Famous British Historian says he is ready to be prisoned by France
JTW News (Saturday , 21 October 2006)
“The Armenian ‘genocide’ is an imperialist plot.” So said Dogu Perincek, in Marxist mode, and he chose to say it in Switzerland. Switzerland passed a law threatening prison for anyone ‘denying’ that there had been a genocide of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915, and Mr. Perincek was interrogated by the police.
There have been similar events in other countries and now we have the French parliament passing a law that is harsher than the Swiss one – a year’s prison and a heavy fine. This is a ridiculous and contemptible business – bad history and worse politics. It is also financially very grubby indeed. We all know how the American legal system can work: lawyers will agree to work for nothing, in return for a share of the profits at the end of a court case. Court cases are very expensive and it can simply be easier for banks or firms or hospitals to agree to make a payment without any confession of liability, just because fighting the case would be absurdly expensive, and the outcome – given how the American jury system works – unpredictable. A burglar, crawling over a householder’s glass roof, fell through it, was badly wounded, and took the householder to court: result, a million dollars in damages. Class actions by Armenian Diaspora descendants in California shook down the Deutsche Bank over claims dating back to 1915 and collected 17,000,000 dollars; then they attempted the same with a French insurance company. We can be entirely certain that if Turkey ever ‘recognizes the genocide’ then the financial claims will follow.
But if Turkey refuses to admit it, she is in fact on perfectly good ground. The very first thing to be said is that the business of ‘genocide’ has never been proved. The evidence for it is at best indirect and when the British were in occupation of Istanbul they never found any direct evidence or proof at all. They kept some hundred or so prominent Turks in captivity on Malta, hoping to find some sort of evidence against them, and failed. They asked the Americans if they knew anything and were told, no. The result is that the alleged ‘genocide’ has never been subjected to a properly-constituted court of law. The British released their Turks (meanly refusing to pay for their journeys back home from Malta). There is a counter-claim to the effect that this happened because the Nationalist Turks were holding British officers hostage but the fact is that the Law Officers simply said that they did not have the evidence to try their captives.
Diaspora Armenians claim that ‘historians’ accept the genocide case. There is some preposterous organization called ‘association of genocide scholars’ which does indeed endorse the Diaspora line, but who are they and what qualifications do they have? Knowing about Rwanda or Bosnia or even Auschwitz does not qualify them to discuss Anatolia in 1915, and the Ottoman specialists are by no means convinced of the ‘genocide’. There is in fact an ‘A’ team of distinguished historians who do not accept the Diaspora line at all. In France, Gilles Veinstein, historian of Salonica and a formidable scholar, reviewed the evidence in a famous article of 1993 in L’Histoire. Back then the Armenian Diaspora were also jumping up and down about something or other, and Veinstein summed up the arguments for and against, in an admirably fair-minded way. The fact is that there is no proof of ‘genocide’, in the sense that no document ever appeared, indicating that the Armenians were to be exterminated. There is forged evidence. In 1920 some documents were handed to the British by a journalist called Andonian. She claimed that he had been given them by an Ottoman official called Naim. The documents have been published as a book (in English and French) and if you take them at face value they are devastating: here is Talaat Pasha as minister of the Interior telling the governors to exterminate the Armenians, not to forget to exterminate the children in orphanages, but to keep it all secret. But the documents are very obviously a forgery – elementary mistakes as regards dates and signatures. At the time, in 1920, the new Armenian Republic was collapsing. Kazim Karabekir was advancing on Kars (which fell almost without resistance) and the Turkish Nationalists were co-operating with Moscow (in effect there was a bargain: Turkey would abandon Azerbaijan and Russia would abandon Anatolian Armenia). The Armenians were desperate to get the British to intervene and save them, by landing troops at Trabzon. However, the British (and still more the French) had had enough of the problems of Asia Minor and were in the main content to settle with the new Turkey. Andonian’s documents belong in that context. The chief Armenian ‘genocidist,’ V.Dadrian, still passionately defends the authenticity of these documents but the attempt does not do much credit to his scholarship: for instance, to the claim that the paper on which these documents were written came from the French school in Aleppo, he answers that there was a paper shortage (leading the Ottoman governor to ask a French headmaster if he could use some of his school-paper? Not very likely). The Naim-Andonian documents have incidentally never been tested in a court. The British refused to use them and a German court subsequently waved them aside. They have since disappeared – not what you would have expected had they been at all that is the sum total of the evidence as to ‘genocide’. Otherwise you are left with what English courts call ‘circumstantial evidence’ – i.e. a witness testifying that another witness said something to someone. Such evidence does not count. In the past three years Armenian historians have apparently been going round archives ın two dozen countries to find out what they contain – the Danish archives for instance. What they contain is what we knew already – that an awful lot of Armenians were killed or died in the course of a wartime deportation from many parts of Anatolia. Did the Ottoman government intend to exterminate the race, or was it just a deportation that went horribly wrong?
As to this, the experts are divided. A deportation gone wrong is the verdict of many of the best qualified historians – Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Justin McCarthy, Yusuf Halacoglu. Other historians who know the old script and the background believe that it was a premeditated campaign of extermination, and some of these historians are Turkish (Mete Tuncay and Selim Deringil, unless I am taking their names in vain). There is a Turkish historian, Taner Akcam, whose book, based on the war-crimes trials set up in the early period of the British occupation, is obviously scholarly and who accepts the genocide thesis (though he does stress that the process cannot be compared with what happened in Nazi Germany to the Jews). In view of these divisions among scholars it is simply scandalous that the French or any other parliament should decree what the answer is. But it is worse, because the Armenian Diaspora can be extremely vindictive. For instance, Gilles Veinstein, as a reward for his quite dispassionate article, faced a campaign of vilification. He had become a candidate for the College de France, which elects the very best scholars in the country to give seminars. The historians very much welcomed this: he is an extremely serious scholar. But the Armenian Diaspora organized a campaign against him, especially among the mathematicians for some reason. One of them, a Professor Thom, was told that, on the whole, the French historians supported Veinstein and did not like the genocide thesis. His answer: ‘they are all Ottomanists,’ as if that somehow disqualified them. The fact is that the Armenian Diaspora have never taken this affair to a proper court of law. Instead, they try to silence men such as Veinstein. There was an extraordinary episode in American publishing two years ago. A very well-known historian, Gunther Lewy, who was a professor at the University of Massachusetts and author of several books still in print on modern German history, wrote a book on the Armenian massacres on the basis of German documents. The book is valuable because it shows how Dadrian twisted the German evidence. He offered it to his usual publisher, Oxford University Press (New York branch). A report was commissioned from one Papazian – not exactly a celebrity – who identified what he claimed were tremendous inaccuracies: they turn out either not to be inaccuracies, or just little slips of the kind anyone might make. On that basis Lewy’s manuscript was refused on the grounds that he had taken up ‘Turkish denialist discourse’. He found another publisher, the University of Utah Press. And lo and behold the senior Armenian historian in the USA, Richard Hovannisian (University of California) wrote in protest to the President of that University to complain about the publication. Be it said, incidentally, that the last two volumes of Hovannisian’s History of Independent Armenia are a well-written and fair-minded account – in some ways, even a classic of historical writing (the earlier two volumes are not of the same class).
Now, there is something very wrong here. If you believe that you are right, and then you will let evidence speak for itself, and if you face opposition you will simply expect to win the argument one way or the other. Attempts to silence opposition, to boycott lectures by, say, Justin McCarthy, to bully or manipulate foreign politicians – all of that surely argues that the Armenians themselves know their case is very far from being overwhelming. In any case it does nothing whatsoever for Armenia. If you go to eastern Turkey and Kars, look across the border at Armenia. It is very poor, and will continue so if there is no commerce with Turkey. The only obvious industry is the issue of visas for Moscow or the USSR (or for that matter Turkey, where up to 100,000 ex-Soviet Armenians live). The place obviously lives off Diaspora money (and the spread of American fast-food places now means curiously enough that the inhabitants are becoming obese in the manner of some Americans). In Soviet times Armenia had a population approaching three million. Then came independence and the war over Karabagh. The population dwindles and declines every year and is now not much above 1,500,000 – of all absurdities, in other words, independence has caused the Armenians to lose twice as many as vanished in the supposed ‘genocide’ of 1915. There is in other words a sickness at the heart of this whole frankly preposterous affair.
What should Turkey do? If the French law does pass then Turks must be prepared to act, otherwise they risk being landed with enormous bills for compensation. It will take organization. I would volunteer, myself, to provoke some trouble in France: it would be very easy indeed for me to give a public lecture and just to point out what is wrong about the whole thesis of the ‘Armenian genocide’ – I might even just read out Veinstein’s article (or another important one by the then leading German general, Bronsart von Schellendorf). The French government probably would be mad enough to put me in prison for a while (this was done to a well-respected French historian of slavery, whose crime had been to point out that many Africans were involved in the slave trade and that some slaves volunteered for transportation because it saved them from cannibalism). But someone has to make a stand against the ridiculous misuse of parliamentary power and the instructing of historians what they must say about an event nearly a century old in a country two thousand kilometers away with a language that very few people can now read.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Stone (1941-) is a British historian of modern Europe, especially Central and Eastern Europe. He is the author of ''Europe Transformed, 1878-1919.'' Stone was born in Edinburgh, Scotland. Between 1984-1997, he served as professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford. Since 1997 Stone has worked at Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. After 2005, he transferred to Koc University,Istanbul,Turkey and still continues to teach there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 October 2006
Turkiye
Saturday, 28 April 2007
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
The politics of saying 'genocide'
Dear Friends,
Have a read of the below article published in the LA Times and my communications with Mr Welch below that.
Regards
Ataman
The politics of saying 'genocide'
More than 90 years after the Armenian genocide, the U.S. is deadlocked in a humiliating linguistic debate.
By Matt Welch, MATT WELCH is The Times' assistant editorial pages editor.April 22, 2007
ON TUESDAY, President Bush will be obliged, by law, to wrap his double-talking mouth around one of the most curiously persistent debates in modern geopolitics: Whether to call a 92-year-old genocide a "genocide."Every April 24 since 1994, the U.S. president has delivered a proclamation honoring the people Congress has declared to be "the victims of genocide, especially the 1 1/2 million people of Armenian ancestry who were the victims of the genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923." And every year since 1994, the U.S. president has managed to do it without once uttering the G-word.
It's a ritual of linguistic realpolitik in deference to the massive objections from Washington's important NATO ally, Turkey. But 2007 may be the year that the cop-out finally blows up in a president's face. What was once the obscure obsession of marginalized immigrants from a powerless little Caucasus country has blossomed in recent years into a force that has grown increasingly difficult to ignore. In 2000, the Armenian issue helped fuel one of the most expensive House races in U.S. history; two years ago, it turned a mild-mannered career U.S. diplomat into an unlikely truth-telling martyr.
Now the question of how to address these long-ago events is having an impact on next month's elections in Turkey. What's more, Congress appears poised to vote on a resolution urging the president to say the words "Armenian genocide" when observing the awkwardly named "National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man" on April 24 — the date in 1915 when the Ottoman predecessors of modern Turkey launched the genocide by rounding up 250 Armenian intellectuals for eventual execution.The resolution won't take effect on Tuesday. The Bush administration, ever mindful of its delicate relationship with Turkey (especially with a war in Iraq next door), takes the bill so seriously that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned in a joint letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) that it could "harm American troops in the field."
The lobbying has been successful enough that the House has delayed its vote until after this year's April 24 commemoration. But passage later this year would still be an enormous blow to the White House.Why is this hairsplitting exercise over a single word — in a nonbinding resolution, no less — reverberating so strongly more than nine decades later? The easy answer is that there has been a confluence of mostly unrelated events. Democrats took control of Congress in January and are spoiling for a fight, especially one that can paint Bush's foreign policy as hypocritical. The president, after all, used "genocide" as a justification to topple Saddam Hussein before, during and after the war against his regime, and the United States has not hesitated to apply the word to the crisis in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have died since 2003. Across the Atlantic, the Armenian question — especially Turkey's offensive laws against "insulting Turkishness," which have been used to prosecute even novelists who create fictional characters questioning the government's denialist position — has become one of the main lines of attack against Turkey's bid to become the first majority-Muslim country to join the European Union.
Most of the 15 countries that have officially recognized the genocide are European (with Switzerland and France even going so far as to pass over-the-top laws making it a crime to deny the genocide).Then there was the January murder of ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in broad daylight on a busy Istanbul street. Dink's assassination, at the hands of a Turkish nationalist, shocked the world and led to a wave of anxious introspection in Turkey. Yet Ankara quickly — and disastrously — concluded that the proper response was to redouble its losing campaign to prevent foreign governments from using the G-word.High-level Turkish ministers were dispatched to Washington over the last few months to warn that the resolution in Congress could force them to close the crucial U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik and could imperil relations at a tipping-point moment for the Middle East. (The exact same argument was used by President Clinton in October 2000 to convince then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert to withdraw at the last moment a similar bill, introduced by then-Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale), who was fighting a losing battle against Democratic challenger Adam Schiff in an $11-million race.)
For Turks, the genocide is taboo for a host of reasons, but perhaps the most important is that it occurred at the time of the founding of modern Turkey under Kemal Ataturk, a man so sainted that insulting his memory is still punishable by jail. So the battle continues, year after year. Earlier this month, Turkish lobbyists successfully scotched a United Nations exhibit on the 13th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide because it dared refer to the "1 million Armenians murdered in Turkey." "Every time they try to censor discussion of the Armenian genocide," a New York Times editorial observed, "they only bring wider attention to the subject and link today's democratic Turkey with the now distant crime." Turks even helped water down a U.S. Senate resolution condemning Dink's murder.Yet this flurry of recent developments doesn't adequately explain the enduring potency of the recognition issue.For that I will defer to the most recent U.S. ambassador to Armenia, John Marshall Evans: "In the real world," Evans told a packed Beverly Hilton hall of diaspora Armenians in February, "when an official policy diverges wildly from what the broad public believes is self-evident, that policy ceases to command respect."
Evans, a career, keep-your-head-down foreign service type, surveyed the available literature on the events of 1915-23 before taking the Armenian post in September 2004 and concluded that the U.S. position of avoiding the word "genocide" diverged so wildly from the historical consensus that it undermined Washington's moral authority.He attempted to budge the policy from behind the scenes, but when that failed he took a page from a man he knew well from his pre- and post-communist postings to Prague — former Czech President Vaclav Havel and decided to publicly "call things by their proper names."So in February 2005, while speaking in California, Evans said: "I will today call it the Armenian genocide. I think we, the U.S. government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem." For that remark he was recalled from his post so that Washington could get back to the business of evading the historical truth.President Bush won't say "genocide" on Tuesday. In the words of Condoleezza Rice, the administration's position is that Turks and Armenians both need to "get over their past" without American help. But this issue won't go away. Watching Rice's linguistic contortions in response to harsh congressional interrogation by Schiff, who has become the Armenians' great House champion, is profoundly dispiriting; it makes one embarrassed to be American.
Of all issues subject to realpolitik compromises, mass slaughter of a national minority surely should rank at the bottom of the list. Hitler reportedly said, just before invading Poland, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" It's a chilling reminder that forgetting is the first step in enabling future genocides. Yet Hitler was eventually proved wrong. No temporal power is strong enough to erase the eternal resonance of truth.
matt.welch@latimes.com
Your welcome for the links but there is so much more out there, ever thought what the Armenians in Turkey have got to say have a look at their web site http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/ there is so much information but to us Turks it appears that the “Western” (how I hate to use that word) seems to “Censor” that is never puts forward the Turkish case. As you would well be aware being a learned person that the Offence of Genocide is a very serious and heinous criminal offence. Why has there been no conviction of any Turkish Official Ottoman or otherwise for the crime of Genocide or akin to Genocide. This is a matter, which ought to be resolved in a Court of Law or properly convened Tribunal. The Republic of Armenia as well as many other nations like France, Switzerland and the U.S. could take the Republic of Turkey as the successor State of the Ottoman Empire to any number of International Tribunals, but they haven’t why is that ? That is because the requisite evidence does not exist, that is the Turks with the intent of exterminating in part or whole their Armenian citizens.
You see PBS and most media in the West do censor the Turkish side there is a very professional documentary produced entirely by an independent American Martin Callaghan named “ The Armenian Revolt” they will not air it and the Armenian Diaspora do all within their power to censor the Turkish side. The media give effect to that censorship by never stipulating the full facts of the matter, ala the Malta Tribunals the precursor to the Nuremberg Trials. The difference being out of the 144 Ottoman Officials arrested by the British and incarcerated on their island colony of Malta were never charged with any criminal offence let alone tried. After two and a half years approximately of an exhaustive inquiry by Lord Curzon ( a man known to loathe the Turks) he asked the US government of the day to assist with any evidence or information and the response came back that they had none. Yet these facts and many more are never published, however, the proven forgeries of the Armenians are continually put before the public as if it were the truth like a broken record with the intention of “Manufacturing Consent”. So much so that individual Turks have got together to show that it’s not a Turkish Government conspiracy by placing full page adds in your newspaper and the New York Times (again another media outlet which is Anti Turkish) to put to the wider public the facts of the matter.
Even when the first Prime Minister of the Armenian Republic states that it wasn’t a genocide in his speech and subsequent book the Western Media take no notice. How much more independent evidence do we have to provide.
Regards
Ataman
From: Welch, Matt [mailto:Matt.Welch@latimes.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:33 AM
To: Ataman
Subject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
There is a difference between "censoring" someone and not agreeing to "put in an editorial" that supports their views. (We have, and will continue to, publish Op-Eds that are much more aligned to your point of view than to mine.) I'll continue to seek truth where I can find it, and thanks for the links.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Welch Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Los Angeles Times 213-237-7330 www.latimes.com/opinion Opinion L.A. blog ~ www.opinion.latimes.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ataman Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:34 PM
To: 'Welch, Matt'Subject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Matt,
If you appreciate my position and agree to censor nobody and continue searching for the truth, why don’t you put in an editorial about the Turkish case facts and all. Have a look at the web site http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/ it has references to documentary evidence. Further why do you state,
"Hitler reportedly said, just before invading Poland, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" It's a chilling reminder that forgetting is the first step in enabling future genocides. Yet Hitler was eventually proved wrong. No temporal power is strong enough to erase the eternal resonance of truth.”
When you well know that comment attributed to Hitler is fictitious. What about the Malta Tribunals and so much more have you ever looked at what the Turks have to say for themselves ? Or is it easier creating bogeymen of Muslim nations.
Ataman
From: Welch, Matt [mailto:Matt.Welch@latimes.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:20 AMTo: Ataman
Subject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Ataman,
I appreciate your position, censor nobody, and continue seeking the truth.
Best,
Matt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Welch Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Los Angeles Times 213-237-7330 www.latimes.com/opinion Opinion L.A. blog ~ www.opinion.latimes.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ataman Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:23 PM
To: 'Welch, Matt'
Subject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Matt,
The information is not new for those who truly seek the truth and do not attempt to censor the case for the Turks, and it’s hard to be respectful under continual attacks by the media.
Regards
Ataman
From: Welch, Matt [mailto:Matt.Welch@latimes.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:14 AM
To: Ataman Subject:
RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Ataman,
Unlike you, I will respectfully disagree. Thanks for writing, and bringing new information to my attention.
Best,
Matt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Welch Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Los Angeles Times 213-237-7330 www.latimes.com/opinion Opinion L.A. blog ~ www.opinion.latimes.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ataman Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:16 PM
To: matt.welch@latimes.comSubject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Mr Welch,
When will the Media and journalists such as yourself develop a conscience, and speak the full truth for once in your lives. Although I am not a medically trained Doctor I am led to believe most journalists possess the character traits of a socio – path. Have a look at what a former Australian Ambassador had to say about the fallacious Armenian Genocide claims. His letter was published in The Australian Newspaper if ever you want to search for the truth. And I quote,
“Mr. George Karagiannakis's letter (2/6/94), making all sorts of incredible allegations against Turkey in regard to its domestic and foreign policies, should not be allowed to go unanswered.
It is not possible in the space of a few lines to answer all of his allegations. However, in fairness to the truth, the following points must be made:
The 'facts beyond credible dispute' to which he alludes are in fact based largely on fictions to justify unrealistic ambitions or failures in the past to achieve totally unrealistic goals.
Whilst it is true and sad that many Armenians lost their lives in their own bid for territory, what is not recognized is that the Armenians themselves inflicted as much damage as others in the hostilities of that time, goaded on by some Western powers for their own selfish and geopolitical objectives.
The Turks had no deliberate policy of genocide at any stage, only the removal of Armenians from the front line with Russia, where they were collaborating with the Ottoman Empire's enemies and were thus a threat to its security.
The Kurdish issue is more complex. Two points are relevant:
The PKK, like IRA, is a terrorist organization, SUPPORTED MATERIALLY BY THE GREEKS AND ARMENIANS, with the stated objective of destabilizing Turkey. It has so far assassinated over 10,000 people in Turkey. It has no justifiable claim to represent the Kurdish people.
Most Kurds are integrated into Turkish society. About one-third of the Turkish Parliament is of Kurdish origin. This illustrates the absence of discrimination.
As for Cyprus, if any genocide or ethnic cleansing has taken place, this has always been carried out by the Greeks. The abortive coup of 1974, organized by EOKA and Greek colonels, aimed at elimination of the Turkish Cypriots from the Island. Turkey intervened to protect them and prevent Enosis. Since that date, the island has been peaceful and free of bloodshed.
Turkey has consistently supported a fair and reasonable settlement on Cyprus, but one that gives the Turkish Cypriots a secure future and equal political and social status with the Greek Cypriots.
The real problem between Greece and Turkey is Greece's reluctance to give up its Megali idea, that is, the recovery of the territories occupied by the Byzantine Empire, which finally fell to the Turks in 1453. All the many conflicts between Greece and Turkey over the past two centuries have been initiated by Greece. Your correspondent's reference to bloodied Turkish history is therefore clearly wrong, except in the fact that in the past three Greek-initiated conflicts, the Turks gave the Greeks a severe hiding, which partly accounts for the large fall in numbers of Greeks in present-day Turkey.
Regarding persecution. the Ottomans had one of the most tolerant policies towards non-Turks of any empire of its day. The three communities of Jews, Greeks and Armenians were virtually autonomous within the empire.”
P. F. Peters
Former Australian Ambassador to Turkey
(The Australian, June 9th, 1994)
Further still, have a look at what Justice Brian Sully of the Supreme Court of NSW had to say about the media and I quote,
“A Sully serve for sullied media, law reformers
by Richard Ackland SMH
March 30, 2007
Talk about blowing a gasket. One of the state's senior trial judges, Justice Brian Sully of the NSW Supreme Court, retired last week with a finely honed tirade from the bench. He'd been on the court for 18 years and clearly there was a lot to unbottle on valedictory day. His targets: law reformers, bureaucrats and the vile media.
Here's a few of his slices about the rotten press: "The media, as we know, react with savage vindictiveness to any attempt to apply to them those standards of transparency and accountability that they are insistent on applying to other people … The media are not a constitutional arm of government … To suggest that [they are] is legal fiction, a political subversion and a moral absurdity. The media are major money-making cartels. They are not knights in shining armour. Their agenda is power. Their strategy is fear and their tactics are a combination of ridicule, sometimes of the most savage personal kind."
It got better. The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion, and there's been a campaign in recent times in the Sydney metropolitan media "which in my time has never been surpassed for the persistent, wilful and vicious mendacity with which it has been conducted".
It's about time the Bar Association did something about it, the steaming judge declared. It should take the fight to the media by insisting they say not what they are against, but what they are for.”
I couldn’t agree more with His Honour. You are a pathetic individual with no morals whatsoever in the manner which you report.
Regards
Ataman
Have a read of the below article published in the LA Times and my communications with Mr Welch below that.
Regards
Ataman
The politics of saying 'genocide'
More than 90 years after the Armenian genocide, the U.S. is deadlocked in a humiliating linguistic debate.
By Matt Welch, MATT WELCH is The Times' assistant editorial pages editor.April 22, 2007
ON TUESDAY, President Bush will be obliged, by law, to wrap his double-talking mouth around one of the most curiously persistent debates in modern geopolitics: Whether to call a 92-year-old genocide a "genocide."Every April 24 since 1994, the U.S. president has delivered a proclamation honoring the people Congress has declared to be "the victims of genocide, especially the 1 1/2 million people of Armenian ancestry who were the victims of the genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923." And every year since 1994, the U.S. president has managed to do it without once uttering the G-word.
It's a ritual of linguistic realpolitik in deference to the massive objections from Washington's important NATO ally, Turkey. But 2007 may be the year that the cop-out finally blows up in a president's face. What was once the obscure obsession of marginalized immigrants from a powerless little Caucasus country has blossomed in recent years into a force that has grown increasingly difficult to ignore. In 2000, the Armenian issue helped fuel one of the most expensive House races in U.S. history; two years ago, it turned a mild-mannered career U.S. diplomat into an unlikely truth-telling martyr.
Now the question of how to address these long-ago events is having an impact on next month's elections in Turkey. What's more, Congress appears poised to vote on a resolution urging the president to say the words "Armenian genocide" when observing the awkwardly named "National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man" on April 24 — the date in 1915 when the Ottoman predecessors of modern Turkey launched the genocide by rounding up 250 Armenian intellectuals for eventual execution.The resolution won't take effect on Tuesday. The Bush administration, ever mindful of its delicate relationship with Turkey (especially with a war in Iraq next door), takes the bill so seriously that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned in a joint letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) that it could "harm American troops in the field."
The lobbying has been successful enough that the House has delayed its vote until after this year's April 24 commemoration. But passage later this year would still be an enormous blow to the White House.Why is this hairsplitting exercise over a single word — in a nonbinding resolution, no less — reverberating so strongly more than nine decades later? The easy answer is that there has been a confluence of mostly unrelated events. Democrats took control of Congress in January and are spoiling for a fight, especially one that can paint Bush's foreign policy as hypocritical. The president, after all, used "genocide" as a justification to topple Saddam Hussein before, during and after the war against his regime, and the United States has not hesitated to apply the word to the crisis in Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have died since 2003. Across the Atlantic, the Armenian question — especially Turkey's offensive laws against "insulting Turkishness," which have been used to prosecute even novelists who create fictional characters questioning the government's denialist position — has become one of the main lines of attack against Turkey's bid to become the first majority-Muslim country to join the European Union.
Most of the 15 countries that have officially recognized the genocide are European (with Switzerland and France even going so far as to pass over-the-top laws making it a crime to deny the genocide).Then there was the January murder of ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in broad daylight on a busy Istanbul street. Dink's assassination, at the hands of a Turkish nationalist, shocked the world and led to a wave of anxious introspection in Turkey. Yet Ankara quickly — and disastrously — concluded that the proper response was to redouble its losing campaign to prevent foreign governments from using the G-word.High-level Turkish ministers were dispatched to Washington over the last few months to warn that the resolution in Congress could force them to close the crucial U.S. Air Force Base at Incirlik and could imperil relations at a tipping-point moment for the Middle East. (The exact same argument was used by President Clinton in October 2000 to convince then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert to withdraw at the last moment a similar bill, introduced by then-Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale), who was fighting a losing battle against Democratic challenger Adam Schiff in an $11-million race.)
For Turks, the genocide is taboo for a host of reasons, but perhaps the most important is that it occurred at the time of the founding of modern Turkey under Kemal Ataturk, a man so sainted that insulting his memory is still punishable by jail. So the battle continues, year after year. Earlier this month, Turkish lobbyists successfully scotched a United Nations exhibit on the 13th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide because it dared refer to the "1 million Armenians murdered in Turkey." "Every time they try to censor discussion of the Armenian genocide," a New York Times editorial observed, "they only bring wider attention to the subject and link today's democratic Turkey with the now distant crime." Turks even helped water down a U.S. Senate resolution condemning Dink's murder.Yet this flurry of recent developments doesn't adequately explain the enduring potency of the recognition issue.For that I will defer to the most recent U.S. ambassador to Armenia, John Marshall Evans: "In the real world," Evans told a packed Beverly Hilton hall of diaspora Armenians in February, "when an official policy diverges wildly from what the broad public believes is self-evident, that policy ceases to command respect."
Evans, a career, keep-your-head-down foreign service type, surveyed the available literature on the events of 1915-23 before taking the Armenian post in September 2004 and concluded that the U.S. position of avoiding the word "genocide" diverged so wildly from the historical consensus that it undermined Washington's moral authority.He attempted to budge the policy from behind the scenes, but when that failed he took a page from a man he knew well from his pre- and post-communist postings to Prague — former Czech President Vaclav Havel and decided to publicly "call things by their proper names."So in February 2005, while speaking in California, Evans said: "I will today call it the Armenian genocide. I think we, the U.S. government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem." For that remark he was recalled from his post so that Washington could get back to the business of evading the historical truth.President Bush won't say "genocide" on Tuesday. In the words of Condoleezza Rice, the administration's position is that Turks and Armenians both need to "get over their past" without American help. But this issue won't go away. Watching Rice's linguistic contortions in response to harsh congressional interrogation by Schiff, who has become the Armenians' great House champion, is profoundly dispiriting; it makes one embarrassed to be American.
Of all issues subject to realpolitik compromises, mass slaughter of a national minority surely should rank at the bottom of the list. Hitler reportedly said, just before invading Poland, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" It's a chilling reminder that forgetting is the first step in enabling future genocides. Yet Hitler was eventually proved wrong. No temporal power is strong enough to erase the eternal resonance of truth.
matt.welch@latimes.com
Your welcome for the links but there is so much more out there, ever thought what the Armenians in Turkey have got to say have a look at their web site http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/ there is so much information but to us Turks it appears that the “Western” (how I hate to use that word) seems to “Censor” that is never puts forward the Turkish case. As you would well be aware being a learned person that the Offence of Genocide is a very serious and heinous criminal offence. Why has there been no conviction of any Turkish Official Ottoman or otherwise for the crime of Genocide or akin to Genocide. This is a matter, which ought to be resolved in a Court of Law or properly convened Tribunal. The Republic of Armenia as well as many other nations like France, Switzerland and the U.S. could take the Republic of Turkey as the successor State of the Ottoman Empire to any number of International Tribunals, but they haven’t why is that ? That is because the requisite evidence does not exist, that is the Turks with the intent of exterminating in part or whole their Armenian citizens.
You see PBS and most media in the West do censor the Turkish side there is a very professional documentary produced entirely by an independent American Martin Callaghan named “ The Armenian Revolt” they will not air it and the Armenian Diaspora do all within their power to censor the Turkish side. The media give effect to that censorship by never stipulating the full facts of the matter, ala the Malta Tribunals the precursor to the Nuremberg Trials. The difference being out of the 144 Ottoman Officials arrested by the British and incarcerated on their island colony of Malta were never charged with any criminal offence let alone tried. After two and a half years approximately of an exhaustive inquiry by Lord Curzon ( a man known to loathe the Turks) he asked the US government of the day to assist with any evidence or information and the response came back that they had none. Yet these facts and many more are never published, however, the proven forgeries of the Armenians are continually put before the public as if it were the truth like a broken record with the intention of “Manufacturing Consent”. So much so that individual Turks have got together to show that it’s not a Turkish Government conspiracy by placing full page adds in your newspaper and the New York Times (again another media outlet which is Anti Turkish) to put to the wider public the facts of the matter.
Even when the first Prime Minister of the Armenian Republic states that it wasn’t a genocide in his speech and subsequent book the Western Media take no notice. How much more independent evidence do we have to provide.
Regards
Ataman
From: Welch, Matt [mailto:Matt.Welch@latimes.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:33 AM
To: Ataman
Subject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
There is a difference between "censoring" someone and not agreeing to "put in an editorial" that supports their views. (We have, and will continue to, publish Op-Eds that are much more aligned to your point of view than to mine.) I'll continue to seek truth where I can find it, and thanks for the links.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Welch Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Los Angeles Times 213-237-7330 www.latimes.com/opinion Opinion L.A. blog ~ www.opinion.latimes.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ataman Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:34 PM
To: 'Welch, Matt'Subject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Matt,
If you appreciate my position and agree to censor nobody and continue searching for the truth, why don’t you put in an editorial about the Turkish case facts and all. Have a look at the web site http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/ it has references to documentary evidence. Further why do you state,
"Hitler reportedly said, just before invading Poland, "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" It's a chilling reminder that forgetting is the first step in enabling future genocides. Yet Hitler was eventually proved wrong. No temporal power is strong enough to erase the eternal resonance of truth.”
When you well know that comment attributed to Hitler is fictitious. What about the Malta Tribunals and so much more have you ever looked at what the Turks have to say for themselves ? Or is it easier creating bogeymen of Muslim nations.
Ataman
From: Welch, Matt [mailto:Matt.Welch@latimes.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:20 AMTo: Ataman
Subject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Ataman,
I appreciate your position, censor nobody, and continue seeking the truth.
Best,
Matt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Welch Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Los Angeles Times 213-237-7330 www.latimes.com/opinion Opinion L.A. blog ~ www.opinion.latimes.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ataman Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:23 PM
To: 'Welch, Matt'
Subject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Matt,
The information is not new for those who truly seek the truth and do not attempt to censor the case for the Turks, and it’s hard to be respectful under continual attacks by the media.
Regards
Ataman
From: Welch, Matt [mailto:Matt.Welch@latimes.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:14 AM
To: Ataman Subject:
RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Ataman,
Unlike you, I will respectfully disagree. Thanks for writing, and bringing new information to my attention.
Best,
Matt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Welch Assistant Editorial Page Editor, Los Angeles Times 213-237-7330 www.latimes.com/opinion Opinion L.A. blog ~ www.opinion.latimes.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ataman Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:16 PM
To: matt.welch@latimes.comSubject: RE: The Fallacious Armenian Genocide claims
Dear Mr Welch,
When will the Media and journalists such as yourself develop a conscience, and speak the full truth for once in your lives. Although I am not a medically trained Doctor I am led to believe most journalists possess the character traits of a socio – path. Have a look at what a former Australian Ambassador had to say about the fallacious Armenian Genocide claims. His letter was published in The Australian Newspaper if ever you want to search for the truth. And I quote,
“Mr. George Karagiannakis's letter (2/6/94), making all sorts of incredible allegations against Turkey in regard to its domestic and foreign policies, should not be allowed to go unanswered.
It is not possible in the space of a few lines to answer all of his allegations. However, in fairness to the truth, the following points must be made:
The 'facts beyond credible dispute' to which he alludes are in fact based largely on fictions to justify unrealistic ambitions or failures in the past to achieve totally unrealistic goals.
Whilst it is true and sad that many Armenians lost their lives in their own bid for territory, what is not recognized is that the Armenians themselves inflicted as much damage as others in the hostilities of that time, goaded on by some Western powers for their own selfish and geopolitical objectives.
The Turks had no deliberate policy of genocide at any stage, only the removal of Armenians from the front line with Russia, where they were collaborating with the Ottoman Empire's enemies and were thus a threat to its security.
The Kurdish issue is more complex. Two points are relevant:
The PKK, like IRA, is a terrorist organization, SUPPORTED MATERIALLY BY THE GREEKS AND ARMENIANS, with the stated objective of destabilizing Turkey. It has so far assassinated over 10,000 people in Turkey. It has no justifiable claim to represent the Kurdish people.
Most Kurds are integrated into Turkish society. About one-third of the Turkish Parliament is of Kurdish origin. This illustrates the absence of discrimination.
As for Cyprus, if any genocide or ethnic cleansing has taken place, this has always been carried out by the Greeks. The abortive coup of 1974, organized by EOKA and Greek colonels, aimed at elimination of the Turkish Cypriots from the Island. Turkey intervened to protect them and prevent Enosis. Since that date, the island has been peaceful and free of bloodshed.
Turkey has consistently supported a fair and reasonable settlement on Cyprus, but one that gives the Turkish Cypriots a secure future and equal political and social status with the Greek Cypriots.
The real problem between Greece and Turkey is Greece's reluctance to give up its Megali idea, that is, the recovery of the territories occupied by the Byzantine Empire, which finally fell to the Turks in 1453. All the many conflicts between Greece and Turkey over the past two centuries have been initiated by Greece. Your correspondent's reference to bloodied Turkish history is therefore clearly wrong, except in the fact that in the past three Greek-initiated conflicts, the Turks gave the Greeks a severe hiding, which partly accounts for the large fall in numbers of Greeks in present-day Turkey.
Regarding persecution. the Ottomans had one of the most tolerant policies towards non-Turks of any empire of its day. The three communities of Jews, Greeks and Armenians were virtually autonomous within the empire.”
P. F. Peters
Former Australian Ambassador to Turkey
(The Australian, June 9th, 1994)
Further still, have a look at what Justice Brian Sully of the Supreme Court of NSW had to say about the media and I quote,
“A Sully serve for sullied media, law reformers
by Richard Ackland SMH
March 30, 2007
Talk about blowing a gasket. One of the state's senior trial judges, Justice Brian Sully of the NSW Supreme Court, retired last week with a finely honed tirade from the bench. He'd been on the court for 18 years and clearly there was a lot to unbottle on valedictory day. His targets: law reformers, bureaucrats and the vile media.
Here's a few of his slices about the rotten press: "The media, as we know, react with savage vindictiveness to any attempt to apply to them those standards of transparency and accountability that they are insistent on applying to other people … The media are not a constitutional arm of government … To suggest that [they are] is legal fiction, a political subversion and a moral absurdity. The media are major money-making cartels. They are not knights in shining armour. Their agenda is power. Their strategy is fear and their tactics are a combination of ridicule, sometimes of the most savage personal kind."
It got better. The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion, and there's been a campaign in recent times in the Sydney metropolitan media "which in my time has never been surpassed for the persistent, wilful and vicious mendacity with which it has been conducted".
It's about time the Bar Association did something about it, the steaming judge declared. It should take the fight to the media by insisting they say not what they are against, but what they are for.”
I couldn’t agree more with His Honour. You are a pathetic individual with no morals whatsoever in the manner which you report.
Regards
Ataman
Friday, 20 April 2007
Turkey called unfit to join EU after killings
Dear Friends,
Have a read of the below article it will astound you. All I have to say is how many times do the Turks have to be told they are not welcome in the EU, don't we have any shame. Forget about the EU and stop begging to get in. We have been told on numerous occasions it is a Christian Club. They still have the Crusades mentality. We should be looking towards the Turkic Republics and Asia for Turkey's future prosperity.
