“Neutrality in Words and Silence in Substance”: Berdymukhamedov Commented on the Middle East, but Again Bypassed the Main Problems
The authorities of Turkmenistan have once again demonstrated a familiar model – loud statements on the international stage and total disregard for real problems inside the country. This time, the occasion was Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov’s first public comment on the rapidly escalating situation in the Middle East. During a visit to Austria, the head of the Halk Maslakhaty stated that Turkmenistan is “concerned” about what is happening, stands for peace, and is categorically against the use of weapons of mass destruction. He also emphasized the importance of neutrality and diplomatic methods of conflict resolution. At first glance, standard, “correct” rhetoric, but behind these words again lies a void.
Berdymukhamedov speaks of “peace” and “diplomacy,” yet for many years Turkmenistan has remained one of the most closed countries in the world, where freedom of speech, independent media, and real political competition are absent. An authority that does not allow dialogue within its own country can hardly act as a full-fledged participant in an international dialogue about peace. Official Ashgabat again hides behind the status of a “neutral state.” But in practice, this neutrality has long turned into a tool for evading responsibility, ignoring international crises, and isolating itself from the global agenda. When it comes to real threats – whether regional security or economic risks – Turkmenistan limits itself to general phrases and offers no specific steps.
Particular attention in the statement was paid to the Caspian region. Berdymukhamedov expressed alarm about possible military actions and recalled the 2018 Convention. However, here too the position remains declarative: no initiatives, no diplomatic efforts, no real participation in ensuring security. Effectively, Turkmenistan only states the threats but does not influence the situation.
Contrast with Reality Inside the Country Against the background of discussions about international security, within Turkmenistan itself, the economic impoverishment of the population, shortages of food and basic goods, mass labor migration, as well as pressure on citizens and the lack of legal protection continue. While the authorities speak of global threats, their own citizens are forced to struggle for basic survival.
Berdymukhamedov’s statement is not the position of a strong state, but another attempt to create the appearance of involvement, to demonstrate “correct” international rhetoric, and to distract attention from internal problems. Turkmenistan remains a country where foreign policy is merely a storefront behind which a systemic crisis of governance is hidden. And so, when the world faces serious geopolitical challenges, not just words but actions are expected from states. But Turkmenistan under the current government is not ready for openness, is incapable of real diplomacy, and is not interested in changes. While the government continues to exist in a parallel reality, the people of the country are left alone with problems that are becoming deeper. Sooner or later, this gap between statements and reality will become critical.
