a ‘strategic partnership’.
‘I fully understand Türkiye’s sense of national pride, and as a historian, I also understand the ‘construction’ and ‘interpretation’ of Turkish history in the nation-building process of the Turkish Republic. Türkiye can claim in its history textbooks that the Sumerian civilisation, the Egyptian civilisation and later the Minoan-Mycenaean civilisation were based on the Turkic civilisation, and that the Turkic world once stretched from the Adriatic Sea to the western shores of the Pacific Ocean,’ Prof Guo said, adding that this should not be used as an excuse for Türkiye to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries concerned.
‘Against Türkiye’s national interests’
Commenting on Erdoğan’s speech, Prof. Hasan Ünal also criticised the ‘reduction of relations with China to the Uyghur agenda’.
‘The fact that President Erdoğan mentioned relations with China only in the context of the Uyghur issue in his speech to the UN General Assembly is one of the most important shortcomings of the speech,” said Prof Dr Hasan Ünal, ‘relations with China, the undisputed superpower of the multipolar world, constitute/should constitute the most important pillar of the multilateral foreign policy that Türkiye pursues or, more precisely, should pursue, and this issue can’t be reduced to the Uyghur issue’.
Ünal said, ‘In fact, relations with any state that hosts minorities/societies of Turkish origin cannot/should not be reduced to the situation of relations between the Turkish minorities and/or communities there and the states in question’ and gave the following example: ‘In Bulgaria, our neighbouring country, a large Turkish community lives in very good conditions and is an element of relations between Türkiye and Bulgaria. Their loyalty to the Bulgarian state is unquestionable. Türkiye should not interfere in the internal affairs of Bulgaria through the Turkish community or in the internal issues/discussions of the Turkish community. It contributes to the credibility of the Turkish community in Bulgaria by not interfering, except for some mistakes made in this direction in recent years’.
Noting that similar principles apply to the Uyghur issue, which is often raised in our relations with China, Ünal said: ‘The Uyghur issue is not and should not be a foreign policy issue for Türkiye. Relations between Ankara and Beijing should be decided directly between the two states on the basis of sovereignty and national interests. It cannot be reasonable and logical for Ankara to include an issue like the Uyghurs in this policy-making process. The Uyghurs will become part of the bridge formed by the good relations between Türkiye and China, and this is the right thing to do’.
‘Otherwise, problems and misunderstandings are inevitable,’ warned Ünal, adding that President Erdoğan’s remarks were ‘very open to misunderstanding’ and that ‘it is really difficult to understand why this sentence was inserted in the part of the speech that talks about the close cooperation between the countries of the Organisation of Turkic States. Because here, by presenting itself as the representative of the Uyghur Turks and even the Turkic world, Türkiye appears as a state trying to take away their rights, which they cannot get from China and which no sovereign state can accept’.
On the other hand, Ünal stressed that none of the member states of the Organisation of Turkic States has kept this issue on the agenda in its relations with China, and said that Türkiye’s raising of an issue that these states have not in any way made a foreign policy issue within the framework of cooperation among the members of the Organisation of Turkic States could raise suspicions among other states that ‘Ankara is trying to create a Uyghur agenda by using them’. Prof. Dr Hasan Ünal stated that Türkiye would not benefit from such an outcome in terms of its national interests and said: ‘It goes without saying that the ‘genocide of the Uyghurs’ allegations in Türkiye and around the world are purely American propaganda’.
Diplomacy
Greece’s Marinakis says paying Hormuz transit fees beats enduring Red Sea shipping crisis detour
Evangelos Marinakis, one of Greece’s leading shipowners, has announced that he is prepared to pay up to $200,000 per transit to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to civilian maritime traffic.
Speaking to the Financial Times, Marinakis stated that paying a transit fee would be a far better option for him than having the strait closed to navigation.
As the chairman of Capital Maritime Group, which controls a fleet of 185 vessels including approximately 35 tankers, Marinakis emphasized that shipowners have been forced to use alternative routes around the Cape of Good Hope for years due to attacks launched by the Houthis in the Red Sea, a detour that has generated substantial additional costs.
The Greek shipowner indicated that paying a transit fee of $100,000 or $200,000, depending on the size of the cargo or the vessel, is far more reasonable than enduring the current logistical challenges. He added that such payments could offset all the losses experienced so far.
Following US strikes on Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Tehran administration had introduced transit fees of up to $2 million for certain vessels transiting the waterway.
In May, Iran announced the establishment of a state agency tasked with managing the Strait of Hormuz. It was stated that the institution in question would provide real-time updates regarding maritime activities in the waterway.
Ebrahim Azizi, the chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, had noted that only commercial vessels and countries cooperating with Iran would be able to benefit from the facilities provided under this “professional mechanism.”
US President Donald Trump has explicitly opposed the imposition of transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz. In a statement on the matter, Trump said, “We want the strait to be open. We do not want any transit fees to be charged. This is an international waterway.”