All I would like to say to young Miss Dictator and her Nazi friend is when the British, Germans, Spanish and French stop terrorism and murder occurring in their own countries then the Turks will follow suit. Clean up you own backyards before criticising Turkey.
Regards
Ataman
Turkey called unfit to join EU after killings
By Philip Pullella
ROME (Reuters) - Italian and German conservatives on Thursday said the killing of three Christians at a Bible publishing house in Turkey showed Ankara could not control violent Islamists and was thus unfit to join Europe.
"Yet another attack against Christian values. Turkey should forget about the European Union," said Massimo Polledri, a senator from the anti-immigrant Northern League. The three Christians, including a German, were found with their throats slit on Wednesday at the Zirve publishing house in Malatya, a city in the predominantly Muslim country's southeast.
Alessandra Mussolini, a parliamentarian who is granddaughter of Italy's wartime dictator, urged Italians to sign her petition to the EU condemning the killings and stating the "refusal of Italian citizens to allow Turkey into the European Union".
"After this the question of Turkey's EU entry cannot be just a bureaucratic decision," she said, also referring to last year's killing of an Italian missionary priest in Turkey. Ankara began membership talks in October 2005 but the EU has frozen negotiations in eight of the 35 policy areas because of a row over Cyprus.
"Turkey has once again shown itself not to be worthy of the values and standards of Europe," said Wolfgang Boernsen, a member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives, adding that "Europe's and the Christian West's cultural identity is being challenged".
Germany's conservative Christian Democrat Union (CDU) and its sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU) oppose full membership and instead favour a "privileged partnership."
Opinion polls in predominantly Catholic Italy show that many people oppose Turkey in the EU because of its Muslim background and human rights record.
"The government must send a clear signal to the Turkish government -- that the violation of religious freedom and human rights are incompatible with any hypothesis of Turkish membership in Europe," said Luca Volonte, from the UDC party. He said Ankara tolerated "Islamist extremists ... who see Christians as sacrificial animals whose throats should be slit".
Prime Minister Romano Prodi, on a trip to Asia, said the killings "certainly will not help" Turkey's EU bid but that such incidents should not be allowed to influence "policy regarding long-term horizons".
(additional reporting by Tom Armitage in Belin)
Have a read of the below article it will astound you. All I have to say is how many times do the Turks have to be told they are not welcome in the EU, don't we have any shame. Forget about the EU and stop begging to get in. We have been told on numerous occasions it is a Christian Club. They still have the Crusades mentality. We should be looking towards the Turkic Republics and Asia for Turkey's future prosperity.
All I would like to say to young Miss Dictator and her Nazi friend is when the British, Germans, Spanish and French stop terrorism and murder occurring in their own countries then the Turks will follow suit. Clean up you own backyards before criticising Turkey.
Regards
Ataman
Turkey called unfit to join EU after killings
By Philip Pullella
ROME (Reuters) - Italian and German conservatives on Thursday said the killing of three Christians at a Bible publishing house in Turkey showed Ankara could not control violent Islamists and was thus unfit to join Europe.
"Yet another attack against Christian values. Turkey should forget about the European Union," said Massimo Polledri, a senator from the anti-immigrant Northern League. The three Christians, including a German, were found with their throats slit on Wednesday at the Zirve publishing house in Malatya, a city in the predominantly Muslim country's southeast.
Alessandra Mussolini, a parliamentarian who is granddaughter of Italy's wartime dictator, urged Italians to sign her petition to the EU condemning the killings and stating the "refusal of Italian citizens to allow Turkey into the European Union".
"After this the question of Turkey's EU entry cannot be just a bureaucratic decision," she said, also referring to last year's killing of an Italian missionary priest in Turkey. Ankara began membership talks in October 2005 but the EU has frozen negotiations in eight of the 35 policy areas because of a row over Cyprus.
"Turkey has once again shown itself not to be worthy of the values and standards of Europe," said Wolfgang Boernsen, a member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives, adding that "Europe's and the Christian West's cultural identity is being challenged".
Germany's conservative Christian Democrat Union (CDU) and its sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU) oppose full membership and instead favour a "privileged partnership."
Opinion polls in predominantly Catholic Italy show that many people oppose Turkey in the EU because of its Muslim background and human rights record.
"The government must send a clear signal to the Turkish government -- that the violation of religious freedom and human rights are incompatible with any hypothesis of Turkish membership in Europe," said Luca Volonte, from the UDC party. He said Ankara tolerated "Islamist extremists ... who see Christians as sacrificial animals whose throats should be slit".
Prime Minister Romano Prodi, on a trip to Asia, said the killings "certainly will not help" Turkey's EU bid but that such incidents should not be allowed to influence "policy regarding long-term horizons".
(additional reporting by Tom Armitage in Belin)
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
The Fallacious Armenian Genocide a perspective by an Australian Ambassador
Mr. George Karagiannakis's letter (2/6/94), making all sorts of incredible allegations against Turkey in regard to its domestic and foreign policies, should not be allowed to go unanswered.
It is not possible in the space of a few lines to answer all of his allegations. However, in fairness to the truth, the following points must be made:
The 'facts beyond credible dispute' to which he alludes are in fact based largely on fictions to justify unrealistic ambitions or failures in the past to achieve totally unrealistic goals.
Whilst it is true and sad that many Armenians lost their lives in their own bid for territory, what is not recognized is that the Armenians themselves inflicted as much damage as others in the hostilities of that time, goaded on by some Western powers for their own selfish and geopolitical objectives.
The Turks had no deliberate policy of genocide at any stage, only the removal of Armenians from the front line with Russia, where they were collaborating with the Ottoman Empire's enemies and were thus a threat to its security.
The Kurdish issue is more complex. Two points are relevant:
The PKK, like IRA, is a terrorist organization, SUPPORTED MATERIALLY BY THE GREEKS AND ARMENIANS, with the stated objective of destabilizing Turkey. It has so far assassinated over 10,000 people in Turkey. It has no justifiable claim to represent the Kurdish people.
Most Kurds are integrated into Turkish society. About one-third of the Turkish Parliament is of Kurdish origin. This illustrates the absence of discrimination.
As for Cyprus, if any genocide or ethnic cleansing has taken place, this has always been carried out by the Greeks. The abortive coup of 1974, organized by EOKA and Greek colonels, aimed at elimination of the Turkish Cypriots from the Island. Turkey intervened to protect them and prevent Enosis. Since that date, the island has been peaceful and free of bloodshed.
Turkey has consistently supported a fair and reasonable settlement on Cyprus, but one that gives the Turkish Cypriots a secure future and equal political and social status with the Greek Cypriots.
The real problem between Greece and Turkey is Greece's reluctance to give up its Megali idea, that is, the recovery of the territories occupied by the Byzantine Empire, which finally fell to the Turks in 1453. All the many conflicts between Greece and Turkey over the past two centuries have been initiated by Greece. Your correspondent's reference to bloodied Turkish history is therefore clearly wrong, except in the fact that in the past three Greek-initiated conflicts, the Turks gave the Greeks a severe hiding, which partly accounts for the large fall in numbers of Greeks in present-day Turkey.
Regarding persecution. the Ottomans had one of the most tolerant policies towards non-Turks of any empire of its day. The three communities of Jews, Greeks and Armenians were virtually autonomous within the empire.
P. F. Peters
Former Australian Ambassador to Turkey
(The Australian, June 9th, 1994)
It is not possible in the space of a few lines to answer all of his allegations. However, in fairness to the truth, the following points must be made:
The 'facts beyond credible dispute' to which he alludes are in fact based largely on fictions to justify unrealistic ambitions or failures in the past to achieve totally unrealistic goals.
Whilst it is true and sad that many Armenians lost their lives in their own bid for territory, what is not recognized is that the Armenians themselves inflicted as much damage as others in the hostilities of that time, goaded on by some Western powers for their own selfish and geopolitical objectives.
The Turks had no deliberate policy of genocide at any stage, only the removal of Armenians from the front line with Russia, where they were collaborating with the Ottoman Empire's enemies and were thus a threat to its security.
The Kurdish issue is more complex. Two points are relevant:
The PKK, like IRA, is a terrorist organization, SUPPORTED MATERIALLY BY THE GREEKS AND ARMENIANS, with the stated objective of destabilizing Turkey. It has so far assassinated over 10,000 people in Turkey. It has no justifiable claim to represent the Kurdish people.
Most Kurds are integrated into Turkish society. About one-third of the Turkish Parliament is of Kurdish origin. This illustrates the absence of discrimination.
As for Cyprus, if any genocide or ethnic cleansing has taken place, this has always been carried out by the Greeks. The abortive coup of 1974, organized by EOKA and Greek colonels, aimed at elimination of the Turkish Cypriots from the Island. Turkey intervened to protect them and prevent Enosis. Since that date, the island has been peaceful and free of bloodshed.
Turkey has consistently supported a fair and reasonable settlement on Cyprus, but one that gives the Turkish Cypriots a secure future and equal political and social status with the Greek Cypriots.
The real problem between Greece and Turkey is Greece's reluctance to give up its Megali idea, that is, the recovery of the territories occupied by the Byzantine Empire, which finally fell to the Turks in 1453. All the many conflicts between Greece and Turkey over the past two centuries have been initiated by Greece. Your correspondent's reference to bloodied Turkish history is therefore clearly wrong, except in the fact that in the past three Greek-initiated conflicts, the Turks gave the Greeks a severe hiding, which partly accounts for the large fall in numbers of Greeks in present-day Turkey.
Regarding persecution. the Ottomans had one of the most tolerant policies towards non-Turks of any empire of its day. The three communities of Jews, Greeks and Armenians were virtually autonomous within the empire.
P. F. Peters
Former Australian Ambassador to Turkey
(The Australian, June 9th, 1994)
Monday, 16 April 2007
Letter to Foriegn Correspondent
Dear Mr (Ataman),
Thank you for your e-mail . I have fowarded it to David Hardaker in Jerusalem . While we note you comment about his interview with Mr Pamuk , Foreign Correspondent stands by that report.
Yours
Mavourneen Dineen ( producer )
In fact, the entire paragraph and I quote,
“The Turkish state is also vigorously pursuing those who dare to publicly question the official line. Pamuk was charged under the notorious Article 301 - which makes it an offence to insult the Turkish state, and carries a six month jail sentence. His case became a cause celebre in Europe, and the charge was eventually dropped, but Kemal Kerincsiz is appealing. Dozens of other lesser known people have also been charged with the same offence, and we meet some of them in this story.”
Is totally deceptive and misleading, again Kerincsiz is not apart of the Turkish Government nor judiciary. What you have done in the above paragraph is best articulated by Justice Brian Sully formerly of the Supreme Court of NSW, that is and I quote, “The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion…”.
Then to end off the synopsis it states, “As Hardaker reports, the cases highlight Turkey’s identity crisis and force Turks to confront their past in a way which up till now, they have refused to do”. Again that statements re enforces the fact that according to Hardaker the Armenian Genocide is fait accompli, the point being that Turks do not know their own past and in fact if they did know they are in an identity crisis situation denying that their ancestors committed genocide. Where is the evidence of genocide? A pre planned well thought out premeditated initiative by the Ottoman Government to wipe out either in whole or in part of its Ottoman citizens?
Then the transcript of the actual program gets better that is in the character assassination of Turks and the Republic of Turkey in general.
Mr Pamuk states, “What happened to Turkey’s Ottomans is a grave, important issue that the nation should know about and we have to have freedom of speech”. You see there is freedom of speech in Turkey so long as you can back up your argument with facts, but that is never explained or put forward in the program. In Australia, we have the laws of defamation, the Turkish system a sovereign nation has different, and or a varied version of defamation. The defamation laws in Australia are in my very humble opinion in effective and cannot be utilised by the vast majority of ordinary Australian citizens because of varying reasons but primarily due to prohibitive legal costs and the fact, the media are trained in negating these laws and regulations.
Example being when Mr John Marsden Solicitor died the Sydney media went to town on his character knowing full well “dead men can’t sue” they published outrageous comments which if he were alive they could not have, or more appropriately would have been too scared to publish due to the legal ramifications. So not only is the media dishonest but also cowardly. They are despicable by and large with no honour and no integrity. You find very few Journalists with any integrity or common human decency. Now do not misunderstand me here I never knew nor met Mr Marsden but for all his flaws whatever they may have been, the act of assassinating his character after his death was the lowest of the low.
Again, comments attributable to Mr Hardaker state,
“What happened to Orhan Pamuk is a salutary tale of state repression, not only of freedom of speech today but of the truth of the country’s past. Orhan Pamuk’s sin as such, was to publicly question the deeds of the nation’s founding fathers but the way the Turkish State has handled his case, reveals the deep forces which are pulling at the fabric of Turkish society and it shows exactly why Turkey faces so many hurdles when it comes to joining the European Union. Orhan Pamuk dared to speak of a dark episode in Turkey’s past, the forced removal and killing of over a million Armenians.”
Yet again, another fine example of what Justice Sully states, “The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion…”. Where does Mr Hardaker get the number of “a million Armenians” being killed? What sources does he rely upon? You see I bet you would NOT be surprised to find out that even in accordance with Armenian Sources the highest estimates were around 600,000 dead and the vast majority were not killed as eluded to they died of other causes. Look at for example what the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenian stated, but no doubt, that is of no relevance because that would be in defence of the Turkish case.
Now I could go on and on but I think you would pretty much get the gist of my argument. However, I could not go past the tear jerking heartstring-pulling comments made by Sarkis Cerkezyan. Firstly the comments, “If one who is guilty is taken to court, he denies everything, doesn’t he? It is like a guilt complex. They found the easy way out – they sit on all their assets, their money, everything – and say such a thing never happened.”
So yet again, the Turkish race and the Ottoman Empire are guilty and they are denying the fact they are guilty like all persons charged with a criminal offence. The only difference being no Ottoman Official was ever charged with the offence of Genocide or anything akin to genocide. There were Ottoman officials charged, tried (under dubious conditions) and hung by the same government for offences OTHER THAN GENOCIDE or INTENTION TO WIPE OUT or EXTERMINATE an entire race in whole or in part. However, what Mr Cerkezyan suggests is that the Ottoman Government in fact pre planned, premeditated an extermination of the Armenian population in whole or in part that is not correct at all. There is ample evidence to suggest to the contrary as depicted by that entire program.
Further, Mr Hardaker’s lies and finely calibrated half-truths know no bounds let me qualify that comment, I quote,
“…capturing the time when rulers of the old Ottoman Empire expelled Armenians from their land and out of their homes and forced them to march into the desert of neighbouring Syria. Men, women and children – their fate was a near certain death.”
The Ottomans NEVER EXPELLED Armenians from their land, it was all one Empire one sovereign nation Syria was a part of the Ottoman Empire they were relocated due to the rebellion the Armenians in that part of the Ottoman Empire was conducting. Have a look at the independent documentary “The Armenian Revolt” which the ABC, SBS, and other Media around the Western world REFUSE point blank to air.
The treatment of the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during the material times was not unlike the internship of numerous nationals in Australia and America during wartime ala the German and Japanese residents, BUT YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT no doubt. However, what white Australia did to the Aboriginals of this land is Genocide clear cut, most clearly is the fact of the “stolen generation” at law as well as morally.
Then Mr Cerkezyan goes on to describe the horrors, which fell upon his family, well Ms Dineen what makes his personal suffering different from the millions of Turks, Arabs and Kurds that were murdered by the Armenians, roughly 2.5 Million according to the best statistics available. Now I am not trying to diminish the suffering of certain Armenians in that region during that specific time, but let me tell you about my maternal grandmother’s situation.
During that same period, her and her sibling (brother) were small children living in a Village near Kars in Eastern Anatolia named Subatan. When the troubles began, her parents sent both children to stay with relatives near Ankara. Shortly, thereafter my grandmothers parents and other living relatives that remained in Subatan were murdered by the Armenians, some shot, others butchered with knives, others clubbed to death, some taken to a local Mosque and burnt alive inside. These included men women and children of the entire Village. So what makes Mr Cerkezyan’s suffering any more different to mine or my grandmothers. The only reason I able to write this letter to you today is because my grandmother escaped with her life. Why doesn’t the Western Media ever highlight those atrocities committed by the Armenians, instead of making them look like innocent victims, which are quite often compared to the Jews of Nazi Germany?
Well can you imagine Hitler having a person of the Jewish faith as his Foreign Minister, because the Foreign Minister of the Ottoman Empire during that period was Armenian Christian? Further, there was the Nuremberg Trials with mountains of evidence, trials convictions. There was before World War II written propaganda against the Jews of Germany and Europe. Where is the written propaganda or hate of the Armenians depicted in Ottoman Archives? Did the Ottomans just wake up one morning and think well lets kill the Armenians but only those in the East we’ll leave the one’s in the West alone, and in fact we’ll cover our tracks for future historians by keeping our token Armenian Christian Foreign Minister ?
Why is it that the precursor to the Nuremberg Trials, i.e. The Malta Tribunals failed although Lord Curzon (a known Turk hater) tried his hardest to find and produce evidence, which would stand up in an English Court of Law? You see these are all apart of the events, which took place, and questions that need to be answered and highlighted but it is not in the interest of the biased Western Media. All that you do is marginalise the Turkish Community living within Australia. The Turks are used to Western propaganda, which has continued from the days of the Crusades, we do not expect anything less from the media in Australia or other parts of the Western world. As for entering the EU, I think if you did a survey in the Republic of Turkey as well as Turks living abroad you would find that most would be against joining the EU. It has been stated to the Turkish nation time and again, that the EU is a Christian club. It is successive Turkish Governments that beg to enter the Club, which they will never be allowed to do. Most Turks know this, if it is not the Armenian issue, it will be Cyprus if not Cyprus it will be the Kurds, if not the Kurds it will be something else.
Most Turks know that the Republic of Turkey’s future, destiny, and economic prosperity lies not with the “Sick Man of Europe” the EU, but in the East with the Turkic Republics and Asia in general.
You see Ms Dineen that program once again compounded the shame on this country, which their Honours referred to in the case of Levon Demirian, which I have previously stated. Your program was another fine piece of propaganda best described by Justice Sully’s comments; you have done a marvellous job at assassinating the Turkish character yet again. I will end by reiterating Justice Sully’s comments,
“The media, as we know, react with savage vindictiveness to any attempt to apply to them those standards of transparency and accountability that they are insistent on applying to other people … The media are not a constitutional arm of government … To suggest that [they are] is legal fiction, a political subversion and a moral absurdity. The media are major money-making cartels. They are not knights in shining armour. Their agenda is power. Their strategy is fear and their tactics are a combination of ridicule, sometimes of the most savage personal kind."
The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion, and there's been a campaign in recent times in the Sydney metropolitan media "which in my time has never been surpassed for the persistent, wilful and vicious mendacity with which it has been conducted".
It's about time the Bar Association did something about it. It should take the fight to the media by insisting they say not what they are against, but what they are for.”
So you see Ms Dineen, what the Armenians could not achieve via armed conflict, dubious legal means, and acts of terrorism, they are now achieving politically with the huge assistance of the Western media. In turn, the Western media continue to marginalise young Muslim men, which then create, as has been stated a fertile ground to cultivate the uneducated of these into terrorist organisations and their only hope is defending themselves via acts of violence because they do not have the capacity to defend themselves intellectually or through organs of the mass media. People such as yourself are just as much to blame for the rise of radical Islam and the violence certain sections of that community has caused as the actual terrorists themselves. How does it feel to have the blood of thousands on your hands, because you continually refuse to tell the full facts as they are?
I would suggest Mr George Negus had far more integrity than Mr Hardaker could ever dream of achieving. Mr Hardaker has turned Foreign Correspondent into a cheap tabloid current affairs program akin to Today Tonight and A Current Affair, it really is a shame.
I apologise for my typos in advance.
Regards
Ataman
Thank you for your e-mail . I have fowarded it to David Hardaker in Jerusalem . While we note you comment about his interview with Mr Pamuk , Foreign Correspondent stands by that report.
Yours
Mavourneen Dineen ( producer )
Dear Ms Dineen,
I would not have expected any less than the fact Foreign Correspondent stands by it’s own report, alas it is the usual response the Turkish Community in Australia have come to expect. However, since you stand by your report in light of my original comment that is “I note your very much one sided interview with Mr Pamuk”, please allow me to examine the transcript and raise certain issues about that interview.
Firstly, the synopsis opens with the line, “What I said is true, legally I have the right to say it, and historically and morally this has to be said, if we are decent human beings”. The statement indicates that according to Mr Pamuk, the Armenian Genocide did take place and he takes the moral high ground. Now Mr Pamuk is never questioned as to how he comes to that conclusion or the sources he relies upon in order to reach his conclusion. It is a fait accompli according to the transcript that a genocide did take place from the very outset.
From this very point, the synopsis goes onto criticise the Turkish Government and or people with the statements,
“However, as Pamuk explains to David Hardaker, he has become a pariah virtually overnight for daring to break a 90 year old taboo – talking openly about Turkey’s role in the deaths of more than a million Armenians. Sometimes known as “the sick man of Europe”, Turkey suffers from a deep-seated insecurity about its identity. The heavy-handed state response to Pamuk’s remarks to a Swiss newspaper shows why the country faces so many hurdles when it comes to joining the European Union.”
You see the program never suggests or explains how the Turkish Legal system works and the fact that it was NOT Governmental identities that laid the complaint in the first instance. Similar to Australia whereby an individual makes up a false accusation and attempts to frame another person and the authorities initially take action and eventually at trial under cross examination the tested evidence does not come up to proof. Now I do not think I need to provide you with examples of miscarriages of justice in Australia. Being the well-educated people that you are at Foreign Correspondent you no doubt would know about the vast majority of the matters, which I speak about.
You see there is no problem speaking about the events, which occurred during the material times in the Ottoman Empire so long as you can back them up with hard evidence. The problem is the debate is stifled not by the Turkish authorities but Western Media corporations not explaining the FULL FACTS.
Now you go onto describe Mr Kemal Kerincsiz and his comments but you do not go into any explanation as to who Mr Kerincsiz is nor his part in the Pamuk debacle. You see most Turks throughout the World know Mr Kerincsiz is a Nationalist Lawyer who can at times be over zealous; he is not a part of any Turkish Government institution. He is not a Prosecutor or a member of the Judiciary he is a private individual. That is never explained, according to the transcripts, it deceives the viewing public into believing that Kerincsiz may be a part of the Turkish Institution.
I would not have expected any less than the fact Foreign Correspondent stands by it’s own report, alas it is the usual response the Turkish Community in Australia have come to expect. However, since you stand by your report in light of my original comment that is “I note your very much one sided interview with Mr Pamuk”, please allow me to examine the transcript and raise certain issues about that interview.
Firstly, the synopsis opens with the line, “What I said is true, legally I have the right to say it, and historically and morally this has to be said, if we are decent human beings”. The statement indicates that according to Mr Pamuk, the Armenian Genocide did take place and he takes the moral high ground. Now Mr Pamuk is never questioned as to how he comes to that conclusion or the sources he relies upon in order to reach his conclusion. It is a fait accompli according to the transcript that a genocide did take place from the very outset.
From this very point, the synopsis goes onto criticise the Turkish Government and or people with the statements,
“However, as Pamuk explains to David Hardaker, he has become a pariah virtually overnight for daring to break a 90 year old taboo – talking openly about Turkey’s role in the deaths of more than a million Armenians. Sometimes known as “the sick man of Europe”, Turkey suffers from a deep-seated insecurity about its identity. The heavy-handed state response to Pamuk’s remarks to a Swiss newspaper shows why the country faces so many hurdles when it comes to joining the European Union.”
You see the program never suggests or explains how the Turkish Legal system works and the fact that it was NOT Governmental identities that laid the complaint in the first instance. Similar to Australia whereby an individual makes up a false accusation and attempts to frame another person and the authorities initially take action and eventually at trial under cross examination the tested evidence does not come up to proof. Now I do not think I need to provide you with examples of miscarriages of justice in Australia. Being the well-educated people that you are at Foreign Correspondent you no doubt would know about the vast majority of the matters, which I speak about.
You see there is no problem speaking about the events, which occurred during the material times in the Ottoman Empire so long as you can back them up with hard evidence. The problem is the debate is stifled not by the Turkish authorities but Western Media corporations not explaining the FULL FACTS.
Now you go onto describe Mr Kemal Kerincsiz and his comments but you do not go into any explanation as to who Mr Kerincsiz is nor his part in the Pamuk debacle. You see most Turks throughout the World know Mr Kerincsiz is a Nationalist Lawyer who can at times be over zealous; he is not a part of any Turkish Government institution. He is not a Prosecutor or a member of the Judiciary he is a private individual. That is never explained, according to the transcripts, it deceives the viewing public into believing that Kerincsiz may be a part of the Turkish Institution.
In fact, the entire paragraph and I quote,
“The Turkish state is also vigorously pursuing those who dare to publicly question the official line. Pamuk was charged under the notorious Article 301 - which makes it an offence to insult the Turkish state, and carries a six month jail sentence. His case became a cause celebre in Europe, and the charge was eventually dropped, but Kemal Kerincsiz is appealing. Dozens of other lesser known people have also been charged with the same offence, and we meet some of them in this story.”
Is totally deceptive and misleading, again Kerincsiz is not apart of the Turkish Government nor judiciary. What you have done in the above paragraph is best articulated by Justice Brian Sully formerly of the Supreme Court of NSW, that is and I quote, “The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion…”.
Then to end off the synopsis it states, “As Hardaker reports, the cases highlight Turkey’s identity crisis and force Turks to confront their past in a way which up till now, they have refused to do”. Again that statements re enforces the fact that according to Hardaker the Armenian Genocide is fait accompli, the point being that Turks do not know their own past and in fact if they did know they are in an identity crisis situation denying that their ancestors committed genocide. Where is the evidence of genocide? A pre planned well thought out premeditated initiative by the Ottoman Government to wipe out either in whole or in part of its Ottoman citizens?
Then the transcript of the actual program gets better that is in the character assassination of Turks and the Republic of Turkey in general.
Mr Pamuk states, “What happened to Turkey’s Ottomans is a grave, important issue that the nation should know about and we have to have freedom of speech”. You see there is freedom of speech in Turkey so long as you can back up your argument with facts, but that is never explained or put forward in the program. In Australia, we have the laws of defamation, the Turkish system a sovereign nation has different, and or a varied version of defamation. The defamation laws in Australia are in my very humble opinion in effective and cannot be utilised by the vast majority of ordinary Australian citizens because of varying reasons but primarily due to prohibitive legal costs and the fact, the media are trained in negating these laws and regulations.
Example being when Mr John Marsden Solicitor died the Sydney media went to town on his character knowing full well “dead men can’t sue” they published outrageous comments which if he were alive they could not have, or more appropriately would have been too scared to publish due to the legal ramifications. So not only is the media dishonest but also cowardly. They are despicable by and large with no honour and no integrity. You find very few Journalists with any integrity or common human decency. Now do not misunderstand me here I never knew nor met Mr Marsden but for all his flaws whatever they may have been, the act of assassinating his character after his death was the lowest of the low.
Again, comments attributable to Mr Hardaker state,
“What happened to Orhan Pamuk is a salutary tale of state repression, not only of freedom of speech today but of the truth of the country’s past. Orhan Pamuk’s sin as such, was to publicly question the deeds of the nation’s founding fathers but the way the Turkish State has handled his case, reveals the deep forces which are pulling at the fabric of Turkish society and it shows exactly why Turkey faces so many hurdles when it comes to joining the European Union. Orhan Pamuk dared to speak of a dark episode in Turkey’s past, the forced removal and killing of over a million Armenians.”
Yet again, another fine example of what Justice Sully states, “The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion…”. Where does Mr Hardaker get the number of “a million Armenians” being killed? What sources does he rely upon? You see I bet you would NOT be surprised to find out that even in accordance with Armenian Sources the highest estimates were around 600,000 dead and the vast majority were not killed as eluded to they died of other causes. Look at for example what the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenian stated, but no doubt, that is of no relevance because that would be in defence of the Turkish case.
Now I could go on and on but I think you would pretty much get the gist of my argument. However, I could not go past the tear jerking heartstring-pulling comments made by Sarkis Cerkezyan. Firstly the comments, “If one who is guilty is taken to court, he denies everything, doesn’t he? It is like a guilt complex. They found the easy way out – they sit on all their assets, their money, everything – and say such a thing never happened.”
So yet again, the Turkish race and the Ottoman Empire are guilty and they are denying the fact they are guilty like all persons charged with a criminal offence. The only difference being no Ottoman Official was ever charged with the offence of Genocide or anything akin to genocide. There were Ottoman officials charged, tried (under dubious conditions) and hung by the same government for offences OTHER THAN GENOCIDE or INTENTION TO WIPE OUT or EXTERMINATE an entire race in whole or in part. However, what Mr Cerkezyan suggests is that the Ottoman Government in fact pre planned, premeditated an extermination of the Armenian population in whole or in part that is not correct at all. There is ample evidence to suggest to the contrary as depicted by that entire program.
Further, Mr Hardaker’s lies and finely calibrated half-truths know no bounds let me qualify that comment, I quote,
“…capturing the time when rulers of the old Ottoman Empire expelled Armenians from their land and out of their homes and forced them to march into the desert of neighbouring Syria. Men, women and children – their fate was a near certain death.”
The Ottomans NEVER EXPELLED Armenians from their land, it was all one Empire one sovereign nation Syria was a part of the Ottoman Empire they were relocated due to the rebellion the Armenians in that part of the Ottoman Empire was conducting. Have a look at the independent documentary “The Armenian Revolt” which the ABC, SBS, and other Media around the Western world REFUSE point blank to air.
The treatment of the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during the material times was not unlike the internship of numerous nationals in Australia and America during wartime ala the German and Japanese residents, BUT YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT no doubt. However, what white Australia did to the Aboriginals of this land is Genocide clear cut, most clearly is the fact of the “stolen generation” at law as well as morally.
Then Mr Cerkezyan goes on to describe the horrors, which fell upon his family, well Ms Dineen what makes his personal suffering different from the millions of Turks, Arabs and Kurds that were murdered by the Armenians, roughly 2.5 Million according to the best statistics available. Now I am not trying to diminish the suffering of certain Armenians in that region during that specific time, but let me tell you about my maternal grandmother’s situation.
During that same period, her and her sibling (brother) were small children living in a Village near Kars in Eastern Anatolia named Subatan. When the troubles began, her parents sent both children to stay with relatives near Ankara. Shortly, thereafter my grandmothers parents and other living relatives that remained in Subatan were murdered by the Armenians, some shot, others butchered with knives, others clubbed to death, some taken to a local Mosque and burnt alive inside. These included men women and children of the entire Village. So what makes Mr Cerkezyan’s suffering any more different to mine or my grandmothers. The only reason I able to write this letter to you today is because my grandmother escaped with her life. Why doesn’t the Western Media ever highlight those atrocities committed by the Armenians, instead of making them look like innocent victims, which are quite often compared to the Jews of Nazi Germany?
Well can you imagine Hitler having a person of the Jewish faith as his Foreign Minister, because the Foreign Minister of the Ottoman Empire during that period was Armenian Christian? Further, there was the Nuremberg Trials with mountains of evidence, trials convictions. There was before World War II written propaganda against the Jews of Germany and Europe. Where is the written propaganda or hate of the Armenians depicted in Ottoman Archives? Did the Ottomans just wake up one morning and think well lets kill the Armenians but only those in the East we’ll leave the one’s in the West alone, and in fact we’ll cover our tracks for future historians by keeping our token Armenian Christian Foreign Minister ?
Why is it that the precursor to the Nuremberg Trials, i.e. The Malta Tribunals failed although Lord Curzon (a known Turk hater) tried his hardest to find and produce evidence, which would stand up in an English Court of Law? You see these are all apart of the events, which took place, and questions that need to be answered and highlighted but it is not in the interest of the biased Western Media. All that you do is marginalise the Turkish Community living within Australia. The Turks are used to Western propaganda, which has continued from the days of the Crusades, we do not expect anything less from the media in Australia or other parts of the Western world. As for entering the EU, I think if you did a survey in the Republic of Turkey as well as Turks living abroad you would find that most would be against joining the EU. It has been stated to the Turkish nation time and again, that the EU is a Christian club. It is successive Turkish Governments that beg to enter the Club, which they will never be allowed to do. Most Turks know this, if it is not the Armenian issue, it will be Cyprus if not Cyprus it will be the Kurds, if not the Kurds it will be something else.
Most Turks know that the Republic of Turkey’s future, destiny, and economic prosperity lies not with the “Sick Man of Europe” the EU, but in the East with the Turkic Republics and Asia in general.
You see Ms Dineen that program once again compounded the shame on this country, which their Honours referred to in the case of Levon Demirian, which I have previously stated. Your program was another fine piece of propaganda best described by Justice Sully’s comments; you have done a marvellous job at assassinating the Turkish character yet again. I will end by reiterating Justice Sully’s comments,
“The media, as we know, react with savage vindictiveness to any attempt to apply to them those standards of transparency and accountability that they are insistent on applying to other people … The media are not a constitutional arm of government … To suggest that [they are] is legal fiction, a political subversion and a moral absurdity. The media are major money-making cartels. They are not knights in shining armour. Their agenda is power. Their strategy is fear and their tactics are a combination of ridicule, sometimes of the most savage personal kind."
The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion, and there's been a campaign in recent times in the Sydney metropolitan media "which in my time has never been surpassed for the persistent, wilful and vicious mendacity with which it has been conducted".
It's about time the Bar Association did something about it. It should take the fight to the media by insisting they say not what they are against, but what they are for.”
So you see Ms Dineen, what the Armenians could not achieve via armed conflict, dubious legal means, and acts of terrorism, they are now achieving politically with the huge assistance of the Western media. In turn, the Western media continue to marginalise young Muslim men, which then create, as has been stated a fertile ground to cultivate the uneducated of these into terrorist organisations and their only hope is defending themselves via acts of violence because they do not have the capacity to defend themselves intellectually or through organs of the mass media. People such as yourself are just as much to blame for the rise of radical Islam and the violence certain sections of that community has caused as the actual terrorists themselves. How does it feel to have the blood of thousands on your hands, because you continually refuse to tell the full facts as they are?
I would suggest Mr George Negus had far more integrity than Mr Hardaker could ever dream of achieving. Mr Hardaker has turned Foreign Correspondent into a cheap tabloid current affairs program akin to Today Tonight and A Current Affair, it really is a shame.
I apologise for my typos in advance.
Regards
Ataman
Saturday, 14 April 2007
500,000 rally against Turkish government
Dear Friends,
I hope the Turkish people remember this protest at the General Elections later this year, Erdogan is finished. This should be an example FOR ALL TURKISH POLITICIANS AND GOVERNMENTS, the people put you in power and the people can take that power from you. Just because you get elected into Government you should not let that go to your head, ARROGANCE will kill political careers. Lets hope at the next general elections the Political parties and Politicians take notice and the people make a wise choice. All Political parties should put up educated and cultured men and women as representatives.
WELL DONE TO THE ADD I CONGRATULATE THEM WHOLE HEARTEDLY.
As for the Europeans being worried about Fundamentalist Muslims take heed and read the below article. YOU HAVE MORE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS AND THOSE THAT WANT SHARIA LAW IN EUROPE THEN THERE IS IN TURKEY, LOOK AT THE U.K., FRANCE, GERMANY BELGIUM AND THE NETHERLANDS.
Turkey should stop begging the EU to let them in and look towards the East for future prosperity and growth Europe is the "sick man" now.
Ataman
By Selcuk Gokoluk and Hidir Goktas
ANKARA (Reuters) - Around 200,000 Turks marched on Saturday to try to stop the ruling AK Party from picking Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan as their presidential candidate next week because of his Islamist roots.
The AK Party has its roots in political Islam, and a possible presidency headed by Erdogan has split this secular but predominantly Muslim country seeking European Union membership.
"Turkey is secular and will remain secular forever," shouted protesters as they waved national flags and banners of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, revered founder of the republic which separated religion and state.
Tens of thousands of people were bussed into the capital Ankara to attend the rally in Tandogan square, one of the biggest gatherings in recent years.
Thousands of people holding flags also gathered at Ataturk's mausoleum, a place where Turks seek solace in times of tension.
Turkey's secular elite, which includes army generals and judges, fear Erdogan as president would try to undermine Turkey's strict separation of state and religion.
The AK Party has a big enough majority in parliament to elect Erdogan, or anybody else it chooses, to the seven-year post as head of state. The party is expected to name its candidate on April 18. Parliament is due to vote in May.
"We're warning the deputies in parliament. We're worried that the secular character of Turkey will be removed if Erdogan or Bulent Arinc (AK Party member and parliament speaker) is elected president," said Huseyin Ozen, a retired teacher.
Erdogan denies any Islamist agenda and says he has broken with his past and is now a conservative democrat. Erdogan, who has presided over strong economic growth and the launch of EU entry talks, has not confirmed whether he will run.
While he is Turkey's most popular and charismatic politician, opinion polls suggest a majority of people in the country do not want him to become president.
"We're here to defend the republic. We're here to defend the women's rights which Ataturk gave to us ... I hope Erdogan will not become president," said Sanem Erdem, a 28-year-old shop owner.
Outgoing President Ahmet Necdet Sezer said on Friday the country's secular system of government faced its gravest danger since the founding of the republic in 1923, in comments seen as a direct attack against the AK Party.
The stark warning from Sezer, ahead of polls that could give Turkey its first head of state with Islamist roots, came on the heels of similar remarks by the powerful army chief on Thursday.
Analysts say Saturday's rally will be the last opportunity for the secular establishment to pressure the AK Party to pick a compromise candidate for the head of state, a seat which carries great symbolic weight in Turkey.
"The road to Cankaya (presidential palace) is closed to sharia (Islamic law)," a group of youths chanted at the rally in a reference to Islamic law practiced in many Muslim countries.
Erdogan and his ruling AK Party have repeatedly stressed that they are faithful believers in secularism, which combines a strict separation of state and religion but also carries heavy undertones of nationalism and a strong central state.
Critics say efforts by the AK Party to remove a ban on Islamic-style headscarves, to expand religious Islamic teachings, appoint religiously minded members to senior positions in the Turkish bureaucracy and to ban alcoholic beverages from local municipalities point to the contrary.
For God’s Sake
By PAUL KRUGMAN in the New York Times
Published: April 13, 2007
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”
Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.
Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go under reported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.
Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.
For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.
Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.
One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.
There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?
Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.
And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.
You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.
Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.
The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.
Published: April 13, 2007
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”
Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.
Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go under reported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.
Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.
For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.
Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.
One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.
There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?
Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.
And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.
You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.
Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.
The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.
Friday, 13 April 2007
Turkish army chief takes aim at Kurds
Too little too late, I say. Have a read of the article below from the Age Newspaper, for all these years the Republic of Turkey has been led up the garden path to E.U. membership and therefore has lost way too much in many terms. First and foremost in Turkish lives and property. While the US and others around the world can use the concept of self defence to use deadly force on terrorists and other entities that are a real and imminent risk to their national security Turkey has shown way too much restraint, in fact 40, thousand dead people or there abouts to much. The time has well and truly come to forget about the EU, look towards the East for future prosperity and finish the PKK issue once and for all.
Cheers
The Age April 12, 2007 - 11:44PM
The head of Turkey's powerful military General Staff called for a military operation in northern Iraq to quash Turkish Kurdish rebels hiding there. "From the military point of view, a (military) operation in northern Iraq must be made," General Yasar Buyukanit told a rare news conference, adding that a political decision from the government was first required to authorise such a step.
Turkey has repeatedly urged the Baghdad government and US occupying forces in Iraq to crack down on an estimated 4,000 rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) who use northern Iraq as a springboard to attack targets inside Turkey. Ankara has said it reserves the right under international law to send troops into northern Iraq to tackle the rebels if Iraq and Washington continue to disregard its calls for action.
Turkey has been especially incensed in recent days by Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani's comments that Iraqi Kurds would interfere in Turkey's mainly Kurdish cities if Ankara interfered in northern Iraq. Buyukanit told the same news conference the military had received intelligence that Kurdish guerrillas would step up their activities in Turkey from May.
He said 10 members of the armed forces had been killed in clashes with the rebels in recent days during a major military offensive in southeast Turkey. Some 29 PKK militants have been killed in the same period, he added.
Turkish authorities fear increased attacks by the PKK on military and civilian targets could harm the country's lucrative tourist industry as the summer season looms.More than 30,000 people have been killed since the PKK launched its armed struggle for an ethnic homeland in southeast Turkey in 1984. The United States and the European Union, like Turkey, classify the PKK as a "terrorist organisation".
U.S. urges Turks to show restraint on border problem with Iraq
Dear Friends,
Have a read of the article below and consider the article I had posted earlier about the concept of Self Defence at International Law, how the US and Israel has applied. Well, the below article is just another example of double standards from the West and most particularly the US when it comes to Turkey and the Turks.
The below article and facts stated in it make the case for a Turkish Intervention into Northern Iraq. You decide.
Cheers
Ataman
Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq, said recently that Iraqi Kurds would retaliate for any Turkish interference in northern Iraq by stirring up trouble in Turkey's predominantly Kurdish southeast.
Have a read of the article below and consider the article I had posted earlier about the concept of Self Defence at International Law, how the US and Israel has applied. Well, the below article is just another example of double standards from the West and most particularly the US when it comes to Turkey and the Turks.
The below article and facts stated in it make the case for a Turkish Intervention into Northern Iraq. You decide.
Cheers
Ataman
WASHINGTON: A top U.S. State Department official urged Turkey on Thursday to show restraint in responding to attacks inside the country by Turkish Kurds operating from Iraqi territory, a senior State Department official said.
Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried issued the call for calm to Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy after the Turkish military sought government approval to launch cross border raids into Iraq to root out guerrillas from the Kurdish Workers Party of PKK, the official said.
The official asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Earlier State Department spokesman Sean McCormack acknowledged the legitimacy of Turkey's concern.
"Turkey faces a real threat from the PKK," he said. "It's a terrorist organization. It has killed innocent Turkish citizens. It has killed Turkish military. And it's a problem that needs to be dealt with."
But, he said, the Turkish and Iraqi governments should work together to try to resolve the problem. He noted that retired Army Gen. Joseph Ralston is trying to assist the two countries in reaching an accommodation.
"The focus should be on trying to resolve this in a cooperative way, in a joint way, rather than to resort to unilateral actions," McCormack said.
Hostilities between Turkey and Iraq would put the United States in the middle of conflict between two close allies and would deflect attention from the U.S. effort to bring stability to Iraq.
Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried issued the call for calm to Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy after the Turkish military sought government approval to launch cross border raids into Iraq to root out guerrillas from the Kurdish Workers Party of PKK, the official said.
The official asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Earlier State Department spokesman Sean McCormack acknowledged the legitimacy of Turkey's concern.
"Turkey faces a real threat from the PKK," he said. "It's a terrorist organization. It has killed innocent Turkish citizens. It has killed Turkish military. And it's a problem that needs to be dealt with."
But, he said, the Turkish and Iraqi governments should work together to try to resolve the problem. He noted that retired Army Gen. Joseph Ralston is trying to assist the two countries in reaching an accommodation.
"The focus should be on trying to resolve this in a cooperative way, in a joint way, rather than to resort to unilateral actions," McCormack said.
Hostilities between Turkey and Iraq would put the United States in the middle of conflict between two close allies and would deflect attention from the U.S. effort to bring stability to Iraq.
Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq, said recently that Iraqi Kurds would retaliate for any Turkish interference in northern Iraq by stirring up trouble in Turkey's predominantly Kurdish southeast.
The double standards and hypocrisy of Politicians
Have a read of the below article, it is another classic example of the double standards, hypocrisy and racism of Australian Politicians. Now don't misunderstand me here I am not a supporter of the thick Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, but what Jones has done is wrong offensive and in fact in my view in breach of any number of laws and regulations of this country. He conducts his affairs with a deliberate and well planned out strategy. The thick Sheikh just makes off the cuff remarks, there is a big difference in audience numbers between the two men as well. Hilali was condemned by Australian Politicians but so should Jones.
However, the politicians are afraid of the mighty power the likes of Jones wields, they are afraid that they may soon become the target of Jones’s vindictiveness, and his use of what has been described as "Their strategy is fear and their tactics are a combination of ridicule, sometimes of the most savage personal kind....The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion," That is what the Politicians are all too well aware of and scared to death of. Hilali on the other hand is an easy target.
Have a look at a comment made by Jones and I quote from the below article, "We don't have Anglo-Saxon kids out there raping women in Western Sydney" NO MR JONES MOST OF THEM ARE IN JAIL. What an idiot, the jails throughout Australia are full of Anglo Saxon males convicted of rape, not only rape but also Murder. Look at the offenders in relation to the following victims; Anita Cobby, Janine Balding, The Granny Killer Glover in the Northern Suburbs of Sydney, The Snow Town Murders in SA, The Bernies serial rapists of WA, should I go on?? Jones you are an idiot, you need therapy for that particular comment you made, you are only playing a populist tune attempting to incite racial hatred.
Read the below and see the difference
Regards
Ataman
It seems few in politics or the media are even questioning whether this hate-monger should continue to have unrivalled access to the airwaves. Communications Minister Helen Coonan announced in a press release that it's time for an overhaul of the commercial radio code of conduct (it's due in September anyway) and urged industry to get involved if it's unhappy with the status quo. Why she felt the need to announce this straight after the Jones finding her office won't explain, and she's turned down at least one morning radio invitation.
However, the politicians are afraid of the mighty power the likes of Jones wields, they are afraid that they may soon become the target of Jones’s vindictiveness, and his use of what has been described as "Their strategy is fear and their tactics are a combination of ridicule, sometimes of the most savage personal kind....The media deal in lies and worse, "finely calibrated half-truths"; they fuse fact and opinion," That is what the Politicians are all too well aware of and scared to death of. Hilali on the other hand is an easy target.
Have a look at a comment made by Jones and I quote from the below article, "We don't have Anglo-Saxon kids out there raping women in Western Sydney" NO MR JONES MOST OF THEM ARE IN JAIL. What an idiot, the jails throughout Australia are full of Anglo Saxon males convicted of rape, not only rape but also Murder. Look at the offenders in relation to the following victims; Anita Cobby, Janine Balding, The Granny Killer Glover in the Northern Suburbs of Sydney, The Snow Town Murders in SA, The Bernies serial rapists of WA, should I go on?? Jones you are an idiot, you need therapy for that particular comment you made, you are only playing a populist tune attempting to incite racial hatred.
Read the below and see the difference
Regards
Ataman
One rule for muftis, another for shock jocks
Elisabeth Lopez 13 April, 2007
LEADERS from both sides of politics have united to condemn Sydney radio shock jock Alan Jones after he was found by the communications and media regulator to have broadcast material likely to have incited racial violence during the Cronulla riots.
Alexander Downer, Foreign Minister: "This man just stumbles from one absurdity to another, he stumbles from one absurdity to another, and he is humiliating the Australian community."
Kevin Andrews, Immigration Minister: "Basically, the Australian people are sick and tired of what Alan Jones has been saying. The man ought to decide whether he wants to be an Australian, live in Australia and be part of this community, or go and live in Alabama."
Alexander Downer, Foreign Minister: "Alan Jones is not only an embarrassment but Alan Jones is damaging the standing of the Australian community here and in the Middle East."
Kevin Rudd: "2GB should not be taking any decision which allows someone like Alan Jones, who's given oxygen to listener emails urging biker gangs to meet "Lebanese thugs" at Cronulla station, and said "We don't have Anglo-Saxon kids out there raping women in Western Sydney", to be given a platform for his views, even if it's for another three months'."
All these statements were uttered but the names and other minor details have been changed. Our political leaders were, of course, talking not about Alan Jones, but about Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali.
Jones appeared on his usual spot on the Nine Network on Wednesday morning after the Australian Communications and Media Authority delivered its finding. Business as usual.
Even the ABC's flagship morning current affairs program AM devoted more airtime on Wednesday morning to a US shock jock, Don Imus, and his racial slur against a group of African-American female basketballers than to the Jones finding — both were stories from the day before. Imus said: "I feel embarrassed that I did the wrong thing." And even he got suspended for two weeks.
No such pressure here on Jones.
Elisabeth Lopez 13 April, 2007
LEADERS from both sides of politics have united to condemn Sydney radio shock jock Alan Jones after he was found by the communications and media regulator to have broadcast material likely to have incited racial violence during the Cronulla riots.
Alexander Downer, Foreign Minister: "This man just stumbles from one absurdity to another, he stumbles from one absurdity to another, and he is humiliating the Australian community."
Kevin Andrews, Immigration Minister: "Basically, the Australian people are sick and tired of what Alan Jones has been saying. The man ought to decide whether he wants to be an Australian, live in Australia and be part of this community, or go and live in Alabama."
Alexander Downer, Foreign Minister: "Alan Jones is not only an embarrassment but Alan Jones is damaging the standing of the Australian community here and in the Middle East."
Kevin Rudd: "2GB should not be taking any decision which allows someone like Alan Jones, who's given oxygen to listener emails urging biker gangs to meet "Lebanese thugs" at Cronulla station, and said "We don't have Anglo-Saxon kids out there raping women in Western Sydney", to be given a platform for his views, even if it's for another three months'."
All these statements were uttered but the names and other minor details have been changed. Our political leaders were, of course, talking not about Alan Jones, but about Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali.
Jones appeared on his usual spot on the Nine Network on Wednesday morning after the Australian Communications and Media Authority delivered its finding. Business as usual.
Even the ABC's flagship morning current affairs program AM devoted more airtime on Wednesday morning to a US shock jock, Don Imus, and his racial slur against a group of African-American female basketballers than to the Jones finding — both were stories from the day before. Imus said: "I feel embarrassed that I did the wrong thing." And even he got suspended for two weeks.
No such pressure here on Jones.
It seems few in politics or the media are even questioning whether this hate-monger should continue to have unrivalled access to the airwaves. Communications Minister Helen Coonan announced in a press release that it's time for an overhaul of the commercial radio code of conduct (it's due in September anyway) and urged industry to get involved if it's unhappy with the status quo. Why she felt the need to announce this straight after the Jones finding her office won't explain, and she's turned down at least one morning radio invitation.
Rudd has confirmed he will still appear on Jones' program. He says he hasn't seen the media authority's report, but if he needs this to convince him Jones' comments were beyond the pale, perhaps he has — as Prime Minister John Howard is fond of saying — a judgement issue.
Howard's own chumminess with Jones is well documented. "I don't think he's a person who encourages prejudice in the Australian community, not for one moment. But he is a person who articulates what a lot of people think." This must make it right, then, but does this reasoning stand up when the shoe is on the other foot?
Hilali was also articulating what a lot of people think when he allegedly said the September 11 attacks were the work of God.
Perhaps we need a parliamentary register of politicians who get letters of demand from Jones, and who holiday at his farm, and one on Crikey for journalists who do the same.
The authority may issue fines, or demand training or mediation for its broadcasters. It could also suspend 2GB's licence, but then so too could pigs fly.
Just imagine this former rugby coach in mediation. Give me a rampaging soccer mum any day.
If it's good enough for a hate-mongering sheikh to be issued vague threats about his future in this country by Australia's entire political establishment, what does this say about the relative silence with which the media authority's findings on Jones have been greeted? Few if any calls for Jones to quit, re-examine his behaviour, or even take a breather. No rap over the knuckles. Let alone an offer of a one-way ticket to Nauru. 2GB must be cracking out the champagne still.
Hilali compares uncovered women with meat; Jones' 2GB colleague Brian Wilshire says Lebanese people are inbred and have low IQs.
There's a difference?
Kevin Rudd told ABC radio's Jon Faine on Wednesday morning: "This guy hasn't emerged from the 7th century, in my view. You can be silent about them (his views) or stand up and be counted."
Indeed.
But was he talking about Jones or Hilali?
Howard's own chumminess with Jones is well documented. "I don't think he's a person who encourages prejudice in the Australian community, not for one moment. But he is a person who articulates what a lot of people think." This must make it right, then, but does this reasoning stand up when the shoe is on the other foot?
Hilali was also articulating what a lot of people think when he allegedly said the September 11 attacks were the work of God.
Perhaps we need a parliamentary register of politicians who get letters of demand from Jones, and who holiday at his farm, and one on Crikey for journalists who do the same.
The authority may issue fines, or demand training or mediation for its broadcasters. It could also suspend 2GB's licence, but then so too could pigs fly.
Just imagine this former rugby coach in mediation. Give me a rampaging soccer mum any day.
If it's good enough for a hate-mongering sheikh to be issued vague threats about his future in this country by Australia's entire political establishment, what does this say about the relative silence with which the media authority's findings on Jones have been greeted? Few if any calls for Jones to quit, re-examine his behaviour, or even take a breather. No rap over the knuckles. Let alone an offer of a one-way ticket to Nauru. 2GB must be cracking out the champagne still.
Hilali compares uncovered women with meat; Jones' 2GB colleague Brian Wilshire says Lebanese people are inbred and have low IQs.
There's a difference?
Kevin Rudd told ABC radio's Jon Faine on Wednesday morning: "This guy hasn't emerged from the 7th century, in my view. You can be silent about them (his views) or stand up and be counted."
Indeed.
But was he talking about Jones or Hilali?
Elisabeth Lopez is a Melbourne writer
Thursday, 12 April 2007
Self Defence at International Law: Does Turkey have a case against Barzani and the PKK
Dear Friends,
I am sick and tired of Turkish Politicians and Military Officers rattling their sabres and not taking effective and decisive action, whilst we loose more and more loved ones and the Turkish economy suffers. The latest slap in the face to Turks comes from Barzani. For many years, I have wondered why Turkey has not taken decisive action against those that are a real and imminent threat to Turkish National Security. Israel and the US have no qualms about using deadly force. So I thought I would explore the law of self-defence at the International level, and let you decide whether or not Turkey can or more appropriately should take decisive action against the PKK in Northern Iraq. You apply the facts (PKK Terrorism, Barzani’s aggression) as the whole world knows it to the below criteria, I do not intend on reproducing all that the PKK and Barzani have done or said historically.
I am sick and tired of Turkish Politicians and Military Officers rattling their sabres and not taking effective and decisive action, whilst we loose more and more loved ones and the Turkish economy suffers. The latest slap in the face to Turks comes from Barzani. For many years, I have wondered why Turkey has not taken decisive action against those that are a real and imminent threat to Turkish National Security. Israel and the US have no qualms about using deadly force. So I thought I would explore the law of self-defence at the International level, and let you decide whether or not Turkey can or more appropriately should take decisive action against the PKK in Northern Iraq. You apply the facts (PKK Terrorism, Barzani’s aggression) as the whole world knows it to the below criteria, I do not intend on reproducing all that the PKK and Barzani have done or said historically.
---
The use of military force is a valid customary international law norm and it is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Nevertheless, the use of force is only authorised if it falls under one of two categories: self-defence (article 41 of the United Nations Charter), or Security Council authorisation. To justify a resort to pre-emptive war, a state must give reasonable proof that the action is necessary to the vital national security interests of the state, and that the act of aggression in self-defence is proportional, according to Charter principles. The threat imposed by an aggressor must be proven to be clear and imminent, direct, critical to the state facing disproportionate danger, and unable to be handled using peaceful alternatives. According to the Charter, to deem self-defence lawful requires that an attack has already been launched against a victim state. Examples of states acting pre-emptively in anticipatory self-defence have further elaborated on this legality, creating in some instances an international acceptance that in the case of an imminent attack, the necessity of a proportional assault in self-defence is lawful. However, the issue remains that the Charter, in order to deem an action as lawful self-defence, requires the existence of an armed attack on the victim state. Interpretation on what constitutes an armed attack is what generates the most disagreement amongst the international law community. It is agreeable, however, that no state can be expected to sit idly by and await the first blow of an armed attack by an aggressor state in the modern era of warfare.
The recent War on Terrorism is giving us an example of how this particular article of the Charter can be difficult to interpret, and creates a need for modernising the internationally accepted norms and evolving the Charter’s principles on self-defence in order to accommodate victim states.
The criterion for lawful self-defence derives from many legal backgrounds that have become the norm in international law standards. The classic formula that supports the principle of anticipatory self-defence stems from the Caroline incident, which arose in 1837. The main reason for recalling this incident is for then U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster’s classic formulation of the essential elements of anticipatory self-defence: immediacy, necessity, and proportionality. Because of these elements, this is the case most often cited when determining whether or not a state has the right to resort to force when faced with imminent danger to national security. In brief, this incident took place during a rebellion of Canadians against the British Crown government.
A band of Canadian rebels, seeking a more democratic Canada, had been forced to flee to the United States after leading the failed Upper Canada Rebellion. They took refuge on Navy Island on the Canadian side of the Niagara River and declared themselves the Republic of Canada. The rebels were supported in their cause by many Americans, who considered the rebellion a continuation of the American Revolutionary War. They supplied the Canadian insurgents with supplies, money, provisions, and arms via the steamboat Caroline, and also enlisted to fight in an invasion of Canada. Despite the knowledge of these occurrences, the United States government did not attempt to stop the Americans from aiding the Canadian rebels, and claimed that the United States government did not have the authority to force neutrality. On December 29 Colonel Sir Allan MacNab ordered a party of militia to cross the river and set the Caroline ablaze. Finding her docked at Fort Schlosser, New York, they seized her, towed her into the current, set her afire and cast her adrift over Niagara Falls, killing one American in the process. American forces burned British steamer Sir Robert Peel while it was in the US. The tensions were ultimately settled by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. Several years after the affair, through an exchange of diplomatic messages, Webster argued that the sovereignty of the United States had been violated and that the British, to declare this act in self-defence, would have had to “show a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”. Furthermore, he argued that the act, if justified by self-defence necessity, must be proportional, and not exact greater means than necessary. From this correspondence, the rules for anticipatory self-defence were formed: immanency, necessity, and proportionality.
This criterion, which later became the norm in international law relating to anticipatory self-defence in another sovereign state’s territory, can be broken into four elements that must be fulfilled. The first is necessity, due to a grave threat of a great magnitude. The second element is the likelihood that the threat will be realised unless anticipatory self-defence occurs, stemming from immanency of attack. The third element is the exhaustion of all peaceful means and alternatives to using force. The last of these elements is that the use of pre-emptive force is consistent with Charter principles, namely proportionality.
After the Caroline affair, both imminence and necessity became crucial factors in determining self-defence. However, one hundred years following the incident, the UN Charter was adopted, which changed the scope in regards to the use of force by states. The UN Charter prohibits all use of force, except in two circumstances: the first being with the explicit authorisation of the Security Council under Chapter VII, Article 42, and the second case being in self-defence as read in Article 51 in response to an attack on the territory of a member state. Therefore, Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter requires countries to refrain from the use of force, but permits in Article 51 the exercise of the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs…until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. Many international lawyers assert that the Charter explicitly prohibits the use of pre-emptive force until after an attack, as it is written in print in the Charter. Consequently, there have been countless debates over the Charter’s meaning of “armed attack”. It has been argued that this term implies a state may only act in self-defence when an attack has actually occurred, if the text is read literally. However, in the modern era of warfare and advanced weaponry, no state can be expected to wait to be a victim of the first attack before defending the nation, if the state’s fundamental security is at stake. The nature of threats to security has undoubtedly changed since the inception of the Charter in 1945, when the assumption was that a global security organisation could effectively control the use of force by states.
There are two major events that are cited to demonstrate the legitimacy of anticipatory self-defence, despite the adoption of the United Nations Charter. The first of these, which is often referred to for legal advice in the realm of anticipatory self-defence, is Israel’s pre-emptive strike at the beginning of the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel launched the attack on the Egyptian army, which was massing at its borders: in this situation, immediacy is illustrated, with a visible line of troops and weaponry, and likewise, intent is obvious, which was furthered by intercepting communications, which clearly outlined the plans of the Egyptian forces.
The second commonly cited incident is Israel’s 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, following intelligence sources indicating to the Israeli government that the Iraqis were preparing to turn the nuclear reactor on. The Israelis decided to deal with the perceived threat sooner rather than later and launched air strikes, claiming that this action was vital to protect national security, and was acted out in the basis of self-defence. However, this attack was declared an illegal preventive attack, which was said to have threatened regional security, and the Security Council accordingly condemned the action, claiming that the Israelis had failed to exhaust peaceful means in order to resolve the perceived situation.
The problem that is encountered in defining the legality of pre-emptive self-defence is found in terrorism. The rule prohibiting the use of force applies only to states. Terrorists are not subject to international law, as they engage themselves in non-state violence. However, in 1974, the General Assembly concluded that in situations where a state is involved in non-state violence, the very involvement is equivalent to an armed attack. Thus, a state falling victim to terrorist attacks from a country harbouring or supporting terrorists could invoke the right of self-defence. It was on the basis of this ruling that the United States justified the intervention of the American state and her allies in Afghanistan following the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11th.
Although the guidelines regarding pre-emptive self-defence and the use of force are defined in the UN Charter and in international law norms, the reality is that terrorism is transnational and terrorists are not subject to the same deterrent pressures that States are. Terrorism is a grave danger, and the difficulty comes in reaching terrorists that are being harboured and/or supported by sovereign states. No matter how technologically advanced and prepared a military or state is, the prevention of serious terrorist attacks is not feasible.
Such is the justification behind the new approach to terrorism that has been adopted by the Bush administration as part of the new National Security Strategy (NSS) of 17 September 2002. Essentially, the NSS has changed the approach to terrorism from one of a criminal offence to a grave threat to national security. Although the Strategy does mention that this new approach will not allow the US to “use force in all cases to pre-empt emerging threats, nor should nations use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression”, the NSS clearly asserts the United States’ right to stop terrorists and rogue states before they are able to inflict damage on the American state or her allies.
The Bush administration has stated that “the greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack”. This is a dangerous conclusion to be drawn. Too many questions are left unanswered: if the international community decides that this new doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence is applicable in cases of non-state aggression, when and on what terms will it be acceptable for one state to attack terrorists residing in another sovereign state? Who will be responsible for drawing the lines of legality, and deciding when a terrorist threat is grave and imminent enough to justify anticipatory actions? Certainly, it is without doubt that the existence today of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of transnational actors who are not subject to the international laws on the use of force creates a need for the international community to consider an evolution of the Charter principles and exclusions to the laws regarding the use of military force in self-defence. If correctly applied, anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence is part of a state’s legitimate authority to use self-defence.
That's Why They Call it a Propaganda 'Machine'
I would like to draw your attention to a free, local television station in New York City where Armenian propaganda is aired during prime network air time Click here
Last night, at about 9 o'clock pm EST, Gokce and I watched as an Armenian anchor woman and supporting footage informing us of a gathering in Times Square that was dedicated to the suffering of the Armenians and the "atrocities by Turks." Neither my husband nor I speak the language of the announcer, yet I was able to discern the message of the announcer. The video footage was provocative and some speakers spoke English. The mood of the people and scenes came together to create a show that appeared to be out of the middle of last century (it seemed so hollow and emotive, without reason and, honestly, doltish).
We continued to watch: children standing on a stage at what appeared to be a gymnasium, singing and holding signs 'The Turks Committed Genocide' and 'The Turks Committed Atrocities' and other huge signs. Children singing about something they know nothing about, preparing to carry on the tradition of ignorance and hate. Announcers supporting baseless accusations. Elderly people sitting in Times Square, self-righteous and -- voluntarily or involuntarily -- clueless about their ancestors' raids on Turkey. Armenians at a church. A zoom in on Mt. Ararat.
Gokce commented: "That mountain is special to them. They want that mountain and they want us to admit to crimes so they can start bartering for land."
Something about that statement drove my thoughts. It seems that Armenians, because of their religious affiliation and their position of loss against the Turks during WWI makes them excellent buddies to Europeans and ignorant Americans (all of them have so much in common). Yet, does anyone realize the bridge that is burning with every baseless, half-baked accusation against Turks? When will people check their land-grabbing instincts and their allegiance to superficial religious 'us and them' mentalities long enough to see the greater effect of spinning lies?
Turks represent stability and deliberate politics in a region full of people who lost their identity due to, and are jaded about, the people grabbing their land in WWI. Who will stop this viscious cycle if awareness is not raised?
I contacted the television station and I recommend anyone do the same. Somehow, Turks must have a gathering at Times Square or march in a parade in New York. Somehow there must be attention drawn to the second side of the argument. It's out of control and almost laughable (if you don't laugh, you cry) how blatant this propaganda has become.
Last night, at about 9 o'clock pm EST, Gokce and I watched as an Armenian anchor woman and supporting footage informing us of a gathering in Times Square that was dedicated to the suffering of the Armenians and the "atrocities by Turks." Neither my husband nor I speak the language of the announcer, yet I was able to discern the message of the announcer. The video footage was provocative and some speakers spoke English. The mood of the people and scenes came together to create a show that appeared to be out of the middle of last century (it seemed so hollow and emotive, without reason and, honestly, doltish).
We continued to watch: children standing on a stage at what appeared to be a gymnasium, singing and holding signs 'The Turks Committed Genocide' and 'The Turks Committed Atrocities' and other huge signs. Children singing about something they know nothing about, preparing to carry on the tradition of ignorance and hate. Announcers supporting baseless accusations. Elderly people sitting in Times Square, self-righteous and -- voluntarily or involuntarily -- clueless about their ancestors' raids on Turkey. Armenians at a church. A zoom in on Mt. Ararat.
Gokce commented: "That mountain is special to them. They want that mountain and they want us to admit to crimes so they can start bartering for land."
Something about that statement drove my thoughts. It seems that Armenians, because of their religious affiliation and their position of loss against the Turks during WWI makes them excellent buddies to Europeans and ignorant Americans (all of them have so much in common). Yet, does anyone realize the bridge that is burning with every baseless, half-baked accusation against Turks? When will people check their land-grabbing instincts and their allegiance to superficial religious 'us and them' mentalities long enough to see the greater effect of spinning lies?
Turks represent stability and deliberate politics in a region full of people who lost their identity due to, and are jaded about, the people grabbing their land in WWI. Who will stop this viscious cycle if awareness is not raised?
I contacted the television station and I recommend anyone do the same. Somehow, Turks must have a gathering at Times Square or march in a parade in New York. Somehow there must be attention drawn to the second side of the argument. It's out of control and almost laughable (if you don't laugh, you cry) how blatant this propaganda has become.
MHP: Kaçtığın yere kadar kovalayacağız
Tercuman 11 April 2007
BAŞBAKAN Erdoğan’ın cumhurbaşkanı olmaması için 4 önemli neden olduğunu ileri süren MHP’li Cihan Paçacı,şunları söyledi: “MHP TBMM’de güçlü şekilde temsil edilirse, Köşk’ten indirir, yargıda hesap sorarız. Ülkücünün nefesi Erdoğan’ın ensesinde.”
MHP Genel Sekreteri Cihan Paçacı, Başbakan’ın Cumhurbaşkanı olmaması için 4 önemli neden olduğunu öne sürdü. Paçacı, bu nedenleri şöyle sıraladı:
1- Hakkında sahtecilik gibi çok ciddi bir suçtan dolayı fezleke düzenlenmiş birinin yargıda aklanmadan Cumhurbaşkanı olması son derece yanlıştır.
2- Üniversitelerle, yargıyla, sivil toplum örgütleriyle ve TSK ile sürekli gerginlik içerisinde. Her şeyden önemlisi vatandaşla kavgalı. Vatandaşı azarlayan, kızan bir kişinin Cumhurbaşkanlığı makamına çıktığı zaman bir uzlaşmayı, koordineli çalışmayı ve tüm toplumu temsil edeceği düşünülemez.
3- Milleti kutuplaştıran politikalar ortaya koydu.
.4- Bebek katiline, caniye, 30 bin kişinin hayatına kast eden birine ‘sayın’, bu ülke uğruna canını feda eden aziz şehitlerimize ‘kelle’ diyen bir kişi o yüce makama çıkamaz. Paçacı, “Erdoğan, tüm bu sebeplere rağmen aday olur ve seçilirse şunu bilsin ki MHP, TBMM’de güçlü bir şekilde temsil edildiği takdirde, meşru zeminlerle Erdoğan’ı Cumhurbaşkanlığı makamından indirecek ve yargı önünde hesap soracaktır” dedi.
BAŞBAKAN Erdoğan’ın cumhurbaşkanı olmaması için 4 önemli neden olduğunu ileri süren MHP’li Cihan Paçacı,şunları söyledi: “MHP TBMM’de güçlü şekilde temsil edilirse, Köşk’ten indirir, yargıda hesap sorarız. Ülkücünün nefesi Erdoğan’ın ensesinde.”
MHP Genel Sekreteri Cihan Paçacı, Başbakan’ın Cumhurbaşkanı olmaması için 4 önemli neden olduğunu öne sürdü. Paçacı, bu nedenleri şöyle sıraladı:
1- Hakkında sahtecilik gibi çok ciddi bir suçtan dolayı fezleke düzenlenmiş birinin yargıda aklanmadan Cumhurbaşkanı olması son derece yanlıştır.
2- Üniversitelerle, yargıyla, sivil toplum örgütleriyle ve TSK ile sürekli gerginlik içerisinde. Her şeyden önemlisi vatandaşla kavgalı. Vatandaşı azarlayan, kızan bir kişinin Cumhurbaşkanlığı makamına çıktığı zaman bir uzlaşmayı, koordineli çalışmayı ve tüm toplumu temsil edeceği düşünülemez.
3- Milleti kutuplaştıran politikalar ortaya koydu.
.4- Bebek katiline, caniye, 30 bin kişinin hayatına kast eden birine ‘sayın’, bu ülke uğruna canını feda eden aziz şehitlerimize ‘kelle’ diyen bir kişi o yüce makama çıkamaz. Paçacı, “Erdoğan, tüm bu sebeplere rağmen aday olur ve seçilirse şunu bilsin ki MHP, TBMM’de güçlü bir şekilde temsil edildiği takdirde, meşru zeminlerle Erdoğan’ı Cumhurbaşkanlığı makamından indirecek ve yargı önünde hesap soracaktır” dedi.
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Jones rapped for pre-riot 'scum' remarks
Dylan Welch
April 10, 2007 - 8:46PM
The Australian broadcasting watchdog has found that 2GB and its prominent breakfast presenter Alan Jones breached the radio code of practice during broadcasts just before the infamous 2005 Cronulla riots.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority today found that the company and Jones broadcast material - specifically comments made by Jones between December 5-9 - was "likely to encourage violence or brutality and to vilify people of Lebanese and Middle-Eastern backgrounds on the basis of ethnicity".
The investigation by ACMA began after complaints were received after the broadcasts, some of which had Jones calling the men responsible for an alleged attack on Cronulla beach "Middle Eastern grubs".
On December 7 Jones read out a listener's letter on air, saying: "My suggestion is to invite one of the biker gangs to be present in numbers at Cronulla railway station when these Lebanese thugs arrive, it would be worth the price of admission to watch these cowards scurry back onto the train for the return trip to their lairs.
"Australians old and new shouldn't have to put up with this scum."
ACMA found the listener's comments breached section 1.3(a) of the code.
However, late last year Jones defended himself from the accusations of incitement to violence, saying only 2.2 per cent of his audience was under 29 and the riots were caused by 18 to 29-year-olds.
In a statement, Macquarie Radio Network chief executive Angela Clark dismissed ACMA's findings as "seriously flawed and ill-founded''.
She said 2GB and Jones were opposed to violence and had repeatedly said so on air at the time.
Talkback radio, by its very nature, aired the sometimes controversial views held in the community, she said.
"A broadcaster's use of listener material does not always indicate agreement with that material,'' Ms Clark said.
"In this case ... Alan Jones repeatedly urged listeners to refrain from acting on the calls for violence.
"Instead (he) called on the police and state government to ensure a full and appropriate police response to community divisions and tensions and for lawbreakers to be dealt with swiftly by police.''
Other complaints dismissed
ACMA found that comments made by Jones in his December 8 broadcast implied that people of Middle Eastern background were responsible for raping women in western Sydney.
However, ACMA dismissed complaints about other comments aired on December 5, 6 and 9.
ACMA will be writing to Harbour Radio shortly about proposed action against the broadcaster.
As to what that measure would be, ACMA was not yet wiling to comment, with spokesman for the watchdog, Donald Robertson, telling smh.com.au a letter would be sent to Harbour Radio Pty Ltd, the parent company of 2GB, and they would wait for a response from the company.
"We'll be seeking some kind of heightened measure, what that turns out to be is really what comes out of that dialogue between us and Harbour Radio," he said.
ACMA says Jones' broadcasts are the third breach of the vilification provision of the code of practice by Harbour Radio in the past two years, which means ACMA will "move to pursue significantly heightened compliance measures" from the broadcaster, according to release.
In a separate matter, Jones is facing 12 months jail and/or a fine of up to $5500 for naming on air a child witness in a murder trial.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Helen Syme is due to consider penalties, which also apply to Harbour Radio and Nationwide News, on April 20 at Downing Centre Local Court.
This is the second case against 2GB in regards to the Cronulla riots, the first in January this year when ACMA found that comments by The Open-Line Show host Brian Wilshire had breached broadcast rules against inciting ethnic hatred.
No action was taken as 2GB had ordered on-air apologies and staff awareness training, ACMA said at the time.
April 10, 2007 - 8:46PM
The Australian broadcasting watchdog has found that 2GB and its prominent breakfast presenter Alan Jones breached the radio code of practice during broadcasts just before the infamous 2005 Cronulla riots.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority today found that the company and Jones broadcast material - specifically comments made by Jones between December 5-9 - was "likely to encourage violence or brutality and to vilify people of Lebanese and Middle-Eastern backgrounds on the basis of ethnicity".
The investigation by ACMA began after complaints were received after the broadcasts, some of which had Jones calling the men responsible for an alleged attack on Cronulla beach "Middle Eastern grubs".
On December 7 Jones read out a listener's letter on air, saying: "My suggestion is to invite one of the biker gangs to be present in numbers at Cronulla railway station when these Lebanese thugs arrive, it would be worth the price of admission to watch these cowards scurry back onto the train for the return trip to their lairs.
"Australians old and new shouldn't have to put up with this scum."
ACMA found the listener's comments breached section 1.3(a) of the code.
However, late last year Jones defended himself from the accusations of incitement to violence, saying only 2.2 per cent of his audience was under 29 and the riots were caused by 18 to 29-year-olds.
In a statement, Macquarie Radio Network chief executive Angela Clark dismissed ACMA's findings as "seriously flawed and ill-founded''.
She said 2GB and Jones were opposed to violence and had repeatedly said so on air at the time.
Talkback radio, by its very nature, aired the sometimes controversial views held in the community, she said.
"A broadcaster's use of listener material does not always indicate agreement with that material,'' Ms Clark said.
"In this case ... Alan Jones repeatedly urged listeners to refrain from acting on the calls for violence.
"Instead (he) called on the police and state government to ensure a full and appropriate police response to community divisions and tensions and for lawbreakers to be dealt with swiftly by police.''
Other complaints dismissed
ACMA found that comments made by Jones in his December 8 broadcast implied that people of Middle Eastern background were responsible for raping women in western Sydney.
However, ACMA dismissed complaints about other comments aired on December 5, 6 and 9.
ACMA will be writing to Harbour Radio shortly about proposed action against the broadcaster.
As to what that measure would be, ACMA was not yet wiling to comment, with spokesman for the watchdog, Donald Robertson, telling smh.com.au a letter would be sent to Harbour Radio Pty Ltd, the parent company of 2GB, and they would wait for a response from the company.
"We'll be seeking some kind of heightened measure, what that turns out to be is really what comes out of that dialogue between us and Harbour Radio," he said.
ACMA says Jones' broadcasts are the third breach of the vilification provision of the code of practice by Harbour Radio in the past two years, which means ACMA will "move to pursue significantly heightened compliance measures" from the broadcaster, according to release.
In a separate matter, Jones is facing 12 months jail and/or a fine of up to $5500 for naming on air a child witness in a murder trial.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Helen Syme is due to consider penalties, which also apply to Harbour Radio and Nationwide News, on April 20 at Downing Centre Local Court.
This is the second case against 2GB in regards to the Cronulla riots, the first in January this year when ACMA found that comments by The Open-Line Show host Brian Wilshire had breached broadcast rules against inciting ethnic hatred.