On the other hand, the draft text of a planned 60-day ceasefire extension agreement between the parties stipulates that the Strait of Hormuz will remain open without any transit fees being demanded.
According to the draft details reviewed by Axios, the US in return commits to lifting the blockade it has imposed on Iranian ports. The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, however, announced that the management of the Strait of Hormuz has been excluded from the scope of the agreement with the US, asserting that the issue will be addressed solely by littoral states.
Diplomacy
Pashinyan promises aid to farmers hit by Russian import restrictions
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has pledged compensation for Armenian farmers affected by restrictions on exports to Russia.
According to Sputnik Armenia, Pashinyan made the announcement during an election campaign meeting in the Gegharkunik region.
Speaking at the event, Pashinyan said the subsidies would be designed to offset losses incurred by producers.
The prime minister also acknowledged that some Armenian products had failed to meet required quality standards, adding that such companies would receive support aimed at improving product quality.
Addressing alternative markets for Armenian exports, Pashinyan said several Armenian business delegations were already engaged in negotiations abroad.
He added that Armenia had received offers for the purchase of roses as well as fresh fruits and vegetables.
Pashinyan argued that Armenia’s agricultural output was not particularly large, describing this as an advantage under current circumstances. According to the prime minister, “a respected supermarket chain in Europe” would be capable of selling the entire volume of these products on its own.
Russia’s Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) imposed temporary restrictions on imports of stone fruits and grapes from Armenia effective July 2.
The ban covers cherries, sour cherries, apricots, plums, peaches and nectarines, among other products.
On the same day, a temporary suspension was also introduced on certification procedures for live fish shipments from Armenia. Russian authorities had previously restricted the entry of flower products originating from Armenia into the Russian market.
In addition, Russia’s Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor) halted the import of all consignments of Jermuk mineral water from Armenia.
In a statement, the agency said levels of bicarbonate, chloride and sulfate ions in the mineral water exceeded established limits and could mislead consumers regarding the product’s medicinal properties.
The Russian regulator argued that the growing number of violations stemmed from the abolition of Armenia’s Agriculture Ministry and the transfer of its responsibilities to the Economy Ministry.
Rosselkhoznadzor further stated that Armenia’s Economy Ministry was experiencing structural problems and was unable to adequately perform the supervisory functions assigned to it.
Diplomacy
Zelenskyy urges US to grant Ukraine license to produce Patriot missiles
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he has asked the United States to grant Ukraine a license to manufacture missiles for the Patriot air defence system.
In a post on social media platform X, Zelenskyy argued that current US production of missile defence interceptors is insufficient and could contribute to crises in different parts of the world.
“Producing 60-65 missiles a month is nothing compared with the challenges we face today. This is no secret, and Russia knows it as well,” Zelenskyy wrote. “We need to expand production. As I requested from the previous US administration, I am asking the current administration to grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missiles.”
Zelenskyy said US companies possess advanced technologies that are not available in Ukraine, while Kyiv could contribute its extensive battlefield experience in return.
He also argued that granting such a license would benefit not only Ukraine, but also the Middle East and any country Washington chooses to support.
Washington pledges to maintain defence support
Zelenskyy’s remarks came a day after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on May 30 that Washington would continue supporting Ukraine’s defence capabilities and ensure military shipments to Kyiv continue.
“We want them to be able to defend themselves, and we will find a way to help them do that,” Hegseth said.
Several days earlier, Yuriy Ihnat, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, warned that the country’s air defence forces were experiencing a shortage of missiles.
“Due to certain supply problems, we are practically at starvation levels when it comes to missiles today,” Ihnat said.
Concerns persist over air defence missile stocks
In April, Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine’s stockpile of air defence missiles could be exhausted at any moment.
He said that under current conditions, air defence missiles were more critical for Ukraine than the air defence systems themselves.
Highlighting what he described as a critical shortage of Patriot missiles, Zelenskyy said: “We are facing a deficit now that could hardly be worse.”
Concerns that Ukraine could face a severe shortage of US-made air defence missiles had previously been reported by Reuters.
The situation was expected to worsen as the United States and its allies depleted significant portions of their arsenals during tensions with Iran, a point Zelenskyy also underscored.
In a separate statement in January, Zelenskyy said Ukraine lacked sufficient missiles for both US- and European-made air defence systems.
The Ukrainian leader said he had been forced to personally secure every package of missiles from European countries and the United States.
-
Asia2 weeks agoIran conflict accelerates yuan adoption and record CIPS volumes in global oil trade
-
Asia2 weeks agoXi and Putin deepen partnership with call for ‘multipolar world’
-
Europe2 weeks agoFive EU states push gradual single market access for Western Balkans
-
Middle East1 week agoLeaked documents show IRGC routed Chinese military equipment through UAE
-
Europe1 week agoFrench justice minister calls for three-year halt to legal immigration
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoNATO weighs Hormuz security mission if Iran blockade remains in place by July
-
Middle East1 week agoIran says Hormuz transit will remain free but ships must cover operational costs
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany initiates diplomatic contact with France’s National Rally ahead of presidential election