No action was taken as 2GB had ordered on-air apologies and staff awareness training, ACMA said at the time.
Manila deports Armenian terror suspect
Philippines authorities have expelled an Armenian man suspected of links to terrorist activities.
Khachik Aslanyan, 41, was put on an Aeroflot flight for Yerevan with Filipino escorts, immigration chief Andrea Domingo said in a statement. Aslanyan was an "undesirable alien and a threat to national security and safety", she said.
He was arrested with a grenade in Vancouver in November 1997 while travelling aboard a commercial flight from Manila and later served time in a Canadian jail, she said.
Aslanyan later returned to the Philippines and was arrested in Manila on November 21 at the request of Turkey, which feared he was plotting to bomb the Turkish embassy in Manila, Domingo said. He escaped from detention two days later but was recaptured in early December following a nationwide manhunt.
Khachik Aslanyan, 41, was put on an Aeroflot flight for Yerevan with Filipino escorts, immigration chief Andrea Domingo said in a statement. Aslanyan was an "undesirable alien and a threat to national security and safety", she said.
He was arrested with a grenade in Vancouver in November 1997 while travelling aboard a commercial flight from Manila and later served time in a Canadian jail, she said.
Aslanyan later returned to the Philippines and was arrested in Manila on November 21 at the request of Turkey, which feared he was plotting to bomb the Turkish embassy in Manila, Domingo said. He escaped from detention two days later but was recaptured in early December following a nationwide manhunt.
Saturday, 7 April 2007
You're better off being a Drug Importer into Australia rather then being Muslim Australian in trouble overseas
Dear Friends,
What the Australian Government did or more appropriately DID NOT DO for David Hicks shows just how racist the Liberal Government is. Let me qualify that for you. Now much has been written about David Hicks and his predicament. I am not addressing the issue of whether he is guilty or not, that WOULD have been up to a properly constituted Court to determine in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the rules of evidence and the rule of law BUT DAVID NEVER GOT ANY OF THAT.
The Howard Government sat on their hands for five years and then finally just several months before an Australian election the US come to the party charge David and an outrageous Plea Bargain is made. That is he can not talk to the media etc etc, where is the freedom of speech there? Where have all the fundamental tenets of a Liberal Democracy gone ?
Now lets examine the Governments actions in relation to Heroin importers into Australia, they go out of their way to provide legal assistance and communications between Senior Political advisers etc etc. Have a think about some of the people that have appeared in the Australian news in recent years charged in various countries for Heroin importation or drug offences and what the Australian Government has done for those people.
The only conclusion I can come to is that if you are going to get into trouble in another Country you are better off getting into trouble for drug offences than being a Muslim wanting to fight in a war. It was David Hick's belief that got him into trouble but it was the US and Australia that broke every fundamental human right Hicks was entitled to expect, as espoused to by the US and Australia. Another example of hypocrisy and Orwell's quote from animal farm, "Every one's equal just some are more equal than others."
Have a read of the below article and see that even the British Government did more for Hicks than the Australian.
Ataman
It was almost Christmas last year and something had to done about David Hicks. John Howard was feigning concern; the polls weren't coming up roses. But a "Dear John" letter would have got a public service reply so there was only one more option: the viceroy of Australia, Michael Jeffery. Second thoughts - Howard has sidelined him so I had to go to the top: the head of state of Australia. The subsequent chain of events was startling, and political. The Queen of Australia is as savvy as they say she is.
Could you, Your Majesty, I asked, do something to help your Australian subject David Hicks? I outlined in the letter what Hicks had been subjected to for the past five years, I told her that John Howard, Alexander Downer and Philip Ruddock were in the thrall of the most unpopular and ridiculed President of the United States of America and I reminded her that the plea in our passports from her viceroy, written on her behalf, to allow us all to pass without let or hindrance was in this case being ignored. I guess I was dobbing everyone in. But write I did and six weeks later, a thick envelope, with an embossed royal coat of arms, was dropped into my letterbox.
The contents, written by the Queen's senior correspondence officer, went as follows:
"The Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter of 12th December regarding your concern over the case of Mr David Hicks, who you understand is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"The Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter of 12th December regarding your concern over the case of Mr David Hicks, who you understand is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"I must tell you, however, that this is not a matter in which Her Majesty would intervene. Nevertheless, I have been instructed to forward your letter to the Right Honourable Margaret Beckett, MP, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, so that she may know of your approach to The Queen on this matter."
What?
HM sent my letter to the British Foreign Minister, not to Lord Downer of Baghdad: has someone not told Elizabeth we are no longer governed by Whitehall? I then wrote to Beckett outlining the concerns of millions of Australians about Hicks and pointed out the comfort her own utterances on the hideousness of Guantanamo Bay had given us. I also asked her if Howard, Downer or Ruddock had ever asked who she approached in Washington to demand, successfully, the return of the Brits incarcerated in the Cheney-Rumsfeld playpen for US military guards.
The reply to this letter came not from Beckett - instead it was written by Nicolas Jankowski of the Special Cases Team in the Counter Terrorism Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I'd worked in London over the years and still have what passes for good contacts in the halls of government, so I called someone I trust and outlined the chain of events. The reply I received was startling. Mate, he said, you opened a can of worms; the letter to HM had been all over Whitehall. Her Majesty had kept an eye on the process. He intimated Canberra had been in the loop as well but wouldn't elaborate. Nicolas Jankowski wasn't so shy.
He wouldn't comment on Hicks's case because, as he reminded me, there was an appeal before the courts on the lad's citizenship application. He then proceeded to drop a huge bucket on the entire Guantanamo Bay process, describing it as unacceptable and reminding me that Tony Blair had already said it should be closed.
He wouldn't comment on Hicks's case because, as he reminded me, there was an appeal before the courts on the lad's citizenship application. He then proceeded to drop a huge bucket on the entire Guantanamo Bay process, describing it as unacceptable and reminding me that Tony Blair had already said it should be closed.
He said the British Government continued to raise humanitarian concerns about detentions at Guantanamo Bay with the US authorities and would continue raising the concerns and work with the US to resolve the issues. Jankowski further pointed to the necessity of continued engagement by the US with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations and others on the issue of Guantanamo Bay. He said the British Government "noted" the assurances given by the US Government on the issue of detainee treatment more widely and quoted the confirmation of the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, that the US respected the rules of international law, including the UN's Convention on Torture.
There is no record of Howard, Downer or Ruddock being so thorough. It's as though they didn't care what happened to Hicks and may even see Guantanamo Bay in an acceptable light.
Be all that as it may. The exercise underscored to me that although the concept of this country having an absent foreign monarch as head of state is repugnant, the Queen's reputation for having concern for the less fortunate is intact. She is a role model for the Australians who will surely succeed her.
And a footnote: Queen Elizabeth's letter was written and posted on Australia Day.
Barry Everingham is a Melbourne writer and broadcaster.
Friday, 6 April 2007
Cheney accuses Pelosi of 'bad behaviour' in Syria
Dear Friends,
I thought these two articles were quite interesting, because to me it appears that this Ladies arrogance has no bounds whatsoever. Not only does she hold contempt and hatred for the Turkish People and the Republic of Turkey but because she has been appointed the Speaker of the House in the U.S. she now has delusions of grandeur thinking she is the President of the U.S.
She recently went to Syria (which is no problem at all in itself and all parties must talk to each other in order to resolve problems in a civil manner) but she went against the wishes and protocol of the US system of Government and Administration. She has embarrassed the entire United States by her actions and arrogance.
She refused to meet with the Turkish Foreign Minister in order to discuss Resolution 106 currently before Congress, in other words her mind is closed to any evidence or factual matters the Turks and or Turkey may wish to present.
The irony however is that she goes to Syria where an appointment is made to meet with the Syrian President Mr Assad (against the wishes of the White House and the President of the US whom controls US foreign Policy) and in turn President Assad cancels the meeting for no other reason than and I quote, " I have a very important guest from Turkey; and tonight we will watch together a soccer game. I cannot come to Damascus before he leaves."
Well Ms Pelosi perhaps that may dent your ego and arrogance a tad and show you that the centre of the Universe is not in fact you and your Democrat ruled Congress. A soccer game is more important then you or what you may have to say about world peace imagine that.
Regards
Ataman
Pelosi's decision to defy the White House and meet Assad stepped up a tug of war between the Democratic-led Congress and Republican President George W Bush over foreign policy.
The two sides are already doing battle over Iraq policy, with Democrats trying to force Bush to accept a date for withdrawing US troops.
Pelosi was also slammed today by a Washington Post editorial that was headlined "Pratfall in Damascus" and called her Middle East shuttle diplomacy "foolish".
The paper reported that that same day, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in Syria, and noted that Pelosi had refused to meet with Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on his recent trip to the U.S.
The paper said that Assad sent a message to Pelosi that he could not meet with her: "It is not possible. I cannot meet you today. I have a very important guest from Turkey; and tonight we will watch together a soccer game. I cannot come to Damascus before he leaves. We may meet tomorrow."
Turkey's most popular soccer team Fenerbahce was in Syria at that time to play Syrian champion team Al-Ittihad. The paper reported that Erdogan told journalists that Turkey-Syria relations were "further developing in a positive direction" and that "the direct relationship between our peoples is also growing; sports events contribute to that..."
I thought these two articles were quite interesting, because to me it appears that this Ladies arrogance has no bounds whatsoever. Not only does she hold contempt and hatred for the Turkish People and the Republic of Turkey but because she has been appointed the Speaker of the House in the U.S. she now has delusions of grandeur thinking she is the President of the U.S.
She recently went to Syria (which is no problem at all in itself and all parties must talk to each other in order to resolve problems in a civil manner) but she went against the wishes and protocol of the US system of Government and Administration. She has embarrassed the entire United States by her actions and arrogance.
She refused to meet with the Turkish Foreign Minister in order to discuss Resolution 106 currently before Congress, in other words her mind is closed to any evidence or factual matters the Turks and or Turkey may wish to present.
The irony however is that she goes to Syria where an appointment is made to meet with the Syrian President Mr Assad (against the wishes of the White House and the President of the US whom controls US foreign Policy) and in turn President Assad cancels the meeting for no other reason than and I quote, " I have a very important guest from Turkey; and tonight we will watch together a soccer game. I cannot come to Damascus before he leaves."
Well Ms Pelosi perhaps that may dent your ego and arrogance a tad and show you that the centre of the Universe is not in fact you and your Democrat ruled Congress. A soccer game is more important then you or what you may have to say about world peace imagine that.
Regards
Ataman
SMH 6 April, 2007 - 2:12PM
Vice-President Dick Cheney accused US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today of "bad behaviour" on her Middle East trip, saying she bungled a message for Syria's president that was later clarified by Israel.
Cheney harshly criticised Pelosi's visit to Syria this week and declared in an interview, "The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House." Pelosi's Syrian stopover was opposed from the start by the Bush administration, which accuses Damascus of sponsoring terrorism and says it should be isolated from the international community. While in Damascus yesterday, Pelosi announced she had told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that Israel was prepared to negotiate with Syria.
That prompted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office to underline the Jewish state's preconditions for such talks - including that Syria abandon its "support for terrorist groups."
Cheney, pointing to the Israeli reaction, said it was obvious Olmert had not authorised the message Pelosi delivered. "It was a non-statement, nonsensical statement and didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror," the vice president said on the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
Cheney, pointing to the Israeli reaction, said it was obvious Olmert had not authorised the message Pelosi delivered. "It was a non-statement, nonsensical statement and didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror," the vice president said on the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
"I think it is, in fact bad behaviour on her part. I wish she hadn't done it," Cheney said. "Fortunately I think the various parties involved recognise she doesn't speak for the Untied States in those circumstances, she doesn't represent the administration." Pelosi, the top House Democrat and next in line to the US presidency after Cheney, is the most senior US official to visit Syria in more than two years. Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, asked to respond to Cheney's criticism, said the speaker accurately relayed the message from Olmert to Assad.
"The tough and serious message the speaker relayed was that, in order for Israel to engage in talks with Syria, the Syrian government must eliminate its links with extremist elements, including Hamas and Hezbollah," Daly said, referring to the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, and Lebanon's Hezbollah, which Israel fought in a war last year.
Pelosi's decision to defy the White House and meet Assad stepped up a tug of war between the Democratic-led Congress and Republican President George W Bush over foreign policy.
The two sides are already doing battle over Iraq policy, with Democrats trying to force Bush to accept a date for withdrawing US troops.
Pelosi was also slammed today by a Washington Post editorial that was headlined "Pratfall in Damascus" and called her Middle East shuttle diplomacy "foolish".
Reuters
President Assad too Busy to Meet Pelosi
The secular Turkish daily Aksam has reported that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with President Bashar Al-Assad at his Aleppo palace for over two hours during an official visit.
The paper reported that that same day, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in Syria, and noted that Pelosi had refused to meet with Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on his recent trip to the U.S.
The paper said that Assad sent a message to Pelosi that he could not meet with her: "It is not possible. I cannot meet you today. I have a very important guest from Turkey; and tonight we will watch together a soccer game. I cannot come to Damascus before he leaves. We may meet tomorrow."
Turkey's most popular soccer team Fenerbahce was in Syria at that time to play Syrian champion team Al-Ittihad. The paper reported that Erdogan told journalists that Turkey-Syria relations were "further developing in a positive direction" and that "the direct relationship between our peoples is also growing; sports events contribute to that..."
Source: Aksam, Turkey April 4, 2007
Turkey Attacks Back With Publicity Campaign In Paris
It looks like the Turks in the Republic of Turkey are now recently learning the ways of the West. This is what they should be doing in a much more forceful way. Have a look at the link and article from the Turkish Armenians Web Site. I thank the editors and contributors of the Turkish Armenians web site who are fantastic. Real live genuine people, their integrity is beyond reproach.
Fantastic guys. My best wishes to all of you, an example of real humanity.
Regards
Ataman
Turkey Attacks Back With Publicity Campaign In Paris
A publicity campaign for Turkey continues in France, in the shadows of the upcoming presidential elections there, which have sparked a great deal of anti-Turkey sentiment. . . According to Serpil Varol, advisor for Culture and Publicity in Paris, a total of 18 city buses throughout Paris' most touristic sections will be carrying bright advertisements for Turkey through April 16. Some of the buses carrying the ads for vacations in Turkey will be traveling routes such as the Louvre Museum, the Eiffel Tower, the Place de Concorde, the Notre Dame Cathedral, and Sacre Coeur.
A publicity campaign for Turkey continues in France, in the shadows of the upcoming presidential elections there, which have sparked a great deal of anti-Turkey sentiment. . . According to Serpil Varol, advisor for Culture and Publicity in Paris, a total of 18 city buses throughout Paris' most touristic sections will be carrying bright advertisements for Turkey through April 16. Some of the buses carrying the ads for vacations in Turkey will be traveling routes such as the Louvre Museum, the Eiffel Tower, the Place de Concorde, the Notre Dame Cathedral, and Sacre Coeur.
Guardians of freedom lose interest in the truth
Guardians of freedom lose interest in the truth
By Richard Ackland 23 February, 2007
Thank God the guardian of our freedoms is constantly vigilant about the terror under our beds. Who knows the mess we'd be in if it weren't for the watchful eyes of the Murdoch press. On Wednesday The Australian's legal affairs writer, Chris Merritt, put Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court in his place.
During the hearing of the Jack Thomas challenge to the constitutional validity of control orders the judge said that Americans had become completely obsessed with September 11, 2001, and that more people died of AIDS each day than died on that day in the terrorist attacks in the United States. Further, Kirby said, that event did not occur in this country "and I think we have to keep our eye on the threats to Australia".
His statements are demonstrably true. There can be no doubt that the reaction to September 11, 2001, was so overwrought that the result is the frightful quagmire of Iraq bleeding the US of its soldiers and its treasure.
Yet Merritt, who was a mild-mannered fellow at The Australian Financial Review before he decamped to Holt Street, said Kirby was now "one of Australia's most offensive judges".
It got better: "Kirby has clumsily diminished the significance of what happened on that awful day."
I'll spare you any more.
Merritt has form on the Thomas case. After the first Victorian Court of Appeal decision in August last year, which quashed "Jihad Jack's" conviction, he wrote: "When the legal system allows a mate of Osama bin Laden to walk free in Melbourne something is terribly wrong … Instead of freeing the enemy, the law should be doing more in the real fight for liberty."
Go back further to June 2003, 21 months after the attacks of September 2001 and eight months after the Bali bombings. Tensions were high and The Australian was on the case. It reported on Laskar Jihad and its involvement in radical Islam and terrorist causes. It also claimed that the secretary of the Dee Why mosque, Romzi Ali, had been raising money for Laskar Jihad operations in 2000. It added that Ali denied fund-raising for the organisation.
Yet in 2005 a jury found the defamatory meaning of the article, at least as far as it affected Romzi Ali, to be clear: that he raised money for an organisation that doesn't worry about killing people for its political objectives and that he is a supporter of terrorism.
Being vigilant about the threats to our security, you'd think the newspaper would be able to turn up with guns blazing. Yet when Romzi Ali's defamation case came on for a full trial earlier this month the newspaper withdrew all its defences. It had nothing to go on. No truth, no comment, no qualified privilege. Nothing.
In fact, the evidence was that Ali, far from raising funds for terrorists, was attempting to assist ASIO investigations, that he was actively involved in trying to bridge the gap between his community and the wider community by arranging an open day at the mosque and an ecumenical picnic. A judge is assessing damages in the case.
November 2005 was a busy month for MuslimWatch at Murdochville.
The Daily Telegraph carried stories about Anwar Al Barq, who was an imam providing chaplaincy services to Muslims in the NSW prison system. The paper said the US had regarded Barq as a "person of interest" and that he had unsupervised access to prisoners, "some of whom he had known through an organisation affiliated with known terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood".
Also, in November that year a front page headline in The Australian announced: "Clerics still preaching hatred of West".
To back it up there was a picture of Sheik Zoud, who at the Lakemba mosque, we were told, "used his Friday prayer meetings over the past month to praise Muslim fighters".
The ABC's Media Watch pinged that one in July last year, by pointing out that the sheik did not give a sermon on the day claimed. Zoud wasn't even in Australia when he was supposed to be preaching in support of terrorists.
As the paper later said: "The comments were made by someone with a striking resemblance to the sheik."
But what of Anwar Al Barq? He turned up to the Supreme Court a fortnight ago for the first leg of his defamation action against The Daily Telegraph. And did the paper, armed with all the facts about this terrifying individual, box on - in the interest of all of us?
Not a bit of it. It folded on the steps. A settlement, the details of which are confidential, was announced and the barrister Clive Evatt came away saying his client was "very, very, very happy". Perhaps each "very" represents a nice round figure?
There must be demons out there - it's just a pity that the zealots keep serving up the wrong people.
justinian@lawpress.com.au
By Richard Ackland 23 February, 2007
Thank God the guardian of our freedoms is constantly vigilant about the terror under our beds. Who knows the mess we'd be in if it weren't for the watchful eyes of the Murdoch press. On Wednesday The Australian's legal affairs writer, Chris Merritt, put Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court in his place.
During the hearing of the Jack Thomas challenge to the constitutional validity of control orders the judge said that Americans had become completely obsessed with September 11, 2001, and that more people died of AIDS each day than died on that day in the terrorist attacks in the United States. Further, Kirby said, that event did not occur in this country "and I think we have to keep our eye on the threats to Australia".
His statements are demonstrably true. There can be no doubt that the reaction to September 11, 2001, was so overwrought that the result is the frightful quagmire of Iraq bleeding the US of its soldiers and its treasure.
Yet Merritt, who was a mild-mannered fellow at The Australian Financial Review before he decamped to Holt Street, said Kirby was now "one of Australia's most offensive judges".
It got better: "Kirby has clumsily diminished the significance of what happened on that awful day."
I'll spare you any more.
Merritt has form on the Thomas case. After the first Victorian Court of Appeal decision in August last year, which quashed "Jihad Jack's" conviction, he wrote: "When the legal system allows a mate of Osama bin Laden to walk free in Melbourne something is terribly wrong … Instead of freeing the enemy, the law should be doing more in the real fight for liberty."
Go back further to June 2003, 21 months after the attacks of September 2001 and eight months after the Bali bombings. Tensions were high and The Australian was on the case. It reported on Laskar Jihad and its involvement in radical Islam and terrorist causes. It also claimed that the secretary of the Dee Why mosque, Romzi Ali, had been raising money for Laskar Jihad operations in 2000. It added that Ali denied fund-raising for the organisation.
Yet in 2005 a jury found the defamatory meaning of the article, at least as far as it affected Romzi Ali, to be clear: that he raised money for an organisation that doesn't worry about killing people for its political objectives and that he is a supporter of terrorism.
Being vigilant about the threats to our security, you'd think the newspaper would be able to turn up with guns blazing. Yet when Romzi Ali's defamation case came on for a full trial earlier this month the newspaper withdrew all its defences. It had nothing to go on. No truth, no comment, no qualified privilege. Nothing.
In fact, the evidence was that Ali, far from raising funds for terrorists, was attempting to assist ASIO investigations, that he was actively involved in trying to bridge the gap between his community and the wider community by arranging an open day at the mosque and an ecumenical picnic. A judge is assessing damages in the case.
November 2005 was a busy month for MuslimWatch at Murdochville.
The Daily Telegraph carried stories about Anwar Al Barq, who was an imam providing chaplaincy services to Muslims in the NSW prison system. The paper said the US had regarded Barq as a "person of interest" and that he had unsupervised access to prisoners, "some of whom he had known through an organisation affiliated with known terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood".
Also, in November that year a front page headline in The Australian announced: "Clerics still preaching hatred of West".
To back it up there was a picture of Sheik Zoud, who at the Lakemba mosque, we were told, "used his Friday prayer meetings over the past month to praise Muslim fighters".
The ABC's Media Watch pinged that one in July last year, by pointing out that the sheik did not give a sermon on the day claimed. Zoud wasn't even in Australia when he was supposed to be preaching in support of terrorists.
As the paper later said: "The comments were made by someone with a striking resemblance to the sheik."
But what of Anwar Al Barq? He turned up to the Supreme Court a fortnight ago for the first leg of his defamation action against The Daily Telegraph. And did the paper, armed with all the facts about this terrifying individual, box on - in the interest of all of us?
Not a bit of it. It folded on the steps. A settlement, the details of which are confidential, was announced and the barrister Clive Evatt came away saying his client was "very, very, very happy". Perhaps each "very" represents a nice round figure?
There must be demons out there - it's just a pity that the zealots keep serving up the wrong people.
justinian@lawpress.com.au
Iran takes a leaf out of Bush's legal handbook
Iran takes a leaf out of Bush's legal handbook
Richard Ackland 6 April, 2007 SMH
What's to be made of all these peculiar parallel worlds? The Iranians released 15 captured British sailors and marines who, it is claimed, illegally entered Iran's territory in the Shatt al-Arab waterway.
Some of the servicemen had publicly confessed to this "crime", apologised and said they were treated well, compared to the inmates at Abu Ghraib. Iran claimed all of them admitted their guilt.
There was talk the Britons would be tried. Tehran's ambassador in Moscow said last week that legal proceedings had begun and that the prisoners would be "punished".
No doubt that would have involved fake charges requiring false confessions before a bogus tribunal.
It sounds all too horribly familiar. The Iranians must have adopted aspects of the American model for handling these sorts of detainee cases: release after coerced confessions and guilty pleas.
All of which made the protests of the US President, George Bush, and his collaborator, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seem hollow. Bush said that Iran's seizure of the 15 servicemen was "inexcusable behaviour". Blair said the manipulation of the detainees into making confessions was a "disgrace" and his Foreign Minister, Margaret Beckett, said it was "quite appalling and completely contrary to international convention".
Quite so.
The "coalition of the willing's" lack of moral authority has been all too obvious. The David Hicks case was simply the most recent in a line of travesties that now sees Iran's laws of war pretty much in tune with our own.
While Hicks was the "Australian Taliban", John Walker Lindh was dubbed the "American Taliban". He was cited frequently by US prosecutors as the benchmark against which Hicks should be measured. Another bit of parallelism.
In February 2003 Lindh, a United States citizen, got 20 years for aiding the Taliban. As he was indicted the then US attorney-general, John Ashcroft, described him as "an al-Qaeda trained terrorist". Eventually the Government dropped nine of the original 10 charges and the case was settled without a trial on the day that Lindh was to challenge in court the evidence against him.
Lindh pleaded guilty to a charge that was not directly related to terrorism, contributing "services" to the Taliban, and the sentence was the outcome of a coerced agreement rather than a judicial determination. Ashcroft described it as "an important victory in the war on terrorism". In fact, the Government case had all but collapsed.
As a result of the Hicks plea bargain, lawyers for Lindh are now petitioning for his sentence to be commuted.
The military prosecutor Mo Davis thought that Lindh's sentence was the yardstick for Hicks, after all there were other similarities: both trained at the al-Farooq camp in Afghanistan, both met Osama bin Laden (Lindh said he found him "really boring"), and both were caught running away from the Northern Alliance.
If the definition of a terrorist is someone who conducts attacks on civilian targets then both Hicks and Lindh were never terrorists: their training was directed towards fighting the Northern Alliance.
Like Lindh, Hicks is subject to a gag order. The big difference in their settlements was that Hicks had a nervous Australian Government making overtures, which gave his defence team the opportunity to leverage a politically acceptable bargain, not with the prosecutors, but with senior officials in the Pentagon.
He still had to go through the usual show trial charade of incriminating himself.
What is remarkable is that a significant number of the major US terrorist cases have been botched by the prosecution. The Frenchman Zacharias Moussaoui said he was guilty of a conspiracy to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Centre even though he was in a Minnesota jail at the time of the attack. He got life instead of death because one of the prosecutors was caught coaching witnesses, which the judge described as an "egregious violation of the rules".
It sounds highly Iranian to me.
Nor is the moral authority of the British unimpeachable, as the Blair Government has the stain of the Bisher al-Rawi case on its hands.
Al-Rawi was a British resident born in Iraq who was engaged by MI5 to spy on a London cleric, Abu Qatada. Eventually, fearing exposure, he wanted out of his relationship with the intelligence agency and went to Gambia to help his brother set up a mobile peanut oil factory.
It was there he was arrested after a tip-off by the British, who "rendered" him to the CIA, which sent him to the notorious "dark prison" in Kabul to be tortured. Later he was sent to Guantanamo Bay where he was kept for almost five years, uncharged. The Americans suspected he had links to al-Qaeda - not bad for someone the British wanted for MI5.
Only last week was he repatriated after a belated request to the US by the Blair Government.
So is it little wonder that protests from the US and Britain about the Iranian capture and detention of the 15 military personnel sounded mournfully vapid.
A fair dose of the responsibility for that has to be sheeted to the debauchery of the civil and military "justice" system in the handling of terrorism cases.
justinian@lawpress.com.au
Richard Ackland 6 April, 2007 SMH
What's to be made of all these peculiar parallel worlds? The Iranians released 15 captured British sailors and marines who, it is claimed, illegally entered Iran's territory in the Shatt al-Arab waterway.
Some of the servicemen had publicly confessed to this "crime", apologised and said they were treated well, compared to the inmates at Abu Ghraib. Iran claimed all of them admitted their guilt.
There was talk the Britons would be tried. Tehran's ambassador in Moscow said last week that legal proceedings had begun and that the prisoners would be "punished".
No doubt that would have involved fake charges requiring false confessions before a bogus tribunal.
It sounds all too horribly familiar. The Iranians must have adopted aspects of the American model for handling these sorts of detainee cases: release after coerced confessions and guilty pleas.
All of which made the protests of the US President, George Bush, and his collaborator, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seem hollow. Bush said that Iran's seizure of the 15 servicemen was "inexcusable behaviour". Blair said the manipulation of the detainees into making confessions was a "disgrace" and his Foreign Minister, Margaret Beckett, said it was "quite appalling and completely contrary to international convention".
Quite so.
The "coalition of the willing's" lack of moral authority has been all too obvious. The David Hicks case was simply the most recent in a line of travesties that now sees Iran's laws of war pretty much in tune with our own.
While Hicks was the "Australian Taliban", John Walker Lindh was dubbed the "American Taliban". He was cited frequently by US prosecutors as the benchmark against which Hicks should be measured. Another bit of parallelism.
In February 2003 Lindh, a United States citizen, got 20 years for aiding the Taliban. As he was indicted the then US attorney-general, John Ashcroft, described him as "an al-Qaeda trained terrorist". Eventually the Government dropped nine of the original 10 charges and the case was settled without a trial on the day that Lindh was to challenge in court the evidence against him.
Lindh pleaded guilty to a charge that was not directly related to terrorism, contributing "services" to the Taliban, and the sentence was the outcome of a coerced agreement rather than a judicial determination. Ashcroft described it as "an important victory in the war on terrorism". In fact, the Government case had all but collapsed.
As a result of the Hicks plea bargain, lawyers for Lindh are now petitioning for his sentence to be commuted.
The military prosecutor Mo Davis thought that Lindh's sentence was the yardstick for Hicks, after all there were other similarities: both trained at the al-Farooq camp in Afghanistan, both met Osama bin Laden (Lindh said he found him "really boring"), and both were caught running away from the Northern Alliance.
If the definition of a terrorist is someone who conducts attacks on civilian targets then both Hicks and Lindh were never terrorists: their training was directed towards fighting the Northern Alliance.
Like Lindh, Hicks is subject to a gag order. The big difference in their settlements was that Hicks had a nervous Australian Government making overtures, which gave his defence team the opportunity to leverage a politically acceptable bargain, not with the prosecutors, but with senior officials in the Pentagon.
He still had to go through the usual show trial charade of incriminating himself.
What is remarkable is that a significant number of the major US terrorist cases have been botched by the prosecution. The Frenchman Zacharias Moussaoui said he was guilty of a conspiracy to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Centre even though he was in a Minnesota jail at the time of the attack. He got life instead of death because one of the prosecutors was caught coaching witnesses, which the judge described as an "egregious violation of the rules".
It sounds highly Iranian to me.
Nor is the moral authority of the British unimpeachable, as the Blair Government has the stain of the Bisher al-Rawi case on its hands.
Al-Rawi was a British resident born in Iraq who was engaged by MI5 to spy on a London cleric, Abu Qatada. Eventually, fearing exposure, he wanted out of his relationship with the intelligence agency and went to Gambia to help his brother set up a mobile peanut oil factory.
It was there he was arrested after a tip-off by the British, who "rendered" him to the CIA, which sent him to the notorious "dark prison" in Kabul to be tortured. Later he was sent to Guantanamo Bay where he was kept for almost five years, uncharged. The Americans suspected he had links to al-Qaeda - not bad for someone the British wanted for MI5.
Only last week was he repatriated after a belated request to the US by the Blair Government.
So is it little wonder that protests from the US and Britain about the Iranian capture and detention of the 15 military personnel sounded mournfully vapid.
A fair dose of the responsibility for that has to be sheeted to the debauchery of the civil and military "justice" system in the handling of terrorism cases.
justinian@lawpress.com.au
Thursday, 5 April 2007
The US Commits Genocide upon Vietnam
Dear Friends,
Now the above emotive title suggests that the US perpetrated Genocide upon the population of Vietnam. There would necessarily be a lot of outrage in the US if we were to suggest that the above title is true. Further, this outrage would be intensified in the US and ordinary people on the streets of America if Turkey and 19 other independent States were to pass resolutions to state that the US in fact Committed Genocide in Vietnam. Now imagine if these independent States also passed laws suggesting any denial would amount to a Criminal Offence and the punishment being imprisonment and fines.
Even, further still that the US should necessarily compensate Vietnam for all the loss of life and damage caused both in human and environmental terms. How would the US react?
Well lets just look at what the International Law states Genocide to be;-
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.
Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:
Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.
Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.
Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.
Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.
Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.
The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.
A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.
An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.
A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.
A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.
Key Terms
The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.
The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.
Now if we were to apply the above mentioned criteria to the Vietnam war WITHOUT taking into consideration any defence the US may wish to provide on their behalf I would suggest the offence would be made out.
MY POINT BEING THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO TURKEY AND THE TURKS WITH THE FALLACIOUS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CLAIMS. THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO NOR TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHO MIGHT PUT FORWARD A DEFENCE OR FACTS OF THE MATTER RELATIVE TO THE EVENTS. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THAT?
It is quite clear and plain that the US historically has perpetrated war crimes through out various arenas of armed conflict have a read of the two articles below. There are many more one can locate on the web with a quick search. Now I am not even going to go into the latest debacle with the Iraq war and all that has come out of there. Nor am I going to mention all the details relating to David Hicks a man arrested and held for FIVE YEARS without charge. With all these skeletons in the US closet I quote from the bible,
““Let the one without sin be the first to throw a stone.” (John 8:1-11)
When will the people of the US stand up for the Truth that THEIR Politicians are trying to brush under the carpet?
Ataman
Article published Sunday, September 5, 2004
TIGER FORCE
Ex-officer may face justice for atrocities
Army lawyer calls for war-crime charge
By JOE MAHR
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Three decades after an Army platoon repeatedly executed unarmed civilians and prisoners in Vietnam, a military lawyer has recommended the unit's former commander be brought up on a war-crime charge.
In what would be an unprecedented event, retired Maj. James Hawkins could face a military court-martial regarding his actions commanding a platoon known as Tiger Force that killed hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children 37 years ago, The Blade has learned.
As the scope of war crimes in Vietnam becomes a key question in the presidential election, the military lawyer recommended this spring that Army officials charge Mr. Hawkins, who led Tiger Force between July and November, 1967.
The recommendation came during a broader Army review of Tiger Force prompted by a four-part series in The Blade in October. The series revealed the platoon's seven-month rampage through Vietnam's Central Highlands in 1967.
Already steeped in investigations of abuse by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi prisoners, the Army has not yet decided whether to prosecute Mr. Hawkins. Questions remain over whether Army lawyers have the legal power to charge the 63-year-old former officer.
Mr. Hawkins was among 18 former Tiger Force soldiers accused by Army investigators of crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty during a 4 1/2-year Army investigation between 1971 and 1975. But the case was dropped by the Pentagon and concealed from the public until revealed in The Blade series, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
Hawkins admitted shooting elderly man
Sources familiar with the review did not offer details of the charge recommended against Mr. Hawkins. The most serious allegation he faced in 1975 was the fatal shooting of an elderly carpenter in the Song Ve Valley in July, 1967 - for which Army investigators in 1975 recommended he be charged with murder. The former officer was accused by fellow soldiers of ordering the shootings of more than a dozen other unarmed civilians, but investigators in 1975 did not recommend charges in those cases.
Mr. Hawkins, who lives in the Orlando, Fla., area, declined to comment Friday. But in an extensive interview with The Blade in 2003, he admitted killing the elderly man on the edge of the Song Ve River because "he was making too much noise."
Based on classified records and interviews with former soldiers and Vietnamese civilians, The Blade series described the 45-member unit's rampage through two provinces between May and November, 1967 - the longest-known series of atrocities committed by a U.S. battle unit in the war.
Soldiers hurled grenades into underground bunkers full of women and children. They shot elderly farmers toiling in their fields. They severed the ears of the dead to fashion into necklaces. One former unit medic told The Blade that soldiers "would go into villages and just shoot everybody. We didn't need an excuse. If they were there, they were dead."
Records show that two soldiers in the platoon, Lt. Donald Wood of Findlay, and Sgt. Gerald Bruner of Colon, Mich., tried to stop the atrocities but were transferred from the platoon after they complained to superiors.
Army considered charge of murder during 1970s
As a result of the Army's investigation completed 29 years ago, murder charges were recommended against Mr. Hawkins and another high-ranking platoon member, Sgt. Harold Trout. After avoiding charges in 1975, the pair were promoted and eventually retired with full military pensions.
Although Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Trout have long been out of the Army, the fact they have pensions qualifies them to be recalled to duty, under a rarely used but widely accepted military law.
On behalf of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, Army Reserve lawyer Michael Walther reviewed the original case and The Blade series, according to sources familiar with the current review. Mr. Walther concluded this spring that the evidence was strong enough to return Mr. Hawkins to duty for an Article 32 hearing - the equivalent of a military grand jury - for his actions in 1967.
There is no statute of limitations on murder. If charged in a court-martial and convicted, the former officer could face punishment ranging from a reduced pension to imprisonment.
Action not recommended against former sergeant
At the same time, Mr. Walther, who also works for the Department of Justice, recommended Mr. Trout not be recalled to duty, citing insufficient evidence.
Army investigators in 1975 had recommended that Mr. Trout be charged with murder after two soldiers witnessed the sergeant executing a wounded Vietnamese man, according to their sworn statements. Four other witnesses during the investigation accused Mr. Trout of ordering the killing of at least three other unarmed civilians, including a young mother whose hut had been burned by troops, but investigators in 1975 did not recommend charges on those allegations.
Mr. Walther did not return a phone call for comment last week.
Mr. Trout refused to talk to investigators in 1973 and has declined to talk about the case to The Blade, except to say last year that "it was a long time ago."
Tiger Force was created in November, 1965, as a special reconnaissance/ combat unit that broke into small teams to hunt the enemy.
Within two years, the platoon had gained a reputation as an acclaimed unit before numerous platoon members began targeting prisoners and civilians throughout two provinces.
The atrocities began in May, 1967, near Duc Pho, and continued after the unit moved to the remote Song Ve Valley, just as the Army was starting to force civilians from the area into relocation camps.
The valley, which was supposed to be evacuated, is where the platoon ran into the elderly carpenter on July 23, 1967, as he was crossing a river.
The unit had been drinking beer most of the day, according to witnesses, and by the time they encountered the carpenter, many were drunk. Two of the soldiers escorted the man toward the rear of the element, where Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Trout were walking. With the carpenter babbling loudly, Mr. Trout clubbed the man with a rifle. As Tiger Force medic Barry Bowman began to treat the wounded villager, Mr. Hawkins lifted the carpenter up from where he was kneeling and shot him in the face with a Carbine 15 rifle, according to sworn statements to Army investigators in the early 1970s.
At least four witnesses said the carpenter was pleading for his life before he was shot by Mr. Hawkins.
In an interview with The Blade last year, Mr. Hawkins justified the killing by saying the carpenter's voice was loud enough to alert the enemy to the American unit's position: "I eliminated that right there." But four Tiger Force soldiers told Army investigators that there were other ways to silence the carpenter and said the shooting gave away the unit's position anyway.
Former soldiers complained to investigators of other incidents with Mr. Hawkins, including a time he ordered the platoon to open fire on 10 elderly farmers working in their field, records show. Four died.
Army investigators recommended in June, 1975, that Mr. Hawkins be charged with the murder of the carpenter, identified in The Blade series as Dao Hue.
Five months later, Mr. Hawkins was summoned to the Pentagon with his supervising general, William Maddox, and told the case would be closed, Mr. Hawkins has said. A note in his Army criminal file says that "no beneficial or constructive results would be derived from criminal prosecution."
Mr. Hawkins, by then a helicopter pilot, was promoted to major, retired in 1978, and began collecting his military pension. He was immediately rehired by the Army as a civilian flight instructor in Alabama, retired in 2001 to collect a second government pension, and moved to Florida.
Despite the pending recommendation for prosecution, questions remain whether the Army can recall Mr. Hawkins for punishment.
The military can't force the return of members who left the service before being eligible for retirement. Because of that, many of the 18 Tiger Force suspects who left the Army after Vietnam avoided any chance of prosecution. But for retired soldiers, case law dating to the Civil War allows the military to recall them to duty.
Military says the case remains under review
One question about Mr. Hawkins' case centers on his previous status in the Army as a "reserve" officer - a classification at the time given to most active-duty officers who didn't graduate from military service academies.
Military law historically has been less willing to allow the recall of members of "reserve" forces than those in the "regular" Army, although it's not unprecedented. A 1996 law permits the Army to recall a reserve officer who retired with 20 years active-duty service, and a military court in 1999 allowed the Air Force to recall a retired reserve officer for punishment.
Lt. Col. Tyler Harder, who taught about the recall concept for years at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, said if Mr. Hawkins committed the accused crime while on active duty, "there is little doubt" he could be recalled for prosecution.
So far, Army officials won't say when their review of the Tiger Force case will be finished. All Army spokesman Dov Schwartz would say Friday was that the case remained open.
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland), who pushed for the review, has said he was told it would be done by March. He sent a letter in May asking for an update on the case, and the Army hasn't responded.
An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, initially had indicated Aug. 12 that the case had been closed but later said she was misinformed and the Army had not yet decided what to do with the recommendation from the Criminal Investigation Command.
"It's still in the review process by our Staff Judge Advocate," she said. "There has been no ultimate, final conclusion."
Contact Joe Mahr at: jmahr@theblade.com or 419-724-6180.
An Introduction to the My Lai Courts-Martial
By Doug Linder
Two tragedies took place in 1968 in Viet Nam. One was the massacre by United States soldiers of as many as 500 unarmed civilians-- old men, women, children-- in My Lai on the morning of March 16. The other was the cover-up of that massacre.
U. S. military officials suspected Quang Ngai Province, more than any other province in South Viet Nam, as being a Viet Cong stronghold. The U. S. targeted the province for the first major U.S. combat operation of the war. Military officials declared the province a "free-fire zone" and subjected it to frequent bombing missions and artillery attacks. By the end of 1967, most of the dwellings in the province had been destroyed and nearly 140,000 civilians left homeless. Not surprisingly, the native population of Quang Ngai Province distrusted Americans. Children hissed at soldiers. Adults kept quiet.
Two hours of instruction on the rights of prisoners and a wallet-sized card "The Enemy is in Your Hands" seemed to have little impact on American soldiers fighting in Quang Ngai. Military leaders encouraged and rewarded kills in an effort to produce impressive body counts that could be reported to Saigon as an indication of progress. GIs joked that "anything that's dead and isn't white is a VC" for body count purposes. Angered by a local population that said nothing about the VC's whereabouts, soldiers took to calling natives "gooks."
Charlie Company came to Viet Nam in December, 1967. It located in Quang Ngai Province in January, 1968, as one of the three companies in Task Force Barker, an ad hoc unit headed by Lt. Col. Frank Barker, Jr. Its mission was to pressure the VC in an area of the province known as "Pinkville." Charlie Company's commanding officer was Ernest Medina, a thirty-three-year-old Mexican-American from New Mexico who was popular with his soldiers. One of his platoon leaders was twenty-four-year-old William Calley. Charlie Company soldiers expressed amazement that Calley was thought by anyone to be officer material. One described Calley as” a kid trying to play war." [LINK TO CHAIN OF COMMAND DIAGRAM] Calley's utter lack of respect for the indigenous population was apparent to all in the company. According to one soldier, "if they wanted to do something wrong, it was alright with Calley." The soldiers of Charlie Company, like most combat soldiers in Viet Nam, scored low on military exams. Few combat soldiers had education beyond high school.
Seymour Hersh wrote that by March of 1968 "many in the company had given in to an easy pattern of violence." Soldiers systematically beat unarmed civilians. Some civilians were murdered. Whole villages were burned. Wells were poisoned. Rapes were common.
On March 14, a small squad from "C" Company ran into a booby trap, killing a popular sergeant, blinding one GI and wounding several others. The following evening, when a funeral service was held for the killed sergeant, soldiers had revenge on their mind. After the service, Captain Medina rose to give the soldiers a pep talk and discuss the next morning's mission. Medina told them that the VC's crack 48th Battalion was in the vicinity of a hamlet known as My Lai 4, which would be the target of a large-scale assault by the company. The soldiers' mission would be to engage the 48th Battalion and to destroy the village of My Lai. By 7 a.m., Medina said, the women and children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and destroy the enemy. The seventy-five or so American soldiers would be supported in their assault by gunship pilots.
Medina later said that his objective that night was to "fire them up and get them ready to go in there; I did not give any instructions as to what to do with women and children in the village." Although some soldiers agreed with that recollection of Medina's, others clearly thought that he had ordered them to kill every person in My Lai 4. Perhaps his orders were intentionally vague. What seems likely is that Medina intentionally gave the impression that everyone in My Lai would be their enemy.
At 7:22 a.m. on March 16, nine helicopters lifted off for the flight to My Lai 4. By the time the helicopters carrying members of Charlie Company landed in a rice paddy about 140 yards south of My Lai, the area had been peppered with small arms fire from assault helicopters. Whatever VC might have been in the vicinity of My Lai had most likely left by the time the first soldiers climbed out of their helicopters. The assault plan called for Lt. Calley's first platoon and Lt. Stephen Brooks' second platoon to sweep into the village, while a third platoon, Medina, and the headquarters unit would be held in reserve and follow the first two platoons in after the area was more-or-less secured. Above the ground, the action would be monitored at the 1,000-foot level by Lt. Col. Barker and at the 2,500-foot level by Oran Henderson, commander of the 11th Brigade, both flying counter clockwise around the battle scene in helicopters.
My Lai village had about 700 residents. They lived in either redbrick homes or thatch-covered huts. A deep drainage ditch marked the eastern boundary of the village. Directly south of the residential area was an open plaza area used for holding village meetings. To the north and west of the village was dense foliage [MAP].
By 8 a.m., Calley's platoon had crossed the plaza on the town's southern edge and entered the village. They encountered families cooking rice in front of their homes. The men began their usual search-and-destroy task of pulling people from homes, interrogating them, and searching for VC. Soon the killing began. The first victim was a man stabbed in the back with a bayonet. Then a middle-aged man was picked up, thrown down a well, and a grenade lobbed in after him. A group of fifteen to twenty mostly older women were gathered around a temple, kneeling and praying. They were all executed with shots to the back of their heads. Eighty or so villagers were taken from their homes and herded to the plaza area. As many cried "No VC! No VC!", Calley told soldier Paul Meadlo, "You know what I want you to do with them". When Calley returned ten minutes later and found the Vietnamese still gathered in the plaza he reportedly said to Meadlo, "Haven't you got rid of them yet? I want them dead. Waste them." Meadlo and Calley began firing into the group from a distance of ten to fifteen feet. The few that survived did so because they were covered by the bodies of those less fortunate.
What Captain Medina knew of these war crimes is not certain. It was a chaotic operation. Gary Garfolo said, "I could hear shooting all the time. Medina was running back and forth everywhere. This wasn't no organized deal." Medina would later testify that he didn't enter the village until 10 a.m., after most of the shooting had stopped, and did not personally witness a single civilian being killed. Others put Medina in the village closer to 9 a.m., and close to the scene of many of the murders as they were happening.
As the third platoon moved into My Lai, it was followed by army photographer Ronald Haeberle, there to document what was supposed to be a significant encounter with a crack enemy battalion. Haeberle took many pictures [HAEBERLE PHOTOS]. He said he saw about thirty different GIs kill about 100 civilians. Once Haeberle focused his camera on a young child about five feet away, but before he could get his picture the kid was blown away. He angered some GIs as he tried to photograph them as they fondled the breasts of a fifteen-year-old Vietnamese girl.
An army helicopter piloted by Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson arrived in the My Lai vicinity about 9 a.m. Thompson noticed dead and dying civilians all over the village. Thompson repeatedly saw young boys and girls being shot at point-blank range. Thompson, furious at what he saw, reported the wanton killings to brigade headquarters [THOMPSON'S STORY].
Meanwhile, the rampage below continued. Calley was at the drainage ditch on the eastern edge of the village, where about seventy to eighty old men, women, and children not killed on the spot had been brought. Calley ordered the dozen or so platoon members there to push the people into the ditch, and three or four GIs did. Calley ordered his men to shoot into the ditch. Some refused, others obeyed. One who followed Calley's order was Paul Meadlo, who estimated that he killed about twenty-five civilians. (Later Meadlo was seen, head in hands, crying.) Calley joined in the massacre. At one point, a two-year-old child who somehow survived the gunfire began running towards the hamlet. Calley grabbed the child, threw him back in the ditch, then shot him.
Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians. He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.
By 11 a.m., when Medina called for a lunch break, the killing was nearly over. By noon, "My Lai was no more": its buildings were destroyed and its people dead or dying. Soldiers later said they didn't remember seeing "one military-age male in the entire place". By night, the VC had returned to bury the dead. What few villagers survived and weren't already communists, became communists. Twenty months later army investigators would discover three mass graves containing the bodies of about 500 villagers.
II.
The cover-up of the My Lai massacre began almost as soon as the killing ended. Official army reports of the operation proclaimed a great victory: 128 enemy dead, only one American casualty (one soldier intentionally shot himself in the foot). The army knew better. Hugh Thompson had filed a complaint, alleging numerous war crimes involving murders of civilians. According to one of Thompson's crew members, "Thompson was so pissed he wanted to turn in his wings". An order issued by Major Calhoun to Captain Medina to return to My Lai to do a body count was countermanded by Major General Samuel Koster, who asked Medina how many civilians has been killed. "Twenty to twenty-eight," was his answer. The next day Colonel Henderson informed Medina that an informal investigation of the My Lai incident was underway-- and most likely gave the Captain "a good ass-chewing" as well. Henderson interviewed a number of GIs, then pronounced himself "satisfied" by their answers. No attempt was made to interview surviving Vietnamese. In late April, Henderson submitted a written report indicating that about twenty civilians had been inadvertently killed in My Lai. Meanwhile, Michael Bernhart, a Charlie Company GI severely troubled by what he witnessed at My Lai discussed with other GIs his plan to write a letter about the incident to his congressman. Medina, after learning of Bernhart's intentions, confronted him and told him how unwise such an action, in his opinion, would be.
If not for the determined efforts of a twenty-two-year-old ex-GI from Phoenix, Ronald Ridenhour, what happened on March 16, 1968 at My Lai 4 may never have come to the attention of the American people. Ridenhour served in a reconnaissance unit in Duc Pho, where he heard five eyewitness accounts of the My Lai massacre. He began his own investigation, traveling to Americal headquarters to confirm that Charlie Company had in fact been in My Lai on the date reported by his witnesses. Ridenhour was shocked by what he learned [RIDENHOUR'S STORY]. When he was discharged in December, 1968, Ridenhour said "I wanted to get those people. I wanted to reveal what they did. My God, when I first came home, I would tell my friends about this and cry-literally cry." In March, 1969, Ridenhour composed a letter detailing what he had heard about the My Lai massacre[LINK TO LETTER]and sent it to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. Most recipients simply ignored the letter, but a few, most notably Representative Morris Udall, aggressively pushed for a full investigation of Ridenhour's allegations.
By late April, General Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff, had turned the case over to the Inspector General for investigation. Over the next few months, dozens of witnesses were interviewed. It became apparent to all connected with the investigation that war crimes had been committed. In June, 1969, William Calley was flown back from Viet Nam to appear in a line-up for identification by Hugh Thompson. By August, the matter was in the hands of the army's Criminal Investigation Division for a determination as to whether criminal charges should be filed against Calley and other massacre participants. On September 5, formal charges, included six specifications of premeditated murder, were filed against Calley.
Calley hired as his attorney George Latimer, a Salt Lake City lawyer with considerable military experience, having served on the Military Court of Appeals. Latimer pronounced himself impressed with Calley. "You couldn't find a nicer boy," he said, adding that if Calley was guilty of anything it was only following orders "a bit too diligently."
Meanwhile, the issue of the My Lai massacre had gotten the attention of President Nixon. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird briefed Nixon at his San Clemente retreat. The White House proceeded with caution, sensing the potential of the incident to embarrass the military and undermine the war effort. The President characterized what happened at My Lai as an unfortunate aberration, as "an isolated incident."
In November, 1969, the American public began to learn the details of what happened at My Lai 4. The massacre was the cover story in both Time and Newsweek. CBS ran a Mike Wallace interview with Paul Meadlo. Seymour Hersh published in depth accounts based on his own extensive interviews. Life magazine published Haeberle's graphic photographs.
Reaction to the reports of the massacre varied. Some politicians, such as House Armed Services Subcommittee Chair L. Mendel Rivers maintained that there was no massacre and that reports to the contrary were merely attempts to build opposition to the Viet Nam war. Others called for an open, independent inquiry. The Administration took a middle course, deciding on a closed-door investigation by the Pentagon, headed by William Peers, a blunt three-star general.
For four months the Peers Panel interviewed 398 witnesses, ranging from General Koster to the GIs of Charlie Company. Over 20,000 pages of testimony were taken. The Peers Report criticized the actions of both officers and enlisted men. The report recommended action against dozens of men for rape, murder, or participation in the cover-up.
III.
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division continued its separate investigation. Most of the enlisted men who committed war crimes were no longer members of the military, and thus immune from prosecution by court-martial. A 1955 Supreme Court decision, Toth vs Quarles, held that military courts cannot try former members of the armed services "no matter how intimate the connection between the offense and the concerns of military discipline." Decisions were made to prosecute a total of twenty-five officers and enlisted men, including General Koster, Colonel Oran Henderson, Captain Medina. In the end, however, only few would be tried and only one, William Calley, would be found guilty. The top officer charged, General Samuel Koster, who failed to report known civilian casualties and conducted a clearly inadequate investigation was, according to General Peers, the beneficiary of a whitewash, having charges against him dropped and receiving only a letter of censure and reduction in rank. Colonel Henderson was found not guilty on all charges after a trial by court martial. Peers again expressed his disapproval, writing "I cannot agree with the verdict. If his actions are judged as acceptable standards for an officer in his position, the Army is indeed in deep trouble."
Captain Ernest Medina faced charges of murdering 102 Vienamese civilians. The charges were based on the prosecution's theory of command responsibility: Medina, as the officer in charge of Charlie Company should be accountable for the actions of his men. If Medina knew that a massacre was taking place and did nothing to stop it, he should be found guilty of murder. (Medina was originally charged also with dereliction of duty for participating in the coverup, but the offense was dropped because the statute of limitations had run.) Medina was subjected to a lie-detector test which tended to show he responded truthfully when he said that he did not intentionally suggest to his men that they kill unarmed civilians. The same test, however, tended to to show that his contention that he first heard of the killing of unarmed civilians about 10 to 10:30 A.M. was not truthful, and that he in fact knew non-combattants were being killed sometime between 8 A.M. and 9 A.M., when there would still have been time to prevent many civilian deaths. The prosecution, led by Major William Eckhardt, was unable, however, to get the damaging lie-detector evidence admitted. Medina's lawyer, flamboyant defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, conducted a highly successful defense, forcing the prosecution to drop key witnesses and keeping damaging evidence, such as Ronald Haeberle's photographs, from the jury. After fifty-seven minutes of deliberation, the jury acquitted Medina on all charges. (Months later, when a perjury prosecution was no longer possible, Medina admitted that he had suppressed evidence and lied to the brigade commander about the number of civilians killed.)
The strongest government case was that against Lt. William Calley. On November 12, 1970, in a small courthouse in Fort Benning, Georgia, young Prosecutor Aubrey Daniel stood to deliver his opening statement: "I want you to know My Lai 4. I will try to put you there." Captain Daniel told the jury of six military officers the shocking story of Calley's role in My Lai's tragedy: his machine-gunning of people in the plaza area south of the hamlet; his orders to men to execute men, women, and children in the eastern drainage ditch; his butt-stroking with his rifle of an old man; his grabbing of a small child and his throwing of the child into the ditch, then shooting him at point-blank range. Daniel told the jury that at the close of evidence he would ask them to "in the name of justice" convict the accused of all charges.
Daniel built the prosecution's case methodically. For days, the grisly evidence accumulated without a single witness directly placing Calley at the scene of a shooting. One of the early witnesses was Ronald Haeberle, the army photographer whose pictures brought home the horror of My Lai [TESTIMONY OF HAEBERLE]. Another was Hugh Thompson, My Lai's hero. Defense attorney Latimer's handling on cross of Haeberle, Thompson, and other witnesses led many courtroom observers to conclude that his glowing reputation was undeserved. His questioning of Haeberle, whose credibility was largely irrelevant, was pointless. His attempt to question Thompson's heroism "failed utterly," according to Richard Hammer, author of The Court-Martial of Lt. Calley.
In the second week of the trial Daniel began to call his more incriminating witnesses. Robert Maples, a machine gunner in the first platoon, testified that he saw Calley near the eastern drainage ditch, firing at the people below. Maples said that Calley asked him to use his machine gun on the Vietnamese in the ditch, but that he refused [TESTIMONY OF MAPLES]. Dennis Conti provided equally damning evidence. Conti testified that he was ordered to round up people, mostly women and children, and bring them back to Calley on the trail south of the hamlet. Calley, Conti said, told us to make them "squat down and bunch up so they couldn't get up and run." Minutes later Calley and Paul Meadlo "fired directly into the people. There were burst and shots for two minutes. The people screamed and yelled and fell." Conti said that Meadlo "broke down" and began crying [TESTIMONY OF CONTI].
The prosecution's final witness was its most anticipated witness. Paul Meadlo had been promised immunity from military prosecution in return for his testimony in the Calley case, but when he was called earlier in the trial, Meadlo had refused to answer questions about March 16, 1968, claiming his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself. Daniel called Meadlo to the stand for a second time, and the ex-GI, who had lost a foot to a mine shortly after the massacre, limped to the stand in his green short-sleeve shirt and green pants. Judge Kennedy warned Meadlo that if he refused to answer questions, two U. S. marshals would take him into custody. Meadlo said he would testify. He told the jury that Calley had left him with a large group of mostly women and children south of the hamlet saying, "You know what to do with them, Meadlo." Meadlo thought Calley meant he should guard the people, which he did. Meadlo told the jury what happened when Calley returned a few minutes later:
He said, "How come they're not dead?" I said, I didn't know we were supposed to kill them." He said, I want them
dead." He backed off twenty or thirty feet and started shooting into the people -- the Viet Cong -- shooting automatic. He was
beside me. He burned four or five magazines. I burned off a few, about three. I helped shoot ‘em.
Q: What were the people doing after you shot them?
A: They were lying down.
Q: Why were they lying down?
A: They was mortally wounded.
Q: How were you feeling at that time?
A: I was mortally upset, scared, because of the briefing we had the day before.
Q: Were you crying?
A: I imagine I was....
Daniel then asked Meadlo about the massacre at the eastern drainage ditch, and in the same almost emotionless voice, Meadlo recounted the story, telling the jury that Calley fired from 250 to 300 bullets into the ditch. One exchange was remarkable:
Q: What were the children in the ditch doing?
A: I don't know.
Q: Were the babies in their mother's arms?
A: I guess so.
Q: And the babies moved to attack?
A: I expected at any moment they were about to make a counterbalance.
Q: Had they made any move to attack?
A: No.
At the end of Meadlo's testimony, Aubrey Daniel rested the for the prosecution [MEADLO'S TESTIMONY].
The defense strategy had two main thrusts. One was to suggest that the stress of combat, the fear of being in an area thought to be thick with the enemy, sufficiently impaired Calley's thinking that he should not be found guilty of premeditated murder for his killing of civilians. Latimer relied on New York psychiatrist Albert LaVerne to advance this defense argument [LAVERNE TESTIMONY]. The second argument of the defense was that Calley was merely following orders: that Captain Ernest Medina had ordered that civilians found in My Lai 4 be killed and was the real villain in the tragedy.
On February 23, 1971, William Calley took the stand. He told the jury he couldn't remember a single army class on the Geneva Convention, but that he did know he could be court-martialed for refusing to obey an order. He testified that Medina had said the night before that there would be no civilians in My Lai, only the enemy. He said that while he was in the village, Medina called and asked why he hadn't "wasted" the civilians yet. He admitted to firing into a ditch full of Vietnamese, but claimed that others were already firing into the ditch when he arrived. Calley said, "I felt then--and I still do-- that I acted as directed, I carried out my orders, and I did not feel wrong in doing so" [CALLEY TESTIMONY].
Ernest Medina was called as a witness of the court. Medina directly contradicted Calley's testimony. Medina said he was asked at the briefing on March 15 whether "we kill women and children," and-- looking straight at Calley behind the defense table--he said to the GIs "No, you do not kill women and children...Use common sense." At the close of his testimony, Medina saluted Judge Kennedy, then marched past Calley's table without glancing at him [MEDINA TESTIMONY].
It was time for summations. George Latimer for the defense argued that Medina was lying about not giving the order to kill civilians, that Medina knew perfectly well what was going on in the village, and now he and the army were trying to make Calley a scapegoat[LATIMER SUMMATION]. Aubrey Daniel for the prosecution asked the jury who will speak for the children of My Lai. He pointed out that Calley as a U. S. officer took an oath not to kill innocent women and children, and told the jury it is "the conscience of the United States Army"[DANIEL SUMMATION].
After thirteen days of deliberations, the longest in U. S. court-martial history, the jury returned its verdict: guilty of premeditated murder on all specifications. After hearing pleas on the issue of punishment, jury head Colonel Clifford Ford pronounced Calley's sentence: "To be confined at hard labor for the length of your natural life; to be dismissed from the service; to forfeit all pay and allowances."
IV.
Opinion polls showed that the public overwhelmingly disapproved of the verdict in the Calley case [OPINION POLLS]. President Nixon ordered Calley removed from the stockade and placed under house arrest. He announced that he would review the whole decision. Nixon's action prompted Aubrey Daniel to write a long and angry letter in which he told the President that "the greatest tragedy of all will be if political expediency dictates the compromise of such a fundamental moral principle as the inherent unlawfulness of the murder of innocent persons" [AUBREY LETTER]. On November 9, 1974, the Secretary of the Army announced that William Calley would be paroled. In 1976, Calley married. He now works in the jewelry store of his father-in-law in Columbus, Georgia.
My Lai mattered. Two weeks after the Calley verdict was announced, the Harris Poll reported for the first time that a majority of Americans opposed the war in Viet Nam. The My Lai episode caused the military to re-evaluate its training with respect to the handling of noncombatants. Commanders sent troops in the Desert Storm operation into battle with the words, "No My Lais-- you hear?"
Now the above emotive title suggests that the US perpetrated Genocide upon the population of Vietnam. There would necessarily be a lot of outrage in the US if we were to suggest that the above title is true. Further, this outrage would be intensified in the US and ordinary people on the streets of America if Turkey and 19 other independent States were to pass resolutions to state that the US in fact Committed Genocide in Vietnam. Now imagine if these independent States also passed laws suggesting any denial would amount to a Criminal Offence and the punishment being imprisonment and fines.
Even, further still that the US should necessarily compensate Vietnam for all the loss of life and damage caused both in human and environmental terms. How would the US react?
Well lets just look at what the International Law states Genocide to be;-
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.
Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:
Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.
Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.
Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.
Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.
Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.
The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.
A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.
An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.
A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.
A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.
Key Terms
The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.
The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.
Now if we were to apply the above mentioned criteria to the Vietnam war WITHOUT taking into consideration any defence the US may wish to provide on their behalf I would suggest the offence would be made out.
MY POINT BEING THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO TURKEY AND THE TURKS WITH THE FALLACIOUS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE CLAIMS. THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO NOR TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHO MIGHT PUT FORWARD A DEFENCE OR FACTS OF THE MATTER RELATIVE TO THE EVENTS. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THAT?
It is quite clear and plain that the US historically has perpetrated war crimes through out various arenas of armed conflict have a read of the two articles below. There are many more one can locate on the web with a quick search. Now I am not even going to go into the latest debacle with the Iraq war and all that has come out of there. Nor am I going to mention all the details relating to David Hicks a man arrested and held for FIVE YEARS without charge. With all these skeletons in the US closet I quote from the bible,
““Let the one without sin be the first to throw a stone.” (John 8:1-11)
When will the people of the US stand up for the Truth that THEIR Politicians are trying to brush under the carpet?
Ataman
Article published Sunday, September 5, 2004
TIGER FORCE
Ex-officer may face justice for atrocities
Army lawyer calls for war-crime charge
By JOE MAHR
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Three decades after an Army platoon repeatedly executed unarmed civilians and prisoners in Vietnam, a military lawyer has recommended the unit's former commander be brought up on a war-crime charge.
In what would be an unprecedented event, retired Maj. James Hawkins could face a military court-martial regarding his actions commanding a platoon known as Tiger Force that killed hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children 37 years ago, The Blade has learned.
As the scope of war crimes in Vietnam becomes a key question in the presidential election, the military lawyer recommended this spring that Army officials charge Mr. Hawkins, who led Tiger Force between July and November, 1967.
The recommendation came during a broader Army review of Tiger Force prompted by a four-part series in The Blade in October. The series revealed the platoon's seven-month rampage through Vietnam's Central Highlands in 1967.
Already steeped in investigations of abuse by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi prisoners, the Army has not yet decided whether to prosecute Mr. Hawkins. Questions remain over whether Army lawyers have the legal power to charge the 63-year-old former officer.
Mr. Hawkins was among 18 former Tiger Force soldiers accused by Army investigators of crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty during a 4 1/2-year Army investigation between 1971 and 1975. But the case was dropped by the Pentagon and concealed from the public until revealed in The Blade series, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
Hawkins admitted shooting elderly man
Sources familiar with the review did not offer details of the charge recommended against Mr. Hawkins. The most serious allegation he faced in 1975 was the fatal shooting of an elderly carpenter in the Song Ve Valley in July, 1967 - for which Army investigators in 1975 recommended he be charged with murder. The former officer was accused by fellow soldiers of ordering the shootings of more than a dozen other unarmed civilians, but investigators in 1975 did not recommend charges in those cases.
Mr. Hawkins, who lives in the Orlando, Fla., area, declined to comment Friday. But in an extensive interview with The Blade in 2003, he admitted killing the elderly man on the edge of the Song Ve River because "he was making too much noise."
Based on classified records and interviews with former soldiers and Vietnamese civilians, The Blade series described the 45-member unit's rampage through two provinces between May and November, 1967 - the longest-known series of atrocities committed by a U.S. battle unit in the war.
Soldiers hurled grenades into underground bunkers full of women and children. They shot elderly farmers toiling in their fields. They severed the ears of the dead to fashion into necklaces. One former unit medic told The Blade that soldiers "would go into villages and just shoot everybody. We didn't need an excuse. If they were there, they were dead."
Records show that two soldiers in the platoon, Lt. Donald Wood of Findlay, and Sgt. Gerald Bruner of Colon, Mich., tried to stop the atrocities but were transferred from the platoon after they complained to superiors.
Army considered charge of murder during 1970s
As a result of the Army's investigation completed 29 years ago, murder charges were recommended against Mr. Hawkins and another high-ranking platoon member, Sgt. Harold Trout. After avoiding charges in 1975, the pair were promoted and eventually retired with full military pensions.
Although Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Trout have long been out of the Army, the fact they have pensions qualifies them to be recalled to duty, under a rarely used but widely accepted military law.
On behalf of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, Army Reserve lawyer Michael Walther reviewed the original case and The Blade series, according to sources familiar with the current review. Mr. Walther concluded this spring that the evidence was strong enough to return Mr. Hawkins to duty for an Article 32 hearing - the equivalent of a military grand jury - for his actions in 1967.
There is no statute of limitations on murder. If charged in a court-martial and convicted, the former officer could face punishment ranging from a reduced pension to imprisonment.
Action not recommended against former sergeant
At the same time, Mr. Walther, who also works for the Department of Justice, recommended Mr. Trout not be recalled to duty, citing insufficient evidence.
Army investigators in 1975 had recommended that Mr. Trout be charged with murder after two soldiers witnessed the sergeant executing a wounded Vietnamese man, according to their sworn statements. Four other witnesses during the investigation accused Mr. Trout of ordering the killing of at least three other unarmed civilians, including a young mother whose hut had been burned by troops, but investigators in 1975 did not recommend charges on those allegations.
Mr. Walther did not return a phone call for comment last week.
Mr. Trout refused to talk to investigators in 1973 and has declined to talk about the case to The Blade, except to say last year that "it was a long time ago."
Tiger Force was created in November, 1965, as a special reconnaissance/ combat unit that broke into small teams to hunt the enemy.
Within two years, the platoon had gained a reputation as an acclaimed unit before numerous platoon members began targeting prisoners and civilians throughout two provinces.
The atrocities began in May, 1967, near Duc Pho, and continued after the unit moved to the remote Song Ve Valley, just as the Army was starting to force civilians from the area into relocation camps.
The valley, which was supposed to be evacuated, is where the platoon ran into the elderly carpenter on July 23, 1967, as he was crossing a river.
The unit had been drinking beer most of the day, according to witnesses, and by the time they encountered the carpenter, many were drunk. Two of the soldiers escorted the man toward the rear of the element, where Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Trout were walking. With the carpenter babbling loudly, Mr. Trout clubbed the man with a rifle. As Tiger Force medic Barry Bowman began to treat the wounded villager, Mr. Hawkins lifted the carpenter up from where he was kneeling and shot him in the face with a Carbine 15 rifle, according to sworn statements to Army investigators in the early 1970s.
At least four witnesses said the carpenter was pleading for his life before he was shot by Mr. Hawkins.
In an interview with The Blade last year, Mr. Hawkins justified the killing by saying the carpenter's voice was loud enough to alert the enemy to the American unit's position: "I eliminated that right there." But four Tiger Force soldiers told Army investigators that there were other ways to silence the carpenter and said the shooting gave away the unit's position anyway.
Former soldiers complained to investigators of other incidents with Mr. Hawkins, including a time he ordered the platoon to open fire on 10 elderly farmers working in their field, records show. Four died.
Army investigators recommended in June, 1975, that Mr. Hawkins be charged with the murder of the carpenter, identified in The Blade series as Dao Hue.
Five months later, Mr. Hawkins was summoned to the Pentagon with his supervising general, William Maddox, and told the case would be closed, Mr. Hawkins has said. A note in his Army criminal file says that "no beneficial or constructive results would be derived from criminal prosecution."
Mr. Hawkins, by then a helicopter pilot, was promoted to major, retired in 1978, and began collecting his military pension. He was immediately rehired by the Army as a civilian flight instructor in Alabama, retired in 2001 to collect a second government pension, and moved to Florida.
Despite the pending recommendation for prosecution, questions remain whether the Army can recall Mr. Hawkins for punishment.
The military can't force the return of members who left the service before being eligible for retirement. Because of that, many of the 18 Tiger Force suspects who left the Army after Vietnam avoided any chance of prosecution. But for retired soldiers, case law dating to the Civil War allows the military to recall them to duty.
Military says the case remains under review
One question about Mr. Hawkins' case centers on his previous status in the Army as a "reserve" officer - a classification at the time given to most active-duty officers who didn't graduate from military service academies.
Military law historically has been less willing to allow the recall of members of "reserve" forces than those in the "regular" Army, although it's not unprecedented. A 1996 law permits the Army to recall a reserve officer who retired with 20 years active-duty service, and a military court in 1999 allowed the Air Force to recall a retired reserve officer for punishment.
Lt. Col. Tyler Harder, who taught about the recall concept for years at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, said if Mr. Hawkins committed the accused crime while on active duty, "there is little doubt" he could be recalled for prosecution.
So far, Army officials won't say when their review of the Tiger Force case will be finished. All Army spokesman Dov Schwartz would say Friday was that the case remained open.
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland), who pushed for the review, has said he was told it would be done by March. He sent a letter in May asking for an update on the case, and the Army hasn't responded.
An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, initially had indicated Aug. 12 that the case had been closed but later said she was misinformed and the Army had not yet decided what to do with the recommendation from the Criminal Investigation Command.
"It's still in the review process by our Staff Judge Advocate," she said. "There has been no ultimate, final conclusion."
Contact Joe Mahr at: jmahr@theblade.com or 419-724-6180.
An Introduction to the My Lai Courts-Martial
By Doug Linder
Two tragedies took place in 1968 in Viet Nam. One was the massacre by United States soldiers of as many as 500 unarmed civilians-- old men, women, children-- in My Lai on the morning of March 16. The other was the cover-up of that massacre.
U. S. military officials suspected Quang Ngai Province, more than any other province in South Viet Nam, as being a Viet Cong stronghold. The U. S. targeted the province for the first major U.S. combat operation of the war. Military officials declared the province a "free-fire zone" and subjected it to frequent bombing missions and artillery attacks. By the end of 1967, most of the dwellings in the province had been destroyed and nearly 140,000 civilians left homeless. Not surprisingly, the native population of Quang Ngai Province distrusted Americans. Children hissed at soldiers. Adults kept quiet.
Two hours of instruction on the rights of prisoners and a wallet-sized card "The Enemy is in Your Hands" seemed to have little impact on American soldiers fighting in Quang Ngai. Military leaders encouraged and rewarded kills in an effort to produce impressive body counts that could be reported to Saigon as an indication of progress. GIs joked that "anything that's dead and isn't white is a VC" for body count purposes. Angered by a local population that said nothing about the VC's whereabouts, soldiers took to calling natives "gooks."
Charlie Company came to Viet Nam in December, 1967. It located in Quang Ngai Province in January, 1968, as one of the three companies in Task Force Barker, an ad hoc unit headed by Lt. Col. Frank Barker, Jr. Its mission was to pressure the VC in an area of the province known as "Pinkville." Charlie Company's commanding officer was Ernest Medina, a thirty-three-year-old Mexican-American from New Mexico who was popular with his soldiers. One of his platoon leaders was twenty-four-year-old William Calley. Charlie Company soldiers expressed amazement that Calley was thought by anyone to be officer material. One described Calley as” a kid trying to play war." [LINK TO CHAIN OF COMMAND DIAGRAM] Calley's utter lack of respect for the indigenous population was apparent to all in the company. According to one soldier, "if they wanted to do something wrong, it was alright with Calley." The soldiers of Charlie Company, like most combat soldiers in Viet Nam, scored low on military exams. Few combat soldiers had education beyond high school.
Seymour Hersh wrote that by March of 1968 "many in the company had given in to an easy pattern of violence." Soldiers systematically beat unarmed civilians. Some civilians were murdered. Whole villages were burned. Wells were poisoned. Rapes were common.
On March 14, a small squad from "C" Company ran into a booby trap, killing a popular sergeant, blinding one GI and wounding several others. The following evening, when a funeral service was held for the killed sergeant, soldiers had revenge on their mind. After the service, Captain Medina rose to give the soldiers a pep talk and discuss the next morning's mission. Medina told them that the VC's crack 48th Battalion was in the vicinity of a hamlet known as My Lai 4, which would be the target of a large-scale assault by the company. The soldiers' mission would be to engage the 48th Battalion and to destroy the village of My Lai. By 7 a.m., Medina said, the women and children would be out of the hamlet and all they could expect to encounter would be the enemy. The soldiers were to explode brick homes, set fire to thatch homes, shoot livestock, poison wells, and destroy the enemy. The seventy-five or so American soldiers would be supported in their assault by gunship pilots.
Medina later said that his objective that night was to "fire them up and get them ready to go in there; I did not give any instructions as to what to do with women and children in the village." Although some soldiers agreed with that recollection of Medina's, others clearly thought that he had ordered them to kill every person in My Lai 4. Perhaps his orders were intentionally vague. What seems likely is that Medina intentionally gave the impression that everyone in My Lai would be their enemy.
At 7:22 a.m. on March 16, nine helicopters lifted off for the flight to My Lai 4. By the time the helicopters carrying members of Charlie Company landed in a rice paddy about 140 yards south of My Lai, the area had been peppered with small arms fire from assault helicopters. Whatever VC might have been in the vicinity of My Lai had most likely left by the time the first soldiers climbed out of their helicopters. The assault plan called for Lt. Calley's first platoon and Lt. Stephen Brooks' second platoon to sweep into the village, while a third platoon, Medina, and the headquarters unit would be held in reserve and follow the first two platoons in after the area was more-or-less secured. Above the ground, the action would be monitored at the 1,000-foot level by Lt. Col. Barker and at the 2,500-foot level by Oran Henderson, commander of the 11th Brigade, both flying counter clockwise around the battle scene in helicopters.
My Lai village had about 700 residents. They lived in either redbrick homes or thatch-covered huts. A deep drainage ditch marked the eastern boundary of the village. Directly south of the residential area was an open plaza area used for holding village meetings. To the north and west of the village was dense foliage [MAP].
By 8 a.m., Calley's platoon had crossed the plaza on the town's southern edge and entered the village. They encountered families cooking rice in front of their homes. The men began their usual search-and-destroy task of pulling people from homes, interrogating them, and searching for VC. Soon the killing began. The first victim was a man stabbed in the back with a bayonet. Then a middle-aged man was picked up, thrown down a well, and a grenade lobbed in after him. A group of fifteen to twenty mostly older women were gathered around a temple, kneeling and praying. They were all executed with shots to the back of their heads. Eighty or so villagers were taken from their homes and herded to the plaza area. As many cried "No VC! No VC!", Calley told soldier Paul Meadlo, "You know what I want you to do with them". When Calley returned ten minutes later and found the Vietnamese still gathered in the plaza he reportedly said to Meadlo, "Haven't you got rid of them yet? I want them dead. Waste them." Meadlo and Calley began firing into the group from a distance of ten to fifteen feet. The few that survived did so because they were covered by the bodies of those less fortunate.
What Captain Medina knew of these war crimes is not certain. It was a chaotic operation. Gary Garfolo said, "I could hear shooting all the time. Medina was running back and forth everywhere. This wasn't no organized deal." Medina would later testify that he didn't enter the village until 10 a.m., after most of the shooting had stopped, and did not personally witness a single civilian being killed. Others put Medina in the village closer to 9 a.m., and close to the scene of many of the murders as they were happening.
As the third platoon moved into My Lai, it was followed by army photographer Ronald Haeberle, there to document what was supposed to be a significant encounter with a crack enemy battalion. Haeberle took many pictures [HAEBERLE PHOTOS]. He said he saw about thirty different GIs kill about 100 civilians. Once Haeberle focused his camera on a young child about five feet away, but before he could get his picture the kid was blown away. He angered some GIs as he tried to photograph them as they fondled the breasts of a fifteen-year-old Vietnamese girl.
An army helicopter piloted by Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson arrived in the My Lai vicinity about 9 a.m. Thompson noticed dead and dying civilians all over the village. Thompson repeatedly saw young boys and girls being shot at point-blank range. Thompson, furious at what he saw, reported the wanton killings to brigade headquarters [THOMPSON'S STORY].
Meanwhile, the rampage below continued. Calley was at the drainage ditch on the eastern edge of the village, where about seventy to eighty old men, women, and children not killed on the spot had been brought. Calley ordered the dozen or so platoon members there to push the people into the ditch, and three or four GIs did. Calley ordered his men to shoot into the ditch. Some refused, others obeyed. One who followed Calley's order was Paul Meadlo, who estimated that he killed about twenty-five civilians. (Later Meadlo was seen, head in hands, crying.) Calley joined in the massacre. At one point, a two-year-old child who somehow survived the gunfire began running towards the hamlet. Calley grabbed the child, threw him back in the ditch, then shot him.
Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians. He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.
By 11 a.m., when Medina called for a lunch break, the killing was nearly over. By noon, "My Lai was no more": its buildings were destroyed and its people dead or dying. Soldiers later said they didn't remember seeing "one military-age male in the entire place". By night, the VC had returned to bury the dead. What few villagers survived and weren't already communists, became communists. Twenty months later army investigators would discover three mass graves containing the bodies of about 500 villagers.
II.
The cover-up of the My Lai massacre began almost as soon as the killing ended. Official army reports of the operation proclaimed a great victory: 128 enemy dead, only one American casualty (one soldier intentionally shot himself in the foot). The army knew better. Hugh Thompson had filed a complaint, alleging numerous war crimes involving murders of civilians. According to one of Thompson's crew members, "Thompson was so pissed he wanted to turn in his wings". An order issued by Major Calhoun to Captain Medina to return to My Lai to do a body count was countermanded by Major General Samuel Koster, who asked Medina how many civilians has been killed. "Twenty to twenty-eight," was his answer. The next day Colonel Henderson informed Medina that an informal investigation of the My Lai incident was underway-- and most likely gave the Captain "a good ass-chewing" as well. Henderson interviewed a number of GIs, then pronounced himself "satisfied" by their answers. No attempt was made to interview surviving Vietnamese. In late April, Henderson submitted a written report indicating that about twenty civilians had been inadvertently killed in My Lai. Meanwhile, Michael Bernhart, a Charlie Company GI severely troubled by what he witnessed at My Lai discussed with other GIs his plan to write a letter about the incident to his congressman. Medina, after learning of Bernhart's intentions, confronted him and told him how unwise such an action, in his opinion, would be.
If not for the determined efforts of a twenty-two-year-old ex-GI from Phoenix, Ronald Ridenhour, what happened on March 16, 1968 at My Lai 4 may never have come to the attention of the American people. Ridenhour served in a reconnaissance unit in Duc Pho, where he heard five eyewitness accounts of the My Lai massacre. He began his own investigation, traveling to Americal headquarters to confirm that Charlie Company had in fact been in My Lai on the date reported by his witnesses. Ridenhour was shocked by what he learned [RIDENHOUR'S STORY]. When he was discharged in December, 1968, Ridenhour said "I wanted to get those people. I wanted to reveal what they did. My God, when I first came home, I would tell my friends about this and cry-literally cry." In March, 1969, Ridenhour composed a letter detailing what he had heard about the My Lai massacre[LINK TO LETTER]and sent it to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. Most recipients simply ignored the letter, but a few, most notably Representative Morris Udall, aggressively pushed for a full investigation of Ridenhour's allegations.
By late April, General Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff, had turned the case over to the Inspector General for investigation. Over the next few months, dozens of witnesses were interviewed. It became apparent to all connected with the investigation that war crimes had been committed. In June, 1969, William Calley was flown back from Viet Nam to appear in a line-up for identification by Hugh Thompson. By August, the matter was in the hands of the army's Criminal Investigation Division for a determination as to whether criminal charges should be filed against Calley and other massacre participants. On September 5, formal charges, included six specifications of premeditated murder, were filed against Calley.
Calley hired as his attorney George Latimer, a Salt Lake City lawyer with considerable military experience, having served on the Military Court of Appeals. Latimer pronounced himself impressed with Calley. "You couldn't find a nicer boy," he said, adding that if Calley was guilty of anything it was only following orders "a bit too diligently."
Meanwhile, the issue of the My Lai massacre had gotten the attention of President Nixon. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird briefed Nixon at his San Clemente retreat. The White House proceeded with caution, sensing the potential of the incident to embarrass the military and undermine the war effort. The President characterized what happened at My Lai as an unfortunate aberration, as "an isolated incident."
In November, 1969, the American public began to learn the details of what happened at My Lai 4. The massacre was the cover story in both Time and Newsweek. CBS ran a Mike Wallace interview with Paul Meadlo. Seymour Hersh published in depth accounts based on his own extensive interviews. Life magazine published Haeberle's graphic photographs.
Reaction to the reports of the massacre varied. Some politicians, such as House Armed Services Subcommittee Chair L. Mendel Rivers maintained that there was no massacre and that reports to the contrary were merely attempts to build opposition to the Viet Nam war. Others called for an open, independent inquiry. The Administration took a middle course, deciding on a closed-door investigation by the Pentagon, headed by William Peers, a blunt three-star general.
For four months the Peers Panel interviewed 398 witnesses, ranging from General Koster to the GIs of Charlie Company. Over 20,000 pages of testimony were taken. The Peers Report criticized the actions of both officers and enlisted men. The report recommended action against dozens of men for rape, murder, or participation in the cover-up.
III.
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division continued its separate investigation. Most of the enlisted men who committed war crimes were no longer members of the military, and thus immune from prosecution by court-martial. A 1955 Supreme Court decision, Toth vs Quarles, held that military courts cannot try former members of the armed services "no matter how intimate the connection between the offense and the concerns of military discipline." Decisions were made to prosecute a total of twenty-five officers and enlisted men, including General Koster, Colonel Oran Henderson, Captain Medina. In the end, however, only few would be tried and only one, William Calley, would be found guilty. The top officer charged, General Samuel Koster, who failed to report known civilian casualties and conducted a clearly inadequate investigation was, according to General Peers, the beneficiary of a whitewash, having charges against him dropped and receiving only a letter of censure and reduction in rank. Colonel Henderson was found not guilty on all charges after a trial by court martial. Peers again expressed his disapproval, writing "I cannot agree with the verdict. If his actions are judged as acceptable standards for an officer in his position, the Army is indeed in deep trouble."
Captain Ernest Medina faced charges of murdering 102 Vienamese civilians. The charges were based on the prosecution's theory of command responsibility: Medina, as the officer in charge of Charlie Company should be accountable for the actions of his men. If Medina knew that a massacre was taking place and did nothing to stop it, he should be found guilty of murder. (Medina was originally charged also with dereliction of duty for participating in the coverup, but the offense was dropped because the statute of limitations had run.) Medina was subjected to a lie-detector test which tended to show he responded truthfully when he said that he did not intentionally suggest to his men that they kill unarmed civilians. The same test, however, tended to to show that his contention that he first heard of the killing of unarmed civilians about 10 to 10:30 A.M. was not truthful, and that he in fact knew non-combattants were being killed sometime between 8 A.M. and 9 A.M., when there would still have been time to prevent many civilian deaths. The prosecution, led by Major William Eckhardt, was unable, however, to get the damaging lie-detector evidence admitted. Medina's lawyer, flamboyant defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, conducted a highly successful defense, forcing the prosecution to drop key witnesses and keeping damaging evidence, such as Ronald Haeberle's photographs, from the jury. After fifty-seven minutes of deliberation, the jury acquitted Medina on all charges. (Months later, when a perjury prosecution was no longer possible, Medina admitted that he had suppressed evidence and lied to the brigade commander about the number of civilians killed.)
The strongest government case was that against Lt. William Calley. On November 12, 1970, in a small courthouse in Fort Benning, Georgia, young Prosecutor Aubrey Daniel stood to deliver his opening statement: "I want you to know My Lai 4. I will try to put you there." Captain Daniel told the jury of six military officers the shocking story of Calley's role in My Lai's tragedy: his machine-gunning of people in the plaza area south of the hamlet; his orders to men to execute men, women, and children in the eastern drainage ditch; his butt-stroking with his rifle of an old man; his grabbing of a small child and his throwing of the child into the ditch, then shooting him at point-blank range. Daniel told the jury that at the close of evidence he would ask them to "in the name of justice" convict the accused of all charges.
Daniel built the prosecution's case methodically. For days, the grisly evidence accumulated without a single witness directly placing Calley at the scene of a shooting. One of the early witnesses was Ronald Haeberle, the army photographer whose pictures brought home the horror of My Lai [TESTIMONY OF HAEBERLE]. Another was Hugh Thompson, My Lai's hero. Defense attorney Latimer's handling on cross of Haeberle, Thompson, and other witnesses led many courtroom observers to conclude that his glowing reputation was undeserved. His questioning of Haeberle, whose credibility was largely irrelevant, was pointless. His attempt to question Thompson's heroism "failed utterly," according to Richard Hammer, author of The Court-Martial of Lt. Calley.
In the second week of the trial Daniel began to call his more incriminating witnesses. Robert Maples, a machine gunner in the first platoon, testified that he saw Calley near the eastern drainage ditch, firing at the people below. Maples said that Calley asked him to use his machine gun on the Vietnamese in the ditch, but that he refused [TESTIMONY OF MAPLES]. Dennis Conti provided equally damning evidence. Conti testified that he was ordered to round up people, mostly women and children, and bring them back to Calley on the trail south of the hamlet. Calley, Conti said, told us to make them "squat down and bunch up so they couldn't get up and run." Minutes later Calley and Paul Meadlo "fired directly into the people. There were burst and shots for two minutes. The people screamed and yelled and fell." Conti said that Meadlo "broke down" and began crying [TESTIMONY OF CONTI].
The prosecution's final witness was its most anticipated witness. Paul Meadlo had been promised immunity from military prosecution in return for his testimony in the Calley case, but when he was called earlier in the trial, Meadlo had refused to answer questions about March 16, 1968, claiming his fifth amendment right not to incriminate himself. Daniel called Meadlo to the stand for a second time, and the ex-GI, who had lost a foot to a mine shortly after the massacre, limped to the stand in his green short-sleeve shirt and green pants. Judge Kennedy warned Meadlo that if he refused to answer questions, two U. S. marshals would take him into custody. Meadlo said he would testify. He told the jury that Calley had left him with a large group of mostly women and children south of the hamlet saying, "You know what to do with them, Meadlo." Meadlo thought Calley meant he should guard the people, which he did. Meadlo told the jury what happened when Calley returned a few minutes later:
He said, "How come they're not dead?" I said, I didn't know we were supposed to kill them." He said, I want them
dead." He backed off twenty or thirty feet and started shooting into the people -- the Viet Cong -- shooting automatic. He was
beside me. He burned four or five magazines. I burned off a few, about three. I helped shoot ‘em.
Q: What were the people doing after you shot them?
A: They were lying down.
Q: Why were they lying down?
A: They was mortally wounded.
Q: How were you feeling at that time?
A: I was mortally upset, scared, because of the briefing we had the day before.
Q: Were you crying?
A: I imagine I was....
Daniel then asked Meadlo about the massacre at the eastern drainage ditch, and in the same almost emotionless voice, Meadlo recounted the story, telling the jury that Calley fired from 250 to 300 bullets into the ditch. One exchange was remarkable:
Q: What were the children in the ditch doing?
A: I don't know.
Q: Were the babies in their mother's arms?
A: I guess so.
Q: And the babies moved to attack?
A: I expected at any moment they were about to make a counterbalance.
Q: Had they made any move to attack?
A: No.
At the end of Meadlo's testimony, Aubrey Daniel rested the for the prosecution [MEADLO'S TESTIMONY].
The defense strategy had two main thrusts. One was to suggest that the stress of combat, the fear of being in an area thought to be thick with the enemy, sufficiently impaired Calley's thinking that he should not be found guilty of premeditated murder for his killing of civilians. Latimer relied on New York psychiatrist Albert LaVerne to advance this defense argument [LAVERNE TESTIMONY]. The second argument of the defense was that Calley was merely following orders: that Captain Ernest Medina had ordered that civilians found in My Lai 4 be killed and was the real villain in the tragedy.
On February 23, 1971, William Calley took the stand. He told the jury he couldn't remember a single army class on the Geneva Convention, but that he did know he could be court-martialed for refusing to obey an order. He testified that Medina had said the night before that there would be no civilians in My Lai, only the enemy. He said that while he was in the village, Medina called and asked why he hadn't "wasted" the civilians yet. He admitted to firing into a ditch full of Vietnamese, but claimed that others were already firing into the ditch when he arrived. Calley said, "I felt then--and I still do-- that I acted as directed, I carried out my orders, and I did not feel wrong in doing so" [CALLEY TESTIMONY].
Ernest Medina was called as a witness of the court. Medina directly contradicted Calley's testimony. Medina said he was asked at the briefing on March 15 whether "we kill women and children," and-- looking straight at Calley behind the defense table--he said to the GIs "No, you do not kill women and children...Use common sense." At the close of his testimony, Medina saluted Judge Kennedy, then marched past Calley's table without glancing at him [MEDINA TESTIMONY].
It was time for summations. George Latimer for the defense argued that Medina was lying about not giving the order to kill civilians, that Medina knew perfectly well what was going on in the village, and now he and the army were trying to make Calley a scapegoat[LATIMER SUMMATION]. Aubrey Daniel for the prosecution asked the jury who will speak for the children of My Lai. He pointed out that Calley as a U. S. officer took an oath not to kill innocent women and children, and told the jury it is "the conscience of the United States Army"[DANIEL SUMMATION].
After thirteen days of deliberations, the longest in U. S. court-martial history, the jury returned its verdict: guilty of premeditated murder on all specifications. After hearing pleas on the issue of punishment, jury head Colonel Clifford Ford pronounced Calley's sentence: "To be confined at hard labor for the length of your natural life; to be dismissed from the service; to forfeit all pay and allowances."
IV.
Opinion polls showed that the public overwhelmingly disapproved of the verdict in the Calley case [OPINION POLLS]. President Nixon ordered Calley removed from the stockade and placed under house arrest. He announced that he would review the whole decision. Nixon's action prompted Aubrey Daniel to write a long and angry letter in which he told the President that "the greatest tragedy of all will be if political expediency dictates the compromise of such a fundamental moral principle as the inherent unlawfulness of the murder of innocent persons" [AUBREY LETTER]. On November 9, 1974, the Secretary of the Army announced that William Calley would be paroled. In 1976, Calley married. He now works in the jewelry store of his father-in-law in Columbus, Georgia.
My Lai mattered. Two weeks after the Calley verdict was announced, the Harris Poll reported for the first time that a majority of Americans opposed the war in Viet Nam. The My Lai episode caused the military to re-evaluate its training with respect to the handling of noncombatants. Commanders sent troops in the Desert Storm operation into battle with the words, "No My Lais-- you hear?"
Changing the Worldwide Image of Turks
Ataman recently mentioned frustration the lack of people banding together to counter the media scandal that perpetuates stereotypes about Turks. I am from the US and if I didn't have Turkish friends when I was little, through my Mom's university connections, I would never even have been interested in Turkey or Turks. I'm happily married to a Turkish man now so I am very interested in Turkey and Turks and the current scandal that veils the eyes of all of my educated and beloved friends in the US. It's really troubling actually. For example:
My good friend and colleague said, this fall, that she found me brave to have married a Turk because she had heard that they 'beat their wives.' I was shocked, stunned, and then responsive. I assured her that the treatment I have received is far better than any of my US dating experiences. I also faced comments at a business conference, again about marrying a Turk. "You will never measure up to men in that society." I cleared that one up too. Yet on it goes as I recall a comment from a pure Irish couple I stayed with in Kenya: "You shouldn't have babies with a Turkish man, he will take the kids back to Turkey and you'll never see them again." What?! (I think they were a little influenced by a movie with Sally Struthers called 'Not Without My Daughter,' which by the way was about Iran ... this is what we are dealing with people!) Somebody help me out here please. How do these people get these ideas in their heads? I'll tell you how, they are only exposed to Turkey through biased and fabricated messages in the US media. Did you know that a movie made in the US doesn't make its own cost until it is exported? Media is a heavy industry and it's a booming export. Who's to say that other people around the world don't have very skewed ideas about Turks. And who's to refute these ideas given the lack of documentaries/films focused on how Turks really are, day to day, and how they really live and what they're really going through? This totally involves Armenian propaganda as well because the ignorance feeds it! It's like they are raiding a store because the owner is asleep. We must put a major stop to this! We must awaken people using the media.
I think a documentary would be effective. I've seen "Crossing the Bridge" about Turkish music. It's gorgeous and well-made. Why not put that spirit into a production about Turks today, the history, the blatant propaganda, the nations who buy into it to make themselves look innocent, etc. How about we put this information in a format that's really accessible by every-day people who watch TV and have kids and are short on time (and not just scholars who dedicate themselves to the issue and argue in a vacuum about it) ... reaching more people will result in real changes taking place. Not everyone is in the ivory tower.
This is the start of how the documentary could be structured: Please take a moment to read and ENVISION this.
Picture an introduction with quick Turkish music, scenes of people walking along the streets of Istanbul, relaxing on boats in Bodrum, working at offices in Ankara, drinking tea at bazaars, living life.
A voice over (the narrator of the documentary) cuts in as the music fades and other images and filmed street/life/restaurant, etc. scenes relating to the voice fade in and out in the background: “Turkey: the land of …… ...etc. Turkey is the home of some of the most profound authors, musicians, music producers, PR gurus, artists and designers in the world and is the most westernized and secular nation in the Muslim world today. So why would leaders in the west risk their chance at an alliance with a rational nation in the Middle East? This is the question that frustrates historians, professors and professionals around the world, because the answer can only be found behind a wall of silence of Turks themselves, a silence that is breaking under the pressure of politics.
Sound bite with a professor talking about the situation today (maybe have this professor sitting in her/his office with a strong visual behind her/him … something engaging … their name will appear and linger a minute below their face as they talk) – they can mention the politics, who is buying into the Armenian lobby and why (how many votes do they buy, are they really taking the time to discover the truth before they take a side, etc.) The power struggle masked by the EU bidding and educated speculation about where that struggle is rooted.
Music. Scenery.
Narrator voice over again: the narrator will take us on a journey starting with the end of the Ottoman Empire and the conditions in Turkey, including where the Armenians lived and how the Empire was collapsing, the amazing vision of Ataturk, etc. This information will be narrated and then you can fade into historians for more sound bites. You can use different paintings and visuals to really bring the audience into the history. Trade the voices between the voice over of visuals and the actual sound bite (with the historian at a café, or in an office with their name lingering under them as they speak) … The historian(s) can speak about numbers etc. (Please keep in mind that the majority, the huge majority, of the US audience is not aware of the history of the Ottoman Empire. You have people who love history but the history here in our high schools (and it’s not mandatory in college unless it’s your major or related) is taught in a very biased, Eurocentric way. My history foundation included American Indians, Napoleon, etc. A few sentences may have mentioned the Ottomans but you can breath life into this subject for thousands of people with this documentary.)
The history alone is interesting – the changing of the language, the battles, the drawing of borders and rallying of people and then the strange twist in the Armenian alliance with Russia and how ridiculous it starts to look when this is back-dropped by these historical events -- it will become obvious to the viewer that this was not a systematic ethnic cleansing and absolutely not a genocide.
You can see what is developing here. Go through the history and work into the present day – showing the life of Turks and European and American politicians and maybe even Armenian lobbyists who are bitter and misleading. You don’t need to say any opinions in the narration, the facts will speak for themselves. In a documentary it is better to keep opinions to a minimum in the narration. The sources, historians, professors, professionals, etc. will lend plenty of opinions. The key is to make it seem like the producer is just capturing the facts and the beauty and real life in Turkey and the history that is so misconstrued.
By the way: An excellent reference to this can be found in the documentary about the History of New York. It’s an 8 DVD series but it’s well constructed and engaging and a favorite of many people here you will see the pattern of voice over, historian/expert, scenery, music .. the pattern is very powerful because you don’t want to hear the narrator too much or see some guy/lady talking a lot or just see the pictures or the scenes from today … but spacing them just right helps people stay engaged and also helps them digest information.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to introduce the reality, struggles and sacrifice of Turks to the world in this way? Factually, beautifully and credibly as opposed to some movie caricatures and continuous slaps in the face from western media? It’s up to Turks and Americans who are part of the Turkish community to make this happen.
Thank you for your time and attention.
My good friend and colleague said, this fall, that she found me brave to have married a Turk because she had heard that they 'beat their wives.' I was shocked, stunned, and then responsive. I assured her that the treatment I have received is far better than any of my US dating experiences. I also faced comments at a business conference, again about marrying a Turk. "You will never measure up to men in that society." I cleared that one up too. Yet on it goes as I recall a comment from a pure Irish couple I stayed with in Kenya: "You shouldn't have babies with a Turkish man, he will take the kids back to Turkey and you'll never see them again." What?! (I think they were a little influenced by a movie with Sally Struthers called 'Not Without My Daughter,' which by the way was about Iran ... this is what we are dealing with people!) Somebody help me out here please. How do these people get these ideas in their heads? I'll tell you how, they are only exposed to Turkey through biased and fabricated messages in the US media. Did you know that a movie made in the US doesn't make its own cost until it is exported? Media is a heavy industry and it's a booming export. Who's to say that other people around the world don't have very skewed ideas about Turks. And who's to refute these ideas given the lack of documentaries/films focused on how Turks really are, day to day, and how they really live and what they're really going through? This totally involves Armenian propaganda as well because the ignorance feeds it! It's like they are raiding a store because the owner is asleep. We must put a major stop to this! We must awaken people using the media.
I think a documentary would be effective. I've seen "Crossing the Bridge" about Turkish music. It's gorgeous and well-made. Why not put that spirit into a production about Turks today, the history, the blatant propaganda, the nations who buy into it to make themselves look innocent, etc. How about we put this information in a format that's really accessible by every-day people who watch TV and have kids and are short on time (and not just scholars who dedicate themselves to the issue and argue in a vacuum about it) ... reaching more people will result in real changes taking place. Not everyone is in the ivory tower.
This is the start of how the documentary could be structured: Please take a moment to read and ENVISION this.
Picture an introduction with quick Turkish music, scenes of people walking along the streets of Istanbul, relaxing on boats in Bodrum, working at offices in Ankara, drinking tea at bazaars, living life.
A voice over (the narrator of the documentary) cuts in as the music fades and other images and filmed street/life/restaurant, etc. scenes relating to the voice fade in and out in the background: “Turkey: the land of …… ...etc. Turkey is the home of some of the most profound authors, musicians, music producers, PR gurus, artists and designers in the world and is the most westernized and secular nation in the Muslim world today. So why would leaders in the west risk their chance at an alliance with a rational nation in the Middle East? This is the question that frustrates historians, professors and professionals around the world, because the answer can only be found behind a wall of silence of Turks themselves, a silence that is breaking under the pressure of politics.
Sound bite with a professor talking about the situation today (maybe have this professor sitting in her/his office with a strong visual behind her/him … something engaging … their name will appear and linger a minute below their face as they talk) – they can mention the politics, who is buying into the Armenian lobby and why (how many votes do they buy, are they really taking the time to discover the truth before they take a side, etc.) The power struggle masked by the EU bidding and educated speculation about where that struggle is rooted.
Music. Scenery.
Narrator voice over again: the narrator will take us on a journey starting with the end of the Ottoman Empire and the conditions in Turkey, including where the Armenians lived and how the Empire was collapsing, the amazing vision of Ataturk, etc. This information will be narrated and then you can fade into historians for more sound bites. You can use different paintings and visuals to really bring the audience into the history. Trade the voices between the voice over of visuals and the actual sound bite (with the historian at a café, or in an office with their name lingering under them as they speak) … The historian(s) can speak about numbers etc. (Please keep in mind that the majority, the huge majority, of the US audience is not aware of the history of the Ottoman Empire. You have people who love history but the history here in our high schools (and it’s not mandatory in college unless it’s your major or related) is taught in a very biased, Eurocentric way. My history foundation included American Indians, Napoleon, etc. A few sentences may have mentioned the Ottomans but you can breath life into this subject for thousands of people with this documentary.)
The history alone is interesting – the changing of the language, the battles, the drawing of borders and rallying of people and then the strange twist in the Armenian alliance with Russia and how ridiculous it starts to look when this is back-dropped by these historical events -- it will become obvious to the viewer that this was not a systematic ethnic cleansing and absolutely not a genocide.
You can see what is developing here. Go through the history and work into the present day – showing the life of Turks and European and American politicians and maybe even Armenian lobbyists who are bitter and misleading. You don’t need to say any opinions in the narration, the facts will speak for themselves. In a documentary it is better to keep opinions to a minimum in the narration. The sources, historians, professors, professionals, etc. will lend plenty of opinions. The key is to make it seem like the producer is just capturing the facts and the beauty and real life in Turkey and the history that is so misconstrued.
By the way: An excellent reference to this can be found in the documentary about the History of New York. It’s an 8 DVD series but it’s well constructed and engaging and a favorite of many people here you will see the pattern of voice over, historian/expert, scenery, music .. the pattern is very powerful because you don’t want to hear the narrator too much or see some guy/lady talking a lot or just see the pictures or the scenes from today … but spacing them just right helps people stay engaged and also helps them digest information.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to introduce the reality, struggles and sacrifice of Turks to the world in this way? Factually, beautifully and credibly as opposed to some movie caricatures and continuous slaps in the face from western media? It’s up to Turks and Americans who are part of the Turkish community to make this happen.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Wednesday, 4 April 2007
Terror Attack in Toorak by Tamara Heath
The 1986 Turkish consulate bombing sent Victoria Police investigators into overdrive as they worked around the clock to find out who was responsible. By Tamara Heath
Crime scene: Insp Wayne Rotherham revisits the scene of the Turkish consulate bombing 20 years later.
It was early morning on Monday, 24 November, 1986 and Inspector Wayne Rotherham was asleep when his telephone rang. There had been an explosion at 44 Caroline Street, Toorak at 2.16am and, as a then detective senior constable with the Major Crime Squad (MCS), he was needed immediately.
"I had just finished another big job and was trying to get some rest when I was called out," Insp Rotherham, now working with the State Emergency Response Office, said. "When I arrived, myself and several other members were instructed to wait in our cars because the Special Operations Group were still going through the scene and it wasn't yet secure. "While sitting in our cars at the perimeter of the scene, senior police met and decided that a taskforce would be set up to investigate." Initially Taskforce Caroline investigators, comprising members of the MCS and Armed Offenders and Arson squads, had little to go on.
What they did know was that there had been a large explosion in the car park beneath the building, which housed the Turkish consulate, and that at least one person had been killed. The surrounding area was littered with debris that would take days to sift through. "We were conscious that time was critical," Insp Rotherham said.
"We needed time to collect evidence but we didn't have time to wait. "So, over the next few days, we were required to make a number of educated guesses" One of the taskforce's first steps was to attend a briefing by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).
“ASIO was critical in providing the Armenian link” Insp Rotherham said. They said it was likely that the consulate had been targeted by Armenian terrorists as part of ongoing protests against alleged acts of genocide by the Turkish government in the early 1900s. "They also told us that Armenian surnames mostly finish in "ian". "It was after that briefing that we began to look at the bombing as an act of terrorism." A wallet containing a return Ansett bus ticket to Sydney in the name of Jacobsen was one of the first significant items recovered from the scene.
The ticket told investigators that the bomber had most likely arrived in Melbourne by bus and was planning to return. A check of the bus confirmed the empty seat, as well as the suspicion that the bomb had been detonated before planned. At the same time, a numberplate recovered from the scene was traced to a white Torana owned by a Heidelberg couple.
'He couple told investigators they had recently sold it but did not get the name of the male buyer. However, neighbours told police that a "new looking" red Commodore was parked outside the couple's house at the time. Believing it might be a hire car, the records of hire companies around the Ansett bus depot were searched. Investigators soon discovered that a red Commodore had been hired by a male with an “ian” surname - Levon Demirian. The Sydney resident had links with an Armenian terrorist group and quickly became the focus of police efforts. "Over the next few days we hardly slept and travelled to Sydney several times," Insp Rotherham said.
"We knew Demirian was leaving for Beirut with his family on the Wednesday after the bombing so we didn't have a lot of time. "And we still hadn't even established the identity of the deceased person at this stage, although it was believed to be Demirian's associate Hagop Levonian."
Running out of time and needing to act quickly, investigators raided Demirian's home, business and other locations early on Wednesday morning and took Demirian in for questioning. Hotel and meal receipts and other items seized in the raids enabled investigators to connect Demirian to the bombing.
The case against Demirian was clinched by an eight-year-old boy who saw the red Commodore pull up behind the Torana and two men transfer something into the Torana's boot on the night of the bombing. The numberplate the boy remembered matched the one found at the scene.
Meanwhile, Levonian was eventually identified two weeks after the bombing, using a fragment of skin found at the scene. Warrnambool Crime Scene Unit's Peter Pangrazio, a fingerprint expert, was one of many police who searched the scene for evidence. He was particularly looking for fragments of friction ridge skin - the unique skin on the palms of hands and soles of feet.
Ink prints were taken of a skin fragment, about the size of a five-cent coin, found at the scene and then carefully compared to developed prints on books, raffle tickets, letters and invoices seized from Levonian's Sydney home. It was an invoice book that held the vital clue, a palm print from where Levonian held a page down while writing an invoice was a match.
Sgt Pangrazio, then working with the Fingerprint Branch, spent more than two weeks searching for the match and remembers feeling a sense of relief. "We were very fortunate that it was the type of book that required him to hold the pages down quite firmly with his left hand while he was writing because it meant we got a good impression," he said. Demirian faced court in April 1987 charged with murder and conspiracy. After a 13-day trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years with a 10-year minimum. The murder conviction was quashed after a subsequent full Supreme Court appeal. He served 10 years.
“It was the kind of case you never forget” Sgt Pangrazio said. "It was high profile at the time and in the mid 80s you didn't come across a lot of that type of investigation." Insp Rotherham, agreed, saying the bombing came at a time when "the world seemed to be going mad and everything was becoming more complicated". "It really made police look at the way they operated in relation to terrorism," he said. "Terrorism charges didn't even exist at the time, which is why Demirian faced existing criminal charges."
The case also had a personal impact, with Insp Rotherham changing his career path and moving into the counter-terrorism field. "During the investigation we blew up a similar bomb at Puckapunyal. It was an absolutely massive explosion. “I just kept thinking about how lucky it was that many more people weren't killed or injured on that day and how devastating terrorist attacks can potentially be. It was this case that really showed me what terrorists are capable of, and of the importance of working with a team of experienced, dedicated, and professional detectives”.
Items from the bombing investigation are available to view at the Victoria Police Museum, open 10 am to 4pni, Monday to Friday, on the Concourse level, World Trade Centre, 637 Flinders Street, Melbourne. Entry is free. For details, telephone 9247 5213.
POLICE LIFE DECEMBER 2006, www.police.vic.gov.au
The Demirian Case is now a bench mark for other Terrorism Matters it was referred to in the case of R -v- ROCHE [2005] WASCA 4 Have a read of that Judgement and see what their Honours said.
R -v- ROCHE [2005] WASCA 4 (14 January 2005)
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CITATION : R -v- ROCHE [2005] WASCA 4
CORAM : MURRAY ACJ
TEMPLEMAN J
MCKECHNIE J
HEARD : 9 SEPTEMBER 2004
DELIVERED : 14 JANUARY 2005
FILE NO/S : CCA 85 of 2004
BETWEEN : THE QUEEN (Appellant) AND JACK ROCHE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S : CCA 91 of 2004
BETWEEN : JACK ROCHE
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : HEALY DCJ
File No : IND 622 of 2003
52 Secondly, this is [Roche matter] not, in fact, the first case of international terrorism in Australia. In Demirian (1988) 33 A Crim R 441, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Victoria heard, inter alia, an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on Demirian for conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury arising out of an incident at the Turkish Consulate in Melbourne, in 1986.
53 On a Sunday in November of that year, a large bomb which had been placed in the rear of a Holden Torana, exploded in the car park below a building at 44 Caroline Street, South Yarra, causing very substantial damage to that building and to other premises in the vicinity. 44 Caroline Street was used for business purposes. The Turkish Consulate occupied the first floor. Presumably because the offence was committed on a Sunday, the Consulate was unoccupied. There was only one person in the building. He was injured, but not seriously.
54 After the explosion, human remains were found close to the vehicle. It emerged from a detailed scientific investigation that a man had probably been standing alongside the driver's door when the bomb exploded, apparently, prematurely.
55 Demirian was charged with conspiracy and with the murder of the deceased. The Crown case was that Demirian was a party to the agreement with the deceased, and perhaps others, to place and explode the bomb so that it would blow up the building containing the Turkish Consulate.
56 Demirian was convicted of both conspiracy and murder. On appeal, the conviction for conspiracy was upheld and that for murder was quashed. The only remaining issue was whether the sentence imposed on Demirian for the conspiracy was excessive: a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, with no minimum term.
57 In a joint judgment, McGarvie and O'Bryan JJ said:
“The type of activity engaged in by the applicant and others is rare in this country but terrorist acts are commonplace in the country from whence the applicant emigrated to Australia. Unless courts in this country are vigilant in imposing condign sentences for such conduct evil-minded persons might seek to emulate this conduct. The conduct of the applicant in conspiring with others to endanger life and cause serious injury to property by detonating an explosive substance beneath the Consulate brought shame to this country when the bomb exploded. The Turkish nation is a friendly power and members of the Turkish community now assimilated into Australian society were affronted by this evil deed. The heinousness of the crime is accentuated by the fact that the applicant abused the sanctuary this country offered him.
When a crime of such notoriety and heinousness is committed in the name of a political cause this Court is not required to fix a minimum term. The political nature of the offence and its seriousness render the fixing of such a term inappropriate. A sentence imposed in these circumstances should be exceptional to mark the seriousness with which the crime is viewed and therefore no minimum term should be fixed.” (1988 33 A Crim R at p 474)
58 Tadgell J agreed, in relation to that aspect of the appeal (at p 481).
59 The maximum penalty for the offence of which Demirian was convicted was 15 years' imprisonment. The sentence imposed on him was therefore two-thirds of the maximum.
60 In my view, it is not unreasonable to assume that if the maximum penalty in Demirian's case (supra) had been 25 years' imprisonment, a sentence of two thirds of that maximum would have been imposed on him: that is, a sentence of the order of 16 years' imprisonment. It may be assumed also, that if Demirian had succeeded in causing death or serious injury to some person, the sentence would have been more severe, even though the Crown case was that the bomb was placed with the intention of causing death or serious injury, and the knowledge that it would probably do so.
61 The present case (Roche) is distinguishable from Demirian in several respects: the respondent did not commit the substantive offence, he caused no actual harm and he volunteered an account of his involvement to the Federal Police. In my view, a notional adjustment to the sentence imposed on Demirian to take account of those factors would lead one instinctively to a sentence in the region of that suggested by the sentencing Judge as the starting point for the respondent.
62 I consider that the passage in the judgment of McGarvie and O'Bryan JJ in Demirian (supra) set out above, although written some 16 years ago, still reflects the appropriate judicial response to those who would engage in terrorist activities in Australia. Everything said by their Honours about Demirian could have been applied mutatis mutandis to the respondent, had he continued with the conspiracy to the point at which the substantive offence was committed. The respondent could then have expected a much more severe sentence and no minimum term.
Crime scene: Insp Wayne Rotherham revisits the scene of the Turkish consulate bombing 20 years later.
It was early morning on Monday, 24 November, 1986 and Inspector Wayne Rotherham was asleep when his telephone rang. There had been an explosion at 44 Caroline Street, Toorak at 2.16am and, as a then detective senior constable with the Major Crime Squad (MCS), he was needed immediately.
"I had just finished another big job and was trying to get some rest when I was called out," Insp Rotherham, now working with the State Emergency Response Office, said. "When I arrived, myself and several other members were instructed to wait in our cars because the Special Operations Group were still going through the scene and it wasn't yet secure. "While sitting in our cars at the perimeter of the scene, senior police met and decided that a taskforce would be set up to investigate." Initially Taskforce Caroline investigators, comprising members of the MCS and Armed Offenders and Arson squads, had little to go on.
What they did know was that there had been a large explosion in the car park beneath the building, which housed the Turkish consulate, and that at least one person had been killed. The surrounding area was littered with debris that would take days to sift through. "We were conscious that time was critical," Insp Rotherham said.
"We needed time to collect evidence but we didn't have time to wait. "So, over the next few days, we were required to make a number of educated guesses" One of the taskforce's first steps was to attend a briefing by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).
“ASIO was critical in providing the Armenian link” Insp Rotherham said. They said it was likely that the consulate had been targeted by Armenian terrorists as part of ongoing protests against alleged acts of genocide by the Turkish government in the early 1900s. "They also told us that Armenian surnames mostly finish in "ian". "It was after that briefing that we began to look at the bombing as an act of terrorism." A wallet containing a return Ansett bus ticket to Sydney in the name of Jacobsen was one of the first significant items recovered from the scene.
The ticket told investigators that the bomber had most likely arrived in Melbourne by bus and was planning to return. A check of the bus confirmed the empty seat, as well as the suspicion that the bomb had been detonated before planned. At the same time, a numberplate recovered from the scene was traced to a white Torana owned by a Heidelberg couple.
'He couple told investigators they had recently sold it but did not get the name of the male buyer. However, neighbours told police that a "new looking" red Commodore was parked outside the couple's house at the time. Believing it might be a hire car, the records of hire companies around the Ansett bus depot were searched. Investigators soon discovered that a red Commodore had been hired by a male with an “ian” surname - Levon Demirian. The Sydney resident had links with an Armenian terrorist group and quickly became the focus of police efforts. "Over the next few days we hardly slept and travelled to Sydney several times," Insp Rotherham said.
"We knew Demirian was leaving for Beirut with his family on the Wednesday after the bombing so we didn't have a lot of time. "And we still hadn't even established the identity of the deceased person at this stage, although it was believed to be Demirian's associate Hagop Levonian."
Running out of time and needing to act quickly, investigators raided Demirian's home, business and other locations early on Wednesday morning and took Demirian in for questioning. Hotel and meal receipts and other items seized in the raids enabled investigators to connect Demirian to the bombing.
The case against Demirian was clinched by an eight-year-old boy who saw the red Commodore pull up behind the Torana and two men transfer something into the Torana's boot on the night of the bombing. The numberplate the boy remembered matched the one found at the scene.
Meanwhile, Levonian was eventually identified two weeks after the bombing, using a fragment of skin found at the scene. Warrnambool Crime Scene Unit's Peter Pangrazio, a fingerprint expert, was one of many police who searched the scene for evidence. He was particularly looking for fragments of friction ridge skin - the unique skin on the palms of hands and soles of feet.
Ink prints were taken of a skin fragment, about the size of a five-cent coin, found at the scene and then carefully compared to developed prints on books, raffle tickets, letters and invoices seized from Levonian's Sydney home. It was an invoice book that held the vital clue, a palm print from where Levonian held a page down while writing an invoice was a match.
Sgt Pangrazio, then working with the Fingerprint Branch, spent more than two weeks searching for the match and remembers feeling a sense of relief. "We were very fortunate that it was the type of book that required him to hold the pages down quite firmly with his left hand while he was writing because it meant we got a good impression," he said. Demirian faced court in April 1987 charged with murder and conspiracy. After a 13-day trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years with a 10-year minimum. The murder conviction was quashed after a subsequent full Supreme Court appeal. He served 10 years.
“It was the kind of case you never forget” Sgt Pangrazio said. "It was high profile at the time and in the mid 80s you didn't come across a lot of that type of investigation." Insp Rotherham, agreed, saying the bombing came at a time when "the world seemed to be going mad and everything was becoming more complicated". "It really made police look at the way they operated in relation to terrorism," he said. "Terrorism charges didn't even exist at the time, which is why Demirian faced existing criminal charges."
The case also had a personal impact, with Insp Rotherham changing his career path and moving into the counter-terrorism field. "During the investigation we blew up a similar bomb at Puckapunyal. It was an absolutely massive explosion. “I just kept thinking about how lucky it was that many more people weren't killed or injured on that day and how devastating terrorist attacks can potentially be. It was this case that really showed me what terrorists are capable of, and of the importance of working with a team of experienced, dedicated, and professional detectives”.
Items from the bombing investigation are available to view at the Victoria Police Museum, open 10 am to 4pni, Monday to Friday, on the Concourse level, World Trade Centre, 637 Flinders Street, Melbourne. Entry is free. For details, telephone 9247 5213.
POLICE LIFE DECEMBER 2006, www.police.vic.gov.au
The Demirian Case is now a bench mark for other Terrorism Matters it was referred to in the case of R -v- ROCHE [2005] WASCA 4 Have a read of that Judgement and see what their Honours said.
R -v- ROCHE [2005] WASCA 4 (14 January 2005)
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CITATION : R -v- ROCHE [2005] WASCA 4
CORAM : MURRAY ACJ
TEMPLEMAN J
MCKECHNIE J
HEARD : 9 SEPTEMBER 2004
DELIVERED : 14 JANUARY 2005
FILE NO/S : CCA 85 of 2004
BETWEEN : THE QUEEN (Appellant) AND JACK ROCHE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S : CCA 91 of 2004
BETWEEN : JACK ROCHE
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : HEALY DCJ
File No : IND 622 of 2003
52 Secondly, this is [Roche matter] not, in fact, the first case of international terrorism in Australia. In Demirian (1988) 33 A Crim R 441, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Victoria heard, inter alia, an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on Demirian for conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury arising out of an incident at the Turkish Consulate in Melbourne, in 1986.
53 On a Sunday in November of that year, a large bomb which had been placed in the rear of a Holden Torana, exploded in the car park below a building at 44 Caroline Street, South Yarra, causing very substantial damage to that building and to other premises in the vicinity. 44 Caroline Street was used for business purposes. The Turkish Consulate occupied the first floor. Presumably because the offence was committed on a Sunday, the Consulate was unoccupied. There was only one person in the building. He was injured, but not seriously.
54 After the explosion, human remains were found close to the vehicle. It emerged from a detailed scientific investigation that a man had probably been standing alongside the driver's door when the bomb exploded, apparently, prematurely.
55 Demirian was charged with conspiracy and with the murder of the deceased. The Crown case was that Demirian was a party to the agreement with the deceased, and perhaps others, to place and explode the bomb so that it would blow up the building containing the Turkish Consulate.
56 Demirian was convicted of both conspiracy and murder. On appeal, the conviction for conspiracy was upheld and that for murder was quashed. The only remaining issue was whether the sentence imposed on Demirian for the conspiracy was excessive: a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, with no minimum term.
57 In a joint judgment, McGarvie and O'Bryan JJ said:
“The type of activity engaged in by the applicant and others is rare in this country but terrorist acts are commonplace in the country from whence the applicant emigrated to Australia. Unless courts in this country are vigilant in imposing condign sentences for such conduct evil-minded persons might seek to emulate this conduct. The conduct of the applicant in conspiring with others to endanger life and cause serious injury to property by detonating an explosive substance beneath the Consulate brought shame to this country when the bomb exploded. The Turkish nation is a friendly power and members of the Turkish community now assimilated into Australian society were affronted by this evil deed. The heinousness of the crime is accentuated by the fact that the applicant abused the sanctuary this country offered him.
When a crime of such notoriety and heinousness is committed in the name of a political cause this Court is not required to fix a minimum term. The political nature of the offence and its seriousness render the fixing of such a term inappropriate. A sentence imposed in these circumstances should be exceptional to mark the seriousness with which the crime is viewed and therefore no minimum term should be fixed.” (1988 33 A Crim R at p 474)
58 Tadgell J agreed, in relation to that aspect of the appeal (at p 481).
59 The maximum penalty for the offence of which Demirian was convicted was 15 years' imprisonment. The sentence imposed on him was therefore two-thirds of the maximum.
60 In my view, it is not unreasonable to assume that if the maximum penalty in Demirian's case (supra) had been 25 years' imprisonment, a sentence of two thirds of that maximum would have been imposed on him: that is, a sentence of the order of 16 years' imprisonment. It may be assumed also, that if Demirian had succeeded in causing death or serious injury to some person, the sentence would have been more severe, even though the Crown case was that the bomb was placed with the intention of causing death or serious injury, and the knowledge that it would probably do so.
61 The present case (Roche) is distinguishable from Demirian in several respects: the respondent did not commit the substantive offence, he caused no actual harm and he volunteered an account of his involvement to the Federal Police. In my view, a notional adjustment to the sentence imposed on Demirian to take account of those factors would lead one instinctively to a sentence in the region of that suggested by the sentencing Judge as the starting point for the respondent.
62 I consider that the passage in the judgment of McGarvie and O'Bryan JJ in Demirian (supra) set out above, although written some 16 years ago, still reflects the appropriate judicial response to those who would engage in terrorist activities in Australia. Everything said by their Honours about Demirian could have been applied mutatis mutandis to the respondent, had he continued with the conspiracy to the point at which the substantive offence was committed. The respondent could then have expected a much more severe sentence and no minimum term.
Armenians Declare War on Turkiye
Dear Friends,
I just wanted to vent some frustration I have about the Turks in general. Most don't care about how the Armenians are continually attacking our collective reputation with lies and propaganda. They take the old Turkish View, " Whilst the Dog Barks, the Caravan continues along." That is the best way I could translate that but I think most Turks will get the gist. That is if something doesn't affect me directly why should I care I'll just continue along my merry way.
I used the emotive title because it is quite plain to all and sundry that the Armenians did declare war on Turks and Turkey, the irrefutable historical facts tell us that the armed conflict started in or about the 1800's and continued (with their acts of terrorism) until the late 1980's.
They also declared a propaganda war immediately after World War 1 which is gaining momentum as the years go by and Turks continue along their merry way, ignoring the barking dogs. I wonder how long it will be before one of those dogs actually bites Turkey ?
I now note that there is a movie called "Screamers" doing it's rounds in the US and will be coming down under shortly. (Meaning Australia). The movie is about us murderous, barbaric blood thirsty butchers, oh by the way we were incompetent as well because the vast majority that was deported to another part of the EMPIRE actually survived, irrefutable historical fact yet again. But I doubt they will mention we were incompetent in carrying out this grisly genocide.
I also saw whereby in the US they had a Poster Competition for their spurious genocide claims, very artistic indeed. Then I think why have the Turks done nothing for all these years and when will they market the TRUTH.
Why not make a movie about the Malta Tribunals and the fact the Ottoman Empire at the MATERIAL time asked five neutral States to investigate these grisly and heinous allegations. The champions of Morality Switzerland were asked and they declined. No doubt they were getting the banks and financial institutions ready for the real Holocaust and wanted to prepare for all the Gold and plunder of the Nazi's. They needed to make preparations for all those gold teeth and gold rings the Nazi's stole from their Jewish victims.
However, years down the track they outlaw the denial of the bogus Armenian Genocide. I just don't understand it.
Turkey has some of the most wealthiest people in the world surely they could invest in projects like making movies about the Malta Tribunals etc and still make money out of it. You know you don't need Brad Pitt to play Talat Pasha or Enver Pasha.
Or in the alternative how about what the Armenians did in various towns and cities in Eastern Anatolia e.g. the Village of Subatan a place close to my heart because that is where my Grandmother came from. Have a read of the below article and see what the Armenians did there. My Grandmother told us that her and her younger brother were sent away shortly before these atrocities as very young children to other relatives premises. All of her relatives that remained including her Mother and Father were collected by the Armenians taken to a local Mosque and burnt ALIVE.
I would like to see a movie or documentary about that. Have a read of the article below and make up your own minds
Regards
Ataman
ARMENIAN REBELLIONS AND MASSACRES
THE REPORT ON EXCAVATION OF THE MASS-GRAVES IN KARS - SUBATAN
One of the excavations of the mass-graves aiming to explore the events happened in Eastern Anatolia betweeen 1915 and 1918 has been done in Kars-Subatan (Figure 1.) The opening of the mass-graves in Subatan village which is situated near Ani Örenyeri, on the boarders of Turkey-Russia, 28 kilometres in the east of Kars was carried out on Governor of Kars, S.Filtekin, the Mayor of Kars, Prof.Dr.Hursit Ertugrul, the president of Atatürk University, Prof.Dr.Ahmet Cakir, the dean of Science and Literature Faculty of the same university and Prof.Dr.Enver Konukcu, Prof.Dr.Azmi Süslü from Ankara University, Prof.Dr.Metin Özbek from Hacettepe University, Prof.Dr.Fahrettin Kirzioglu From Gazi University, Prof.Dr.Metin Tuncel from Istanbul University, Assoc.Prof.Dr.Abdüsselam Ulucam from 100.Yil University and Ali Ercan, the director of Kars museum.
The excavations in Subatan village which has about 20-30 houses of Moslem population today were carried out in accordance with the oral statements of 120 year old Fariz Öztürk and 95 year old Duraga Öztürk who witnessed the events. They were conducted in a 8x10 meter hole which was opened in the barn in Köseogullari district (Figure 2). The first works were started in A1 hole within the field divided into four separate 4-5 meter areas. The excavation which had been realized in a wide surface first was narrowed down to the inner crosspoint of A1 and B1 holes After having removed the 40 centimeter earth, the first skeletons were found. It was observed that most of these skeletons which were found with some personal belongings belong to children between the age groups of 0-1. Another group of skeletons which was found in 80 centimeters depth in A1 hole displayed quite a shocking scene.
These skeletons which were located in the north-south direction must belong to a mother and her daughter. The woman fell onto her right side and embraced the child with her left arm. The two stroke marks found on the head of the woman prove that they were killed with an axe or some other sharp instrument. The first stroke mark is not as deep as the second one. Both the woman and the child were buried in their clothes. The photograph taken on April 25 th 1918 Another skeleton group was found in the south corner of A1 hole. Only a few of these could be analyzed. As these analyses show, bodies were thrown haphazardly. The rest of the findings were after of a belt, a pair of ear-rings, a number of colored beads of a small necklace; decayed wooden beams and were given to Kars Museum to be displayed in the newly opened Genocide Section for exhibition.
According to the oral statements of the witnesses, Fariz Öztürk and Duraga Öztürk whose statements are supported by the archive documents, the massacre committed by Armenians happened in the following way: The Tashnak-Armenian guerrillas who retreated from Kars and Sarikamis attacked Subatan village where Turkish, Armenian and Greek people lived together were captured wildly without feeling pity. According to the photographs in the archives and findings of the excavations, the women, children and old men who had been killed with axes and bayonets were left in the streets.
The archive documents show that a total of 570 people were murdered in the village. After the withdrawal of Armenians, Turkish soldiers came to the district. The soldiers with the help of survivors collected the corpses, which were decayed and eaten by dogs, to an area and put them in a barn. Due to the hard conditions of that time and lack of time, the bodies were buried together. Some other mass-graves were formed by collapsing the roofs of barns. The archive documents and statements of witnesses show that in three separate mass-graves in Subatan, there are a numbers of martyrs buried. In the barn in Köseogullari district , more than 180, in Tiptip street more than 25 and in the barn which is located in the south of the village mosque more than 350 bodies are buried.
Prof. Dr. Cevat BASARAN Archaeologist
I just wanted to vent some frustration I have about the Turks in general. Most don't care about how the Armenians are continually attacking our collective reputation with lies and propaganda. They take the old Turkish View, " Whilst the Dog Barks, the Caravan continues along." That is the best way I could translate that but I think most Turks will get the gist. That is if something doesn't affect me directly why should I care I'll just continue along my merry way.
I used the emotive title because it is quite plain to all and sundry that the Armenians did declare war on Turks and Turkey, the irrefutable historical facts tell us that the armed conflict started in or about the 1800's and continued (with their acts of terrorism) until the late 1980's.
They also declared a propaganda war immediately after World War 1 which is gaining momentum as the years go by and Turks continue along their merry way, ignoring the barking dogs. I wonder how long it will be before one of those dogs actually bites Turkey ?
I now note that there is a movie called "Screamers" doing it's rounds in the US and will be coming down under shortly. (Meaning Australia). The movie is about us murderous, barbaric blood thirsty butchers, oh by the way we were incompetent as well because the vast majority that was deported to another part of the EMPIRE actually survived, irrefutable historical fact yet again. But I doubt they will mention we were incompetent in carrying out this grisly genocide.
I also saw whereby in the US they had a Poster Competition for their spurious genocide claims, very artistic indeed. Then I think why have the Turks done nothing for all these years and when will they market the TRUTH.
Why not make a movie about the Malta Tribunals and the fact the Ottoman Empire at the MATERIAL time asked five neutral States to investigate these grisly and heinous allegations. The champions of Morality Switzerland were asked and they declined. No doubt they were getting the banks and financial institutions ready for the real Holocaust and wanted to prepare for all the Gold and plunder of the Nazi's. They needed to make preparations for all those gold teeth and gold rings the Nazi's stole from their Jewish victims.
However, years down the track they outlaw the denial of the bogus Armenian Genocide. I just don't understand it.
Turkey has some of the most wealthiest people in the world surely they could invest in projects like making movies about the Malta Tribunals etc and still make money out of it. You know you don't need Brad Pitt to play Talat Pasha or Enver Pasha.
Or in the alternative how about what the Armenians did in various towns and cities in Eastern Anatolia e.g. the Village of Subatan a place close to my heart because that is where my Grandmother came from. Have a read of the below article and see what the Armenians did there. My Grandmother told us that her and her younger brother were sent away shortly before these atrocities as very young children to other relatives premises. All of her relatives that remained including her Mother and Father were collected by the Armenians taken to a local Mosque and burnt ALIVE.
I would like to see a movie or documentary about that. Have a read of the article below and make up your own minds
Regards
Ataman
ARMENIAN REBELLIONS AND MASSACRES
THE REPORT ON EXCAVATION OF THE MASS-GRAVES IN KARS - SUBATAN
One of the excavations of the mass-graves aiming to explore the events happened in Eastern Anatolia betweeen 1915 and 1918 has been done in Kars-Subatan (Figure 1.) The opening of the mass-graves in Subatan village which is situated near Ani Örenyeri, on the boarders of Turkey-Russia, 28 kilometres in the east of Kars was carried out on Governor of Kars, S.Filtekin, the Mayor of Kars, Prof.Dr.Hursit Ertugrul, the president of Atatürk University, Prof.Dr.Ahmet Cakir, the dean of Science and Literature Faculty of the same university and Prof.Dr.Enver Konukcu, Prof.Dr.Azmi Süslü from Ankara University, Prof.Dr.Metin Özbek from Hacettepe University, Prof.Dr.Fahrettin Kirzioglu From Gazi University, Prof.Dr.Metin Tuncel from Istanbul University, Assoc.Prof.Dr.Abdüsselam Ulucam from 100.Yil University and Ali Ercan, the director of Kars museum.
The excavations in Subatan village which has about 20-30 houses of Moslem population today were carried out in accordance with the oral statements of 120 year old Fariz Öztürk and 95 year old Duraga Öztürk who witnessed the events. They were conducted in a 8x10 meter hole which was opened in the barn in Köseogullari district (Figure 2). The first works were started in A1 hole within the field divided into four separate 4-5 meter areas. The excavation which had been realized in a wide surface first was narrowed down to the inner crosspoint of A1 and B1 holes After having removed the 40 centimeter earth, the first skeletons were found. It was observed that most of these skeletons which were found with some personal belongings belong to children between the age groups of 0-1. Another group of skeletons which was found in 80 centimeters depth in A1 hole displayed quite a shocking scene.
These skeletons which were located in the north-south direction must belong to a mother and her daughter. The woman fell onto her right side and embraced the child with her left arm. The two stroke marks found on the head of the woman prove that they were killed with an axe or some other sharp instrument. The first stroke mark is not as deep as the second one. Both the woman and the child were buried in their clothes. The photograph taken on April 25 th 1918 Another skeleton group was found in the south corner of A1 hole. Only a few of these could be analyzed. As these analyses show, bodies were thrown haphazardly. The rest of the findings were after of a belt, a pair of ear-rings, a number of colored beads of a small necklace; decayed wooden beams and were given to Kars Museum to be displayed in the newly opened Genocide Section for exhibition.
According to the oral statements of the witnesses, Fariz Öztürk and Duraga Öztürk whose statements are supported by the archive documents, the massacre committed by Armenians happened in the following way: The Tashnak-Armenian guerrillas who retreated from Kars and Sarikamis attacked Subatan village where Turkish, Armenian and Greek people lived together were captured wildly without feeling pity. According to the photographs in the archives and findings of the excavations, the women, children and old men who had been killed with axes and bayonets were left in the streets.
The archive documents show that a total of 570 people were murdered in the village. After the withdrawal of Armenians, Turkish soldiers came to the district. The soldiers with the help of survivors collected the corpses, which were decayed and eaten by dogs, to an area and put them in a barn. Due to the hard conditions of that time and lack of time, the bodies were buried together. Some other mass-graves were formed by collapsing the roofs of barns. The archive documents and statements of witnesses show that in three separate mass-graves in Subatan, there are a numbers of martyrs buried. In the barn in Köseogullari district , more than 180, in Tiptip street more than 25 and in the barn which is located in the south of the village mosque more than 350 bodies are buried.
Prof. Dr. Cevat BASARAN Archaeologist
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
Devlet Bahceli and 'Far Right' Politics in Turkey, 1999–2002 (I)
Dear Friends,
Have a read of the independent article written below about the President of the MHP, I don't know about you guys but if half of what is written below is true about the man than it would be an honour to have him lead any nation in the world. He appears to have Honour, Integrity, Intelligence all with a down to earth personality. Have a read of the full article then make up your own minds.
Regards
Ataman Atlas
By METIN HEPER & BASAK INCE 24 March 2007
Academic Staff of Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences BILKENT UNIVERSITY
Metin Heper
Professor Ph.D., Public Administration, Syracuse University, 1971. Turkish politics, comparative state politics and bureaucracy.
Basak Ince
Instructor M.Sc., Government, London School of Economics, 2000. Comparative politics and Turkish politics.
In several Western European democracies one of the significant political developments of the post-1980 period was the emergence of a far right characterized by ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and strong state. The Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Oster Reich – FPO) of Jorg Haider, the Belgian Flemish Bloc (Vlaams Blok – VB) of first Karel Dillen and later of Fhilip Dewinter and Gerolf Annemans, and the French National Front (Front Nationale – FN) of Jean Marie Le Pen are the obvious examples. The movements these parties have spearheaded display xenophobic tendencies. Le Pen, Dillen and Haider share a vision of 'New Europe' based on 'racial' exclusivity rather than democratic citizenship and equal rights for everyone.
Most of the literature on far right parties in Europe portrays the history of either one far right party or far right parties in a single country. Only fairly recently have comparative studies about far right parties been undertaken. However, none of these studies has taken up the far right in Turkey. The present article purports to fill this vacuum.
A study of the far right in Turkey of 1999–2002 is particularly in order. In Europe, the far right as represented by political parties continued to evince in particular strong xenophobia and a certain degree of authoritarianism, both of which derive from its ethno-nationalistic tendencies. In Turkey the far-right as a political party has never subscribed to ethno-nationalism; from the 1980 onwards it started to rid itself of its authoritarianism and militancy; and, during the late 1990s, it became a respected member of the political establishment.
During the late 1960s and the 1970s, the MHP (Milliyetci Hareket Partisi) was a militant rightist party. It was often engaged in political violence 'in order to ward off the communist threat'. At the time youth organizations with Turkist leanings, which had the self-designated mission of elevating the nation morally and making it stronger, proliferated and were engaged in armed conflict with the leftists. This bloody confrontation reached its peak in the late 1970s. In the process, a number of college professors, politicians, and journalists known as leftists lost their lives.
We already have a number of studies on the new MHP, which invariably portray the past as well as present MHP as an ultra-nationalist political party and its leaders as having had and continuing to have far right views. These studies suggest that among other things both Turkes¸ and Bahceli have had ethno-nationalist leanings. The present essay takes up this issue by focusing its attention on Bahceli. A detailed study of Bahceli as a person and as a politician is particularly important because the MHP has had virtually no autonomous life separate first from Turkes¸ and, during recent years, from Bahceli. It is true that all political leaders in Turkey have a strong grip on their parties. That hold has been particularly firm in the case of Bahceli probably because he always had the difficult task of keeping at bay some remaining militant nationalists, particularly among the rank and file of the MHP.
Thus, below, first we take up Bahceli's personality and its impact on his politics in general and his nationalism in particular. Secondly, we examine Bahceli's politics and nationalism in order to gauge the extent to which they evince pro-system characteristics. In our discussion of Bahceli's nationalism we at times draw attention to some contrasts between him and his counterparts in Austria, Belgium, and France. Finally, we suggest some explanations for the different configurations of the far right in Turkey and in some European countries.
Bahceli comes from the large and well respected Fettahlıoglu family. For the family such traditional values as respect for elders have always been important. Bahceli considers his brother, who is only a few years older than himself, as his 'father', a term used in Turkey to express respect towards older people.
There are strong ties among the members of the large Bahceli family. The family estates are divided among the family members, yet they do not have separate deeds. Bahceli appreciated the fact that, while he was attending high school in Istanbul, the members of the Fettahlıoglu family living in Istanbul invited him to their houses so that he could have home-cooked food.
In all probability because of his having been socialized into the value system prevalent in his close-knit family, Bahceli values traditions and indigenous values in politics. He has a genuine affection as well as respect for people. He feels a great sense of responsibility towards them. Consequently, Bahceli perceives the MHP as a centrist party, representing the whole nation and acting in its service. In his own words, 'the MHP is a product of the Turkish nation's authentic and well-rooted values and preferences … It endeavors to safeguard the nation's moral and cultural values … It embraces the whole nation.'
The Bahceli family is well respected. The family members shun materialism, opportunism, selfishness and unprincipled behavior, which in recent decades have become rather widespread in Turkish society and politics. One of Bahceli's brothers once pointed out that their father held Ismet Inonu (prime minister in 1924–38, president in 1938–50, and again prime minister in 1961–64) in high esteem. The brother talked of Inonu as a symbol of honesty.
Islam seems to be another source for the values the family holds dear. Bahceli has often made reference to a Hadith, a saying of Prophet Muhammad: 'Islam equals good morality.' In his opinion, religious holidays are good opportunities to cement social solidarity, which, in his estimation, has both moral and socio-economic dimensions. Bahceli distributed his salary as a fellowship to the needy students at the Academy of Economics and Commerce (later Gazi University) in Ankara, where he taught economics from 1982 until 1987. Later, he paid the salaries of some party functionaries out of his own pocket.
In politics, however, Bahceli stays away from political populism and, therefore, from political patronage and clientelism. He avoids delivering goods and services to specific individuals and groups for the sole purpose of garnering votes and bringing those personally close to him to important posts unless they have the necessary qualifications. Bahceli thinks public policies should be developed for the long-term interests of the country, and not for short-term political gain. As compared with other political parties in Turkey, while in power the MHP displayed moderation in appointing that party's supporters to posts in the higher echelons of the public bureaucracy.
Bahceli is also a reserved person. Not unlike his aversion to populism, Bahceli keeps his distance from people, including those he knows well. This type of behavior on his part seems to be also the consequence of his modernistic approach to life. For instance, he does not like to be kissed on the cheeks by other men or to be touched on the arm by others during a conversation, both being usual behavior among most people in Turkey. In contrast to Le Pen, who is viewed by many as a 'talented demagogue.' Bahceli does not try to appeal to people's feelings and emotions; he targets their intellect and logic.
Not unrelated, Bahceli takes life seriously, perhaps too seriously. In politics one hardly sees him smiling, let alone laughing. He once said, 'I too laugh. However, it is not proper to smile or laugh when you discuss serious matters.' On public issues, he does not have informal conversations even with those cabinet ministers who have been his close friends for a long time.
Bahceli has a Ph.D. in economics. He is a well-read as well as a contemplative person. His motto has always been 'science, contemplation, and belief.' He has a large personal library. He once advised some young members of the MHP to read Das Kapital, arguing that it is necessary to know leftist ideology even better than the leftists. Not unexpectedly, Bahceli's happiest moments are when he is at home with his books. Probably for this reason and also because he is a modest person, Bahceli keeps a low profile. Very few knew of him until Turkes¸ died. At the time, Bahceli did not, for instance, appear on TV shows and press conferences.
As a contemplative person Bahceli takes lessons from past events in general and from his own mistakes in particular. When on one occasion a party member was physically barred from placing his candidature for presidency (because the party opposed the member's running), Bahceli said: 'it was a very unfortunate event. It should not have happened…
We should now take measures so that such events would not repeat themselves in the future.'
As a knowledgeable person, Bahceli is open to change. Over the years, first he himself has gone through a significant mutation. He shaved his beard, and stopped using cigarette holders and carrying prayer beads – traditionally all have been symbols of the nationalists in Turkey. In his opinion, 'The MHP [too] is a link [not only] between yesterday and today, and [also] between today and tomorrow.'
According to Bahceli, 'Today's Turkey is not the Turkey of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.' The main theme of the November 2000 MHP Congress was 'Contract with the [New] Century.' It was significant that at the Congress the need to develop novel solutions to old problems was underlined. It was also pointed out that political movements that have strong roots and important missions should not mutate to become altogether different movements. Bahceli justifies this stance by arguing that 'advanced nations [too] … reconcile their traditional and national values with new developments.'
It is not surprising that Bahceli avoids polar views, which are by their nature difficult to change. In his opinion, 'politics is an art of establishing a link between what is ideal and what is possible.' On the whole he adopts a middle-of-the-road approach to every issue. On the economy–democracy relationship, he thinks that 'economic growth is a prerequisite for Turkey to catch up with advanced countries.
Yet equally important is to achieve this goal within a democratic system of government.' Concerning the Islam–state confrontation in Turkey, Bahceli disapproves of both those who have an inclination for political Islam (the efforts to make Islam shape public law and public policy) and those who bring limitations to the manner in which people wish to live their religion on a day-to-day basis. On another ongoing conflict in that country – 'the one between the 'republicans' (who place virtually sole emphasis on the long-term interests of the country) and 'democrats' (who, on the contrary, put almost sole stress on particularistic interests) – Bahceli again has a balanced approach. He once remarked: 'There cannot be a republic without democracy and a democracy without republic.'
On the last point Bahceli was echoing Giovanni Sartori, who argued that democracy would be viable if there was a balance between its 'vertical' (political responsibility) and 'horizontal' (political participation) dimensions. Accordingly, on the one hand, Bahceli thinks that 'closing of political parties should be an exception rather than the rule' and, on the other hand, he is of the opinion that 'no person and no institution, including political parties, should be able to commit an offence and get away with it.'
One may surmise that subscribing to high moral standards led Bahceli to have an idealistic approach to politics. He once observed: 'For us political office is not a matter of life or death. Politics is not a competition to grab power for its own sake . . . Politics is a means of serving the country, and it should be carried out with a view to political ethics.' In Bahceli's list of priorities the country comes first, the party second, and his personal political fortune (a distant) third.
True to his word, while in office Bahceli has displayed a principled conduct in political life. When his party came second in the 1999 general elections, some members of parliament from other political parties wished to join the MHP. Despite the fact that such transfers to his party would have resulted in the MHP commanding the largest number of deputies in parliament and in Bahceli becoming prime minister, he refused the offers right away. He pointed out that he could not act against the preferences of the electorate. Later, Bahceli acquiesced to the changing of horses in mid-stream only when it would not significantly promote the fortunes of his party; even then he insisted that those who wish to join the MHP should demonstrate that they have fully internalized the MHP philosophy. Bahceli has done his best to keep his promises to the people. One of those promises was to fully punish Abdullah Ocalan who for years orchestrated the PKK (Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan) terror in Turkey. Thus, although he has been not against the lifting of the death penalty in Turkey in the foreseeable future, he has been adamant that the death sentence given to Ocalan by the court should be carried out.
In Bahceli's view, principled conduct in political life is dependent upon acting in conformity with well-established rules. He thinks such conformity would make the accomplishment of a mission possible. On one occasion, at a meeting of the leaders of the 1999–2002 coalition government it was decided that the provision for the death penalty should be removed from the Criminal Code, but not immediately.
Then Mesut Yılmaz, the other deputy prime minister in the coalition government, who at the time was responsible for European Union affairs, insisted that the provision in question should be abrogated at once. Bahceli immediately opposed it; he invited Yılmaz to respect the decision made earlier by the coalition leaders and not waver from it for political gain. One can note other examples of Bahceli's principled conduct in politics. For instance, he did not sign critical documents whenever he served in the capacity of acting prime minister (for instance, when the prime minister was out of the country). Similarly he asked the MHP parliamentarians not to tender bids for public contracts. Before the 1999 national elections, when the party was in dire need of money and some businessmen offered help, Bahceli immediately rejected them.
While Bahceli insisted that politics should be conducted in conformity with well established rules, he was at the same time ready to compromise if the long-term interest of the country warranted it. He placed emphasis on the politics of harmony, and shunned polar views. In all probability as a reaction to recent conflict-ridden decades in Turkey he once declared: 'Turkey does not want conflict'. Bahceli pointed out that the first priority of the MHP in politics was dialogue and consensus.
He referred to the post-1999 general election coalition government that his party joined as a 'government of compromise and reform' (uzlasma ve atılım hukumeti).
When some of the rank-and-file members in the MHP criticized him for acting in an overly conciliatory manner towards other coalition partners, he offered the following thoughts:
For the long-term interests of the country we as members of a coalition government have to put up with each other. Where you a have a coalition government none of the parties in that government can pursue policies that only it favors. Thorny issues would be resolved and we would have an effective Devlet Bahceli and 'Far Right' Politics in Turkey 877 government only if we can manage to meet at some common ground that all of us can live with.
Bahceli's readiness to compromise came out quite clearly in how he conducted himself in the Ocalan case. As noted, in principle Bahceli has always been against the death penalty. However, he did not immediately support the removal of the related Article 125 of the Turkish Criminal Code. It was because during the 1999 election campaign he had promised the people that should Ocalan be captured and the courts sentence him to death his party would vote for the execution of that penalty when the case came to parliament for the approval of the sentence. Later Ocalan was captured and sentenced to capital punishment. The case was in the hands of the European Court of Human Rights. At the same time Turkey faced the critical decision of whether or not it was going to strike out the death penalty from the Criminal Code. Its removal from the Criminal Code had been set by the European Union as one of the preconditions for Turkey's full accession to the Union. Bahceli has extricated himself from this difficult situation by notifying his coalition partners that the MHP would continue to oppose the amendment when it is taken up by parliament; however, if the amendment is adopted by the votes of the other coalition members as well as those of the opposition the MHP would not terminate the coalition.
If for Bahceli compromise was impossible, rather than causing a deadlock and thus creating immobility in government, he preferred to place the issue on the backburner. He acted in this manner concerning, for instance, the long-simmering headscarf issue. In Turkey, the headscarf is banned in public buildings, including the universities. This is because it is considered a symbol of political Islam. The military, in particular, tends towards this view. Because of his respect for people's religious preferences and aspirations, Bahceli has not looked on the ban sympathetically. Yet, for the sake of maintaining political stability in the country he has not insisted on the immediate removal of the ban. In fact, he asked a female MHP deputy, Ms. Nesrin Unal, to take off her headscarf when attending plenary sessions in parliament. Ms. Unal complied. In line with the emphasis he places on harmony Bahceli also came up with the following advice to the cabinet ministers from his party: 'Always act in a courteous manner to others; do not allow others to make you act in a manner you would later regret; think twice before saying something that you may later regret; never act on the spur of the moment; ignore criticism and even vicious attacks; do not argue with others in public'.
As Bahceli values the politics of harmony and therefore consensus, according to him coalition governments should be formed by those parties which are most agreed on the nature of the important problems the country faces and on the broad outlines of the policies to deal with those problems. He has expressed this preference by pointing out that he is 'for a coalition of principles, and not for a coalition of [any odd set of] political parties'. He does not hesitate to dismiss cabinet ministers from the MHP if, in his opinion, they disrupt the smooth functioning of the government. One example here was the case of Mr. Enis Oksuz, the then minister of transport, who made no effort to find common ground with Mr. Kemal Dervis¸ then minister of state responsible for the economy, on the privatization of the Turkish Telecommunications Agency. According to Bahceli, political competition should primarily revolve around 'policy' and not 'politics' (the latter defined as activities aimed at capturing and maintaining political office). He thinks that in Turkey on the whole the reverse obtains. He has argued that in Turkey democracy is a 'speech democracy'; politicians do not study and debate issues carefully in order to find the best solutions to them.
Bahceli thinks that the political parties in opposition also have a responsibility to suggest alternative policies for solving the problems the country faces. This is, of course, what opposition parties do in established democracies. In Turkey, however, this particular view of Bahceli comes out as a novel idea because in that country political parties in opposition usually strongly criticize each and every government policy and then turn around and ask people to 'try themselves', without presenting their own alternative policies and without explaining why their policies are better than the ones the government pursues. Bahceli thinks the political strategy adopted by the opposition parties in Turkey is political opportunism par excellence. In his opinion, 'Drawing lessons from constructive criticism is a characteristic of politics based on virtue and of responsible statesmanship'.
Bahceli also wishes to see politics revolve around competing policies about everyday problems rather than around 'high politics', that is, the issues concerning the political regime itself and its basic priorities. Just as Dankwart A. Rustow suggested more than three decades ago, Bahceli too is of the opinion that consensus on matters that properly belong to 'high politics' is a prerequisite for a healthily functioning democracy. Being a moralist, an intellectual and an honest person, Bahceli thinks Turkish politics and democracy suffer from low intellectual levels of political actors, political corruption and the lack of principled conduct in politics. According to him, under the circumstances, politics in Turkey does not turn out to be a competition to solve problems and thus serve the country. Thus Bahceli argues that 'there is a need for national concordance (milli uzlasma) on a democratic republic, social justice, the rule of law, and a secular state that acts as the guardian of the freedom of conscience as well as of Turkey's unitary state structure and territorial integrity'. Also according to Bahceli, 'in contemporary democracies [such issues as] cultural and ethnic differences among the people is no longer the stuff of political conflict. Today, democracy has left behind political cleavages based on religion, sect, and race. Presently one comes across in democracies a careful balance between conflict and consensus'.
Bahceli also wishes to see politics revolve around competing policies about everyday problems rather than around 'high politics', that is, the issues concerning the political regime itself and its basic priorities. Just as Dankwart A. Rustow suggested more than three decades ago, Bahceli too is of the opinion that consensus on matters that properly belong to 'high politics' is a prerequisite for a healthily functioning democracy. Being a moralist, an intellectual and an honest person, Bahceli thinks Turkish politics and democracy suffer from low intellectual levels of political actors, political corruption and the lack of principled conduct in politics. According to him, under the circumstances, politics in Turkey does not turn out to be a competition to solve problems and thus serve the country. Thus Bahceli argues that 'there is a need for national concordance (milli uzlasma) on a democratic republic, social justice, the rule of law, and a secular state that acts as the guardian of the freedom of conscience as well as of Turkey's unitary state structure and territorial integrity'. Also according to Bahceli, 'in contemporary democracies [such issues as] cultural and ethnic differences among the people is no longer the stuff of political conflict. Today, democracy has left behind political cleavages based on religion, sect, and race. Presently one comes across in democracies a careful balance between conflict and consensus'.
Just as was the case during the single-party years in Turkey (1923–45), during the following multi-party period, too, 'cultural' rather than 'functional cleavages' continued to be salient. The controversies among the political elite, as well as the intelligentsia, about secularism versus Islam, hard ideologies on the right and the left, the proper role of the military in politics, and the issue of the state versus civil society continued to dominate politics and, at times, led to the military taking power into its own hands. Even today, the Turkish military's influence in politics is far beyond the role militaries in established democracies play. Bahceli too has pointed to this particular characteristic of Turkish politics and has expressed his dissatisfaction with it: Past events, beliefs, ethnic sensitivities, and current political and ideological conflict continue to be the primary weapons that politicians [in this country] frequently brandish against each other. This leads to an overlap between ethnic and cultural fault lines on the one hand and political cleavage and conflict on the other.
Devlet Bahceli and 'Far Right' Politics in Turkey 879 It must be for this reason that Bahceli calls on the political elite in Turkey to leave behind their 'old blood feuds'.
As a nationalist, Bahceli has a longing for a prosperous Turkey that can effectively provide for its external security in the face of threats posed by most of its neighbors in the unstable Balkans and the Middle East. He envisions a Turkey that can successfully compete in the globalized international markets. According to Bahceli, however, in order to attain such strength and prosperity Turkey should first substitute 'normal politics' for high politics. He thus calls for a consensus amongst the political elite on constitutional issues and on the basic priorities of the state as well as on democratic principles. Bahceli hopes the said elite would focus their attention exclusively on such currently pressing problems in Turkey as the overhauling of the economy (so that the country will not again face severe economic crises like the ones it encountered in November 2000 and February 2001) and the accession of Turkey to the EU as a full member.
Bahceli's nationalism is based on neither 'race, nor ethnicity, nor imperialism'. His nationalism derives from measured patriotism. Consequently, the November 2000 MHP Congress condemned irredentist-ethnic nationalism. Bahceli opposes even the term 'nationalism', preferring 'national' because in his view while the former is an exclusive, thus a discriminatory term, the latter is an inclusive, thus a nondiscriminatory term. The 2000 Program of the MHP defined nation as a social entity with (1) a will to live together, (2) a feeling of common fate and common future, and (3) a belief that in the community of nations each nation has a sui generis identity.
Thus, while Bahceli subscribes to cultural nationalism, i.e. those who essentially share a common culture make a nation, Le Pen and Belgium's Flemish Bloc have tended towards ethno-nationalism. For Le Pen, belonging to the French nation is marked by 'linear descent'. According to the Flemish Bloc, the nation is defined as a group of people that share, among other things, an 'ethnic origin'. In contrast, Bahceli once stated: 'It is not important which particular identity the [Kurdish] people in the southeast [of Turkey] feel they belong to. What is important is that they should think that Turkey is indispensable for them'. Concerning this issue, on one occasion he also quoted from Sufi mystic poet Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi (1207–73): 'Not those who speak the same language but those who share the same culture and mission would get along well!'
There is a sharp contrast between Bahceli's attitude towards (what would usually be considered as) the 'other' and that of Le Pen who had once said, 'I prefer my daughters to my cousins, my cousins to my neighbors, and my neighbors to strangers', and who on another occasion had even stated that the gas chambers during the Second World War were nothing more than a detail of history. Le Pen's anti-Semitic discourse is criticized even in his own party. Le Pen calls for a 'France for the French' because of his hatred for immigrants. Not unlike Le Pen, Haider too had no sympathy towards those of non-Austrian ethnic descent. According to him, threats to national unity were no longer the 'Slavic barbarians or Jews, but immigrants'. The Belgian Flemish Bloc has adopted a similar line towards non- Flemings. According to the party, in the ethnic hierarchy in Belgium the Flemings were on top. Immediately below them were Dutchmen and Dutch South Africans. Then came assimilated Flemings of Brussels, Wallonia and French Flanders. European foreigners followed these groups. At the bottom of the ethnic hierarchy were the non-European foreigners.
In contrast, Bahceli does not insist on having an ethnically homogenous Turkish nation. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, a group of rightist intellectuals in Turkey argued that the country did not have distinct ethnic groups, and that the Kurds were no more than 'mountain Turks' (who lived in the highlands in south-eastern Turkey) and who had forgotten their earlier Turkish ethnic identity. Then, as noted, for a while Turkes¸ too had toyed with the idea of ethnic nationalism by claiming that those with a different accent could not be considered as Turks. Bahceli's views are far removed from such 'ethnic parentheses' in the Turkish political evolution. He argues that 'every country evinces a mosaic of cultures though in different degrees. What is required is that those who belong to one of those cultures should feel themselves as also belonging to the larger political entity and demonstrate loyalty to that entity. The state in its turn should not try to eliminate distinct cultures'.
Not only does Bahceli take the mosaic of cultures in a country as a fact of life, but he also welcomes it: 'We consider regional and traditional differences in our country as the richness of our national life'. Consequently, he has no prejudices towards those with a different cultural identity: 'It does not disturb us if one calls a Kurd a ''Kurd''. We have Kurds in the MHP, too. We are against using the term ''Turk'' in a discriminatory manner. We ourselves do not use it in that sense. For us the term ''Turk'' is a nominal term for people living in this country. It is an all embracing concept'. Bahceli takes the term 'Turk' as a reference, not as a definition.
Not unexpectedly, Bahceli does not think a political party should represent only one distinct ethnic group. While deputy prime minister, Bahceli had cordial relations with the Kurdish oriented People's Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – HADEP). In September 2000, he visited the local headquarters of the party in Diyarbakır (the most important city in the south-east) and applauded a speech made by the HADEP mayor of the city. When he was asked why he had approved of the mayor's speech, Bahceli responded by saying that the mayor was for a unitary state.
The goal the MHP pursues today is that of elevating Turkey to the level of contemporary civilization. Earlier, by adopting the idea of the so-called 'Turkish– Islamic Synthesis', the MHP had taken Islamic morality and virtue as one of the critical elements that would provide the necessary impetus for that transition to take place. Presently, the MHP places less emphasis on Islam. Bahceli perceives nationalism as adequate to 'inject idealism and enthusiasm to the project of rendering Turkey a leading country in the twenty-first century'.
Bahceli's nationalism has a human face. According to Bahceli, nationalism should be complemented by democracy that, in his view, would 'foster respect for different views and ideas and [thus] make a significant contribution to social peace and harmony'. On the other hand, at least from 2000 onwards, the reference to the Turkish–Islamic Synthesis was replaced by the discourse of 'moral and humanitarian concerns . . . that form the premise on which Turkish nationalism has been built'.
Bahceli's nationalism has also been open to the outside world. As he put it, 'If there is a national state, there would be a national identity; if there is a national identity there would be nationalism. However, this would not mean Turkish nationalism turning inward'. Bahceli's MHP states that 'Turkey should adopt universal values'. The party perceives globalization as an indispensable fact of life and thus, at least in principle, has no qualms about it: 'One can no longer ignore and even belittle the phenomenon of globalization that manifests itself as the free movement of capital, financial and technological innovations, competitive markets, and open society'. In Bahceli's opinion, globalization is not alien to the MHP philosophy:
Our nationalism underlines the equality of nations, cooperation among them, and global justice . . . The motto of our nationalism is 'Live and Let Live'; thus, our national ideals would induce us to make contributions to the goals derived from the emerging global values. The MHP supports every project that would bring peace and happiness to the Turkish nation and the whole of humanity. Anxious to create a more prosperous Turkey, Bahceli thinks the Turkish economy should be fully integrated with the world economy. He once pointed out that amongst the largest 500 companies in the world there are only two Turkish companies, and that their numbers should increase.
Bahceli is of the opinion that 'Turkey's accession to the EU [as a full member] will be more meaningful and significant than that of several other countries'. Here Bahceli must have in mind the fact that Turkey has a western leaning that harks back to the end of the eighteenth century, and it is as a consequence of this that Turkey is the only Muslim country that has adopted democracy as a way of life.
In contrast to Bahceli's hope that Turkey will soon become a full member of the EU, Le Pen and Haider have reservations concerning the EU. In 1991, the French National Front perceived European integration as a danger for France. At the time, it stated that 'the Europe of Brussels is constructed around an institutional framework inspired by the American federal model that would lead to the disappearance of the sovereign states and peoples'. Upon the adoption of the Single European Act and the Maastrict Treaty the party turned aggressively anti-European and opposed the economic and political integration of Europe. It believed in 'French France in a European Europe' and campaigned against both Maastricht and the Euro. In Austria, the Freedom Party has been the forerunner in the populist opposition to the increasing central power of Brussels and to the introduction of a common currency. Although Bahceli thinks Turkey should adapt itself to the emerging values of globalization, in his view Turkey should not allow the latter development to have an adverse effect on the country: 'Turkey should integrate with the globalizing world without sacrificing national and moral values'. This is because while on the one hand Bahceli upholds peace, humanitarian values, modernity, democracy and freedom of speech, on the other hand he stresses the importance of national sovereignty, loyalty to nationally sacred objects, vigilance concerning internal and external security threats, and thus national unity.
Not unlike Bahceli, Le Pen wishes France to safeguard its cultural identity in the face of European integration. However, unlike Bahceli Le Pen does not reconcile his views on this matter with the requisites of democracy. His National Front rejects libertarian values in political matters while Le Pen himself has strong authoritarian tendencies.
Bahceli thinks that humanity would live in peace and harmony if the relations among nations were based on global justice. He observes that: It would be misleading to perceive the movement of capital, financial and technological innovations, competitive markets, and open society as the final stage of human destiny and global Right. Globalization in its present form needs to be complemented by the emergence of a new morality . . . Globalization as an ideal would be fully realized if it displays respect towards national and moral values and if it does not disrupt stable democracies by having disorienting effects upon the social contexts on which those democracies are based.
Bahceli thinks that some foreign countries' efforts to promote Kurdish national aspirations would work against the efforts to consolidate democracy in Turkey. It would lead to the emergence of a new cultural cleavage, which would be difficult to resolve by democratic means. Such thinking on his part leads Bahceli to adopt a critical attitude towards western countries in general and the EU countries in particular. He argues that even those countries that have established democracies and thus do not experience regional problems on the scale and severity that Turkey has faced during recent decades, approach ethnic problems with a view to civic nationalism and equality before the law. He therefore finds it difficult to understand why those same countries insist that Turkey should grant minority rights to some of its citizens. Bahceli finds this preoccupation on the part of the said countries unacceptable because, he says, for years Turkey faced subversive terror, which in economic terms alone dealt the country an enormous blow. He thinks the EU should make a definitive distinction between terrorism and human rights. This is what on one occasion he stated on this issue: 'The EU should not tie Turkey's accession to the Union as a full member to a murderer [Ocalan]. They should not display a double standard concerning terrorism, which is looked upon in all international legal charters as an act against humanity . . . In short, the EU should refrain from engaging in unjust behavior against the Turks'.
In Bahceli's opinion, globalization is not alien to the MHP philosophy:
"Our nationalism underlines the equality of nations, cooperation among them, and global justice ... The motto of our nationalism is 'Live and Let Live;' thus, our national ideals would induce us to make contributions to the goals derived from the emerging global values. The MHP supports every project that would bring peace and happiness to the Turkish nation and the whole of humanity." Anxious to create a more prosperous Turkey, Bahceli thinks the Turkish economy should be fully integrated with the world economy. He once pointed out that amongst the largest 500 companies in the world there are only two Turkish companies, and that their numbers should increase.
Bahceli is of the opinion that "Turkey's accession to the EU (as a full member) will be more meaningful and significant than that of several other countries." Here Bahceli must have in mind the fact that Turkey has a western leaning that harks back to the end of the eighteenth century, and it is as a consequence of this that Turkey is the only Muslim country that has adopted democracy as a way of life.
In contrast to Bahceli's hope that Turkey will soon become a full member of the EU, Le Pen and Haider have reservations concerning the EU. In 1991, the French National Front perceived European integration as a danger for France. At the time, it stated that "the Europe of Brussels is constructed around an institutional framework inspired by the American federal model that would lead to the disappearance of the sovereign states and peoples." Upon the adoption of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty the party turned aggressively anti-European and opposed the economic and political integration of Europe. It believed in "French France in a European Europe" and campaigned against both Maastricht and the Euro. In Austria, the Freedom Party has been the forerunner in the populist opposition to the increasing central power of Brussels and to the introduction of a common currency. Although Bahceli thinks Turkey should adapt itself to the emerging values of globalization, in his view Turkey should not allow the latter development to have an adverse effect on the country: "Turkey should integrate with the globalizing world without sacrificing national and moral values." This is because while on the one hand Bahceli upholds peace, humanitarian values, modernity, democracy and freedom of speech, on the other hand he stresses the importance of national sovereignty, loyalty to nationally sacred objects, vigilance concerning internal and external security threats, and thus national unity.
Not unlike Bahceli, Le Pen wishes France to safeguard its cultural identity in the face of European integration. However, unlike Bahceli Le Pen does not reconcile his views on this matter with the requisites of democracy. His National Front rejects libertarian values in political matters while Le Pen himself has strong authoritarian tendencies.
Bahceli thinks that humanity would live in peace and harmony if the relations among nations were based on global justice. He observes that: It would be misleading to perceive the movement of capital, financial and technological innovations, competitive markets, and open society as the final stage of human destiny and global right. Globalization in its present form needs to be complemented by the emergence of a new morality ... Globalization as an ideal would be fully realized if it displays respect towards national and moral values and if it does not disrupt stable democracies by having disorienting effects upon the social contexts on which those democracies are based.
Bahceli thinks that some foreign countries' efforts to promote Kurdish national aspirations would work against the efforts to consolidate democracy in Turkey. It would lead to the emergence of a new cultural cleavage, which would be difficult to resolve by democratic means. Such thinking on his part leads Bahceli to adopt a critical attitude towards western countries in general and the EU countries in particular. He argues that even those countries that have established democracies and thus do not experience regional problems on the scale and severity that Turkey has faced during recent decades, approach ethnic problems with a view to civic nationalism and equality before the law. He therefore finds it difficult to understand why those same countries insist that Turkey should grant minority rights to some of its citizens. Bahceli finds this preoccupation on the part of the said countries unacceptable because, he says, for years Turkey faced subversive terror, which in economic terms alone dealt the country an enormous blow. He thinks the EU should make a definitive distinction between terrorism and human rights. This is what on one occasion he stated on this issue: "The EU should not tie Turkey's accession to the Union as a full member to a murderer (Ocalan). They should not display a double standard concerning terrorism, which is looked upon in all international legal charters as an act against humanity ... In short, the EU should refrain from engaging in unjust behavior against the Turks."
The views of Bahceli's MHP on Turkey's foreign policy rest on the principles of justice, political equality and mutual protection of national interests. Until the early 1990s the MHP had kept its distance from the EU. Since then the party has adopted a closer but cautious policy towards the EU. Bahceli concludes that in its relations with the Union Turkey should adopt a middle-of-the-road approach: He emphatically points out that "Turkey should neither terminate its ties with the West, nor should it be a slave of the West."
In the 2002 presidential elections in France, all other parties formed an alliance to stop Le Pen's National Front. Following the 1999 national elections in Austria, Haider was forced by the EU to resign. And following the 1999 national and 2000 local elections in Belgium other political parties did not wish to form a coalition government with the Flemish Bloc. In contrast, in the wake of the 1999 national elections in Turkey, the MHP joined a coalition with a democratic leftist party (DSP) and a liberal rightist political party (ANAP), and Bahceli became deputy prime minister. It is true that in the Ocalan case and Turkey-EU relations Bahceli and the MHP policies were colored by nationalism; however, the nationalism in question was not ethno-nationalism; it was again a nationalism based on patriotism.
Why have the far right in such countries as Austria, Belgium and France continued to evince strong signs of ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and strong state while concerning the "far right" in Turkey racism and xenophobia were never on the agenda and ethno-nationalism and authoritarianism were no more than "parentheses" in its evolution from the 1960s to the present so that Bahceli could render the MHP a dignified member of the Turkish polity? Here it should be remembered that while in the Europe of the nineteenth century nationalism flourished, in the Ottoman Empire nationalism remained an alien concept until the end of the century. During that time people in the Ottoman Empire identified themselves either as Muslims or non-Muslims, not as Turks and non-Turks. Europeans, not Turks, first used the term "Turk." Furthermore, given the fact that Ottomans at the time were preoccupied with salvaging what was left of their empire, the nationalism that emerged towards the end of the century was a defensive nationalism, aiming at creating a new Turk with self-confidence and good training; it was not one that would have led Turks to look down upon 'the others'. Consequently, the nationalism in question drew upon patriotism rather than ethnicity.
During the Republican period (from 1923 to the present), by attributing the demise of the Ottoman Empire to the opposition of Islam to modernizing reforms the founders of the Republic initiated a cognitive revolution that aimed at substituting a secular nation for a religious community. The ultimate goal behind building the nation-state in question was that of creating a new Turk who would think logically, i.e. s/he would no longer take her/his cues from "dogmas of Islam." The pep-motto of this defensive modernization project was, "Oh Turk! Be proud of yourself, have self-confidence, and work hard' ("Turk! Ogun, guven, calis"), again implying a yearning for self-improvement rather than bragging. In any case, the cardinal policy of the new Republic was "peace at home and peace abroad." It is true that another pep-motto of the modernization project was "A Turk equals all other nationals put together" (Bir Turk dunyaya bedeldir). However, the motto in question simply meant, "You too can do it." Again there was an effort to promote patriotism, without any reference to ethno-nationalism.
It was under those circumstances that the MHP of the 1970s was engaged in a life and death struggle against "communists;" however, the party has not taken a hostile stance against Kurds. This was because patriotism rather than ethno-nationalism informed the MHP discourse and praxis too. Consequently, during recent decades, with communism gradually ceasing to be a threat, the MHP started to shed its authoritarianism too and thus further adapted itself to Turkey's democratic political system.
Immigration has recently been the main cause of population growth in Europe. In 2002 there were 19 million non-national people living in Europe, accounting for 5.1 percent of the population. In most European countries this has led to fear of the future, heightened political insecurity, extreme differences in wealth and opportunity combined with a high employment rate. Hostility to immigration has pushed some political leaders in Europe to the far right. Since the 1980s, there have also been large migration flows to Turkey. However, the migrants in question generally came from countries that had earlier been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and they were generally Muslims. For these reasons their arrival in Turkey has not caused hostility towards them. There was also migration to Turkey from such regions as the Middle East (predominantly Iraq and Iran), Asia (e.g., Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), and Africa (e.g., Congo, Nigeria and Somalia). Nevertheless, the latter were transit migrants, their aim being to reach European countries. As such their arrival in Turkey has not caused hostility and hatred among Turks either. For these reasons, unlike most of the European countries, immigration is not conceived as a major threat to national unity in Turkey. It is true that Turkey has had a strong state tradition. However, the strong state in Turkey was not supposed to act on behalf of any social or political group. Rather, it was expected to see to it that the long-term interest of the community was not overlooked.
In an environment where ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and a state acting on behalf of specific social or political group were largely absent there was no reason for a political leader to adopt them as her/his goals. This was even less probable if the leader was one like Bahceli who is known for his high moral standards, a balanced approach to politics, and for his avoidance of polar and utopian views. In Bahceli, we come across neither Le Pen's demagogy, love of rhetoric, intolerance towards change and despotic tendencies bordering on anti-Semitism nor Haider's right-wing extremism leading to neo-Nazism, populism and inclination towards totalitarianism.
All in all, in recent decades while in some European countries the "far right" emerged as a reaction of some political leaders towards immigration and displayed an inclination towards ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and "strong state," in Turkey "far right" tendencies on the part of some political leaders developed in response to communism, and it evinced patriotism. Turkey received immigrants, but they were not seen by political leaders as a threat because those who stayed on were not ethnically alien and those who were not ethnically alien did not stay on. In Turkey even if those immigrants who stayed on were seen as a threat there was no suitable context for the "far right" to show a tendency towards ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and "strong state." Similarly, in contrast to the characteristics of the leaders of the "far right" in Austria, Belgium and France, the personality of Bahceli in Turkey would not have allowed the development of a "far right" as in those other countries. As far as Bahceli and to some extent mature Turks¸ were concerned, the so-called "far right" in Turkey displayed very little of the far right leanings that one comes across in some political leaders in Europe. The only dimension on which Turks¸ in particular and to a less extent Bahceli resembled some political leaders in Europe was authoritarianism. Turks¸ had for some time toyed with the idea of authoritarianism; however, that was for the sake of warding off the "threat of communism." Bahceli too had to resort to authoritarianism, but only to suppress the militancy of the rank and file in the MHP. It is true that both leaders had second thoughts about "the ulterior motives of the EU for Turkey;" however, in principle both leaders had a European vocation.
Turning to the MHP itself, under the leadership of both Turks¸ and in particular under Bahceli the party gained strong pro-system credentials. Some rank-and-file in the party continue to have far right tendencies; however, so far Bahceli has been able to prevent them from surfacing and creating a threat to Turkey's national unity and democracy.
This article was originally published at Middle Eastern Studies Vol: 42, No: 6
Have a read of the independent article written below about the President of the MHP, I don't know about you guys but if half of what is written below is true about the man than it would be an honour to have him lead any nation in the world. He appears to have Honour, Integrity, Intelligence all with a down to earth personality. Have a read of the full article then make up your own minds.
Regards
Ataman Atlas
By METIN HEPER & BASAK INCE 24 March 2007
Academic Staff of Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences BILKENT UNIVERSITY
Metin Heper
Professor Ph.D., Public Administration, Syracuse University, 1971. Turkish politics, comparative state politics and bureaucracy.
Basak Ince
Instructor M.Sc., Government, London School of Economics, 2000. Comparative politics and Turkish politics.
In several Western European democracies one of the significant political developments of the post-1980 period was the emergence of a far right characterized by ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and strong state. The Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Oster Reich – FPO) of Jorg Haider, the Belgian Flemish Bloc (Vlaams Blok – VB) of first Karel Dillen and later of Fhilip Dewinter and Gerolf Annemans, and the French National Front (Front Nationale – FN) of Jean Marie Le Pen are the obvious examples. The movements these parties have spearheaded display xenophobic tendencies. Le Pen, Dillen and Haider share a vision of 'New Europe' based on 'racial' exclusivity rather than democratic citizenship and equal rights for everyone.
Most of the literature on far right parties in Europe portrays the history of either one far right party or far right parties in a single country. Only fairly recently have comparative studies about far right parties been undertaken. However, none of these studies has taken up the far right in Turkey. The present article purports to fill this vacuum.
A study of the far right in Turkey of 1999–2002 is particularly in order. In Europe, the far right as represented by political parties continued to evince in particular strong xenophobia and a certain degree of authoritarianism, both of which derive from its ethno-nationalistic tendencies. In Turkey the far-right as a political party has never subscribed to ethno-nationalism; from the 1980 onwards it started to rid itself of its authoritarianism and militancy; and, during the late 1990s, it became a respected member of the political establishment.
During the late 1960s and the 1970s, the MHP (Milliyetci Hareket Partisi) was a militant rightist party. It was often engaged in political violence 'in order to ward off the communist threat'. At the time youth organizations with Turkist leanings, which had the self-designated mission of elevating the nation morally and making it stronger, proliferated and were engaged in armed conflict with the leftists. This bloody confrontation reached its peak in the late 1970s. In the process, a number of college professors, politicians, and journalists known as leftists lost their lives.
We already have a number of studies on the new MHP, which invariably portray the past as well as present MHP as an ultra-nationalist political party and its leaders as having had and continuing to have far right views. These studies suggest that among other things both Turkes¸ and Bahceli have had ethno-nationalist leanings. The present essay takes up this issue by focusing its attention on Bahceli. A detailed study of Bahceli as a person and as a politician is particularly important because the MHP has had virtually no autonomous life separate first from Turkes¸ and, during recent years, from Bahceli. It is true that all political leaders in Turkey have a strong grip on their parties. That hold has been particularly firm in the case of Bahceli probably because he always had the difficult task of keeping at bay some remaining militant nationalists, particularly among the rank and file of the MHP.
Thus, below, first we take up Bahceli's personality and its impact on his politics in general and his nationalism in particular. Secondly, we examine Bahceli's politics and nationalism in order to gauge the extent to which they evince pro-system characteristics. In our discussion of Bahceli's nationalism we at times draw attention to some contrasts between him and his counterparts in Austria, Belgium, and France. Finally, we suggest some explanations for the different configurations of the far right in Turkey and in some European countries.
Bahceli comes from the large and well respected Fettahlıoglu family. For the family such traditional values as respect for elders have always been important. Bahceli considers his brother, who is only a few years older than himself, as his 'father', a term used in Turkey to express respect towards older people.
There are strong ties among the members of the large Bahceli family. The family estates are divided among the family members, yet they do not have separate deeds. Bahceli appreciated the fact that, while he was attending high school in Istanbul, the members of the Fettahlıoglu family living in Istanbul invited him to their houses so that he could have home-cooked food.
In all probability because of his having been socialized into the value system prevalent in his close-knit family, Bahceli values traditions and indigenous values in politics. He has a genuine affection as well as respect for people. He feels a great sense of responsibility towards them. Consequently, Bahceli perceives the MHP as a centrist party, representing the whole nation and acting in its service. In his own words, 'the MHP is a product of the Turkish nation's authentic and well-rooted values and preferences … It endeavors to safeguard the nation's moral and cultural values … It embraces the whole nation.'
The Bahceli family is well respected. The family members shun materialism, opportunism, selfishness and unprincipled behavior, which in recent decades have become rather widespread in Turkish society and politics. One of Bahceli's brothers once pointed out that their father held Ismet Inonu (prime minister in 1924–38, president in 1938–50, and again prime minister in 1961–64) in high esteem. The brother talked of Inonu as a symbol of honesty.
Islam seems to be another source for the values the family holds dear. Bahceli has often made reference to a Hadith, a saying of Prophet Muhammad: 'Islam equals good morality.' In his opinion, religious holidays are good opportunities to cement social solidarity, which, in his estimation, has both moral and socio-economic dimensions. Bahceli distributed his salary as a fellowship to the needy students at the Academy of Economics and Commerce (later Gazi University) in Ankara, where he taught economics from 1982 until 1987. Later, he paid the salaries of some party functionaries out of his own pocket.
In politics, however, Bahceli stays away from political populism and, therefore, from political patronage and clientelism. He avoids delivering goods and services to specific individuals and groups for the sole purpose of garnering votes and bringing those personally close to him to important posts unless they have the necessary qualifications. Bahceli thinks public policies should be developed for the long-term interests of the country, and not for short-term political gain. As compared with other political parties in Turkey, while in power the MHP displayed moderation in appointing that party's supporters to posts in the higher echelons of the public bureaucracy.
Bahceli is also a reserved person. Not unlike his aversion to populism, Bahceli keeps his distance from people, including those he knows well. This type of behavior on his part seems to be also the consequence of his modernistic approach to life. For instance, he does not like to be kissed on the cheeks by other men or to be touched on the arm by others during a conversation, both being usual behavior among most people in Turkey. In contrast to Le Pen, who is viewed by many as a 'talented demagogue.' Bahceli does not try to appeal to people's feelings and emotions; he targets their intellect and logic.
Not unrelated, Bahceli takes life seriously, perhaps too seriously. In politics one hardly sees him smiling, let alone laughing. He once said, 'I too laugh. However, it is not proper to smile or laugh when you discuss serious matters.' On public issues, he does not have informal conversations even with those cabinet ministers who have been his close friends for a long time.
Bahceli has a Ph.D. in economics. He is a well-read as well as a contemplative person. His motto has always been 'science, contemplation, and belief.' He has a large personal library. He once advised some young members of the MHP to read Das Kapital, arguing that it is necessary to know leftist ideology even better than the leftists. Not unexpectedly, Bahceli's happiest moments are when he is at home with his books. Probably for this reason and also because he is a modest person, Bahceli keeps a low profile. Very few knew of him until Turkes¸ died. At the time, Bahceli did not, for instance, appear on TV shows and press conferences.
As a contemplative person Bahceli takes lessons from past events in general and from his own mistakes in particular. When on one occasion a party member was physically barred from placing his candidature for presidency (because the party opposed the member's running), Bahceli said: 'it was a very unfortunate event. It should not have happened…
We should now take measures so that such events would not repeat themselves in the future.'
As a knowledgeable person, Bahceli is open to change. Over the years, first he himself has gone through a significant mutation. He shaved his beard, and stopped using cigarette holders and carrying prayer beads – traditionally all have been symbols of the nationalists in Turkey. In his opinion, 'The MHP [too] is a link [not only] between yesterday and today, and [also] between today and tomorrow.'
According to Bahceli, 'Today's Turkey is not the Turkey of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.' The main theme of the November 2000 MHP Congress was 'Contract with the [New] Century.' It was significant that at the Congress the need to develop novel solutions to old problems was underlined. It was also pointed out that political movements that have strong roots and important missions should not mutate to become altogether different movements. Bahceli justifies this stance by arguing that 'advanced nations [too] … reconcile their traditional and national values with new developments.'
It is not surprising that Bahceli avoids polar views, which are by their nature difficult to change. In his opinion, 'politics is an art of establishing a link between what is ideal and what is possible.' On the whole he adopts a middle-of-the-road approach to every issue. On the economy–democracy relationship, he thinks that 'economic growth is a prerequisite for Turkey to catch up with advanced countries.
Yet equally important is to achieve this goal within a democratic system of government.' Concerning the Islam–state confrontation in Turkey, Bahceli disapproves of both those who have an inclination for political Islam (the efforts to make Islam shape public law and public policy) and those who bring limitations to the manner in which people wish to live their religion on a day-to-day basis. On another ongoing conflict in that country – 'the one between the 'republicans' (who place virtually sole emphasis on the long-term interests of the country) and 'democrats' (who, on the contrary, put almost sole stress on particularistic interests) – Bahceli again has a balanced approach. He once remarked: 'There cannot be a republic without democracy and a democracy without republic.'
On the last point Bahceli was echoing Giovanni Sartori, who argued that democracy would be viable if there was a balance between its 'vertical' (political responsibility) and 'horizontal' (political participation) dimensions. Accordingly, on the one hand, Bahceli thinks that 'closing of political parties should be an exception rather than the rule' and, on the other hand, he is of the opinion that 'no person and no institution, including political parties, should be able to commit an offence and get away with it.'
One may surmise that subscribing to high moral standards led Bahceli to have an idealistic approach to politics. He once observed: 'For us political office is not a matter of life or death. Politics is not a competition to grab power for its own sake . . . Politics is a means of serving the country, and it should be carried out with a view to political ethics.' In Bahceli's list of priorities the country comes first, the party second, and his personal political fortune (a distant) third.
True to his word, while in office Bahceli has displayed a principled conduct in political life. When his party came second in the 1999 general elections, some members of parliament from other political parties wished to join the MHP. Despite the fact that such transfers to his party would have resulted in the MHP commanding the largest number of deputies in parliament and in Bahceli becoming prime minister, he refused the offers right away. He pointed out that he could not act against the preferences of the electorate. Later, Bahceli acquiesced to the changing of horses in mid-stream only when it would not significantly promote the fortunes of his party; even then he insisted that those who wish to join the MHP should demonstrate that they have fully internalized the MHP philosophy. Bahceli has done his best to keep his promises to the people. One of those promises was to fully punish Abdullah Ocalan who for years orchestrated the PKK (Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan) terror in Turkey. Thus, although he has been not against the lifting of the death penalty in Turkey in the foreseeable future, he has been adamant that the death sentence given to Ocalan by the court should be carried out.
In Bahceli's view, principled conduct in political life is dependent upon acting in conformity with well-established rules. He thinks such conformity would make the accomplishment of a mission possible. On one occasion, at a meeting of the leaders of the 1999–2002 coalition government it was decided that the provision for the death penalty should be removed from the Criminal Code, but not immediately.
Then Mesut Yılmaz, the other deputy prime minister in the coalition government, who at the time was responsible for European Union affairs, insisted that the provision in question should be abrogated at once. Bahceli immediately opposed it; he invited Yılmaz to respect the decision made earlier by the coalition leaders and not waver from it for political gain. One can note other examples of Bahceli's principled conduct in politics. For instance, he did not sign critical documents whenever he served in the capacity of acting prime minister (for instance, when the prime minister was out of the country). Similarly he asked the MHP parliamentarians not to tender bids for public contracts. Before the 1999 national elections, when the party was in dire need of money and some businessmen offered help, Bahceli immediately rejected them.
While Bahceli insisted that politics should be conducted in conformity with well established rules, he was at the same time ready to compromise if the long-term interest of the country warranted it. He placed emphasis on the politics of harmony, and shunned polar views. In all probability as a reaction to recent conflict-ridden decades in Turkey he once declared: 'Turkey does not want conflict'. Bahceli pointed out that the first priority of the MHP in politics was dialogue and consensus.
He referred to the post-1999 general election coalition government that his party joined as a 'government of compromise and reform' (uzlasma ve atılım hukumeti).
When some of the rank-and-file members in the MHP criticized him for acting in an overly conciliatory manner towards other coalition partners, he offered the following thoughts:
For the long-term interests of the country we as members of a coalition government have to put up with each other. Where you a have a coalition government none of the parties in that government can pursue policies that only it favors. Thorny issues would be resolved and we would have an effective Devlet Bahceli and 'Far Right' Politics in Turkey 877 government only if we can manage to meet at some common ground that all of us can live with.
Bahceli's readiness to compromise came out quite clearly in how he conducted himself in the Ocalan case. As noted, in principle Bahceli has always been against the death penalty. However, he did not immediately support the removal of the related Article 125 of the Turkish Criminal Code. It was because during the 1999 election campaign he had promised the people that should Ocalan be captured and the courts sentence him to death his party would vote for the execution of that penalty when the case came to parliament for the approval of the sentence. Later Ocalan was captured and sentenced to capital punishment. The case was in the hands of the European Court of Human Rights. At the same time Turkey faced the critical decision of whether or not it was going to strike out the death penalty from the Criminal Code. Its removal from the Criminal Code had been set by the European Union as one of the preconditions for Turkey's full accession to the Union. Bahceli has extricated himself from this difficult situation by notifying his coalition partners that the MHP would continue to oppose the amendment when it is taken up by parliament; however, if the amendment is adopted by the votes of the other coalition members as well as those of the opposition the MHP would not terminate the coalition.
If for Bahceli compromise was impossible, rather than causing a deadlock and thus creating immobility in government, he preferred to place the issue on the backburner. He acted in this manner concerning, for instance, the long-simmering headscarf issue. In Turkey, the headscarf is banned in public buildings, including the universities. This is because it is considered a symbol of political Islam. The military, in particular, tends towards this view. Because of his respect for people's religious preferences and aspirations, Bahceli has not looked on the ban sympathetically. Yet, for the sake of maintaining political stability in the country he has not insisted on the immediate removal of the ban. In fact, he asked a female MHP deputy, Ms. Nesrin Unal, to take off her headscarf when attending plenary sessions in parliament. Ms. Unal complied. In line with the emphasis he places on harmony Bahceli also came up with the following advice to the cabinet ministers from his party: 'Always act in a courteous manner to others; do not allow others to make you act in a manner you would later regret; think twice before saying something that you may later regret; never act on the spur of the moment; ignore criticism and even vicious attacks; do not argue with others in public'.
As Bahceli values the politics of harmony and therefore consensus, according to him coalition governments should be formed by those parties which are most agreed on the nature of the important problems the country faces and on the broad outlines of the policies to deal with those problems. He has expressed this preference by pointing out that he is 'for a coalition of principles, and not for a coalition of [any odd set of] political parties'. He does not hesitate to dismiss cabinet ministers from the MHP if, in his opinion, they disrupt the smooth functioning of the government. One example here was the case of Mr. Enis Oksuz, the then minister of transport, who made no effort to find common ground with Mr. Kemal Dervis¸ then minister of state responsible for the economy, on the privatization of the Turkish Telecommunications Agency. According to Bahceli, political competition should primarily revolve around 'policy' and not 'politics' (the latter defined as activities aimed at capturing and maintaining political office). He thinks that in Turkey on the whole the reverse obtains. He has argued that in Turkey democracy is a 'speech democracy'; politicians do not study and debate issues carefully in order to find the best solutions to them.
Bahceli thinks that the political parties in opposition also have a responsibility to suggest alternative policies for solving the problems the country faces. This is, of course, what opposition parties do in established democracies. In Turkey, however, this particular view of Bahceli comes out as a novel idea because in that country political parties in opposition usually strongly criticize each and every government policy and then turn around and ask people to 'try themselves', without presenting their own alternative policies and without explaining why their policies are better than the ones the government pursues. Bahceli thinks the political strategy adopted by the opposition parties in Turkey is political opportunism par excellence. In his opinion, 'Drawing lessons from constructive criticism is a characteristic of politics based on virtue and of responsible statesmanship'.
Bahceli also wishes to see politics revolve around competing policies about everyday problems rather than around 'high politics', that is, the issues concerning the political regime itself and its basic priorities. Just as Dankwart A. Rustow suggested more than three decades ago, Bahceli too is of the opinion that consensus on matters that properly belong to 'high politics' is a prerequisite for a healthily functioning democracy. Being a moralist, an intellectual and an honest person, Bahceli thinks Turkish politics and democracy suffer from low intellectual levels of political actors, political corruption and the lack of principled conduct in politics. According to him, under the circumstances, politics in Turkey does not turn out to be a competition to solve problems and thus serve the country. Thus Bahceli argues that 'there is a need for national concordance (milli uzlasma) on a democratic republic, social justice, the rule of law, and a secular state that acts as the guardian of the freedom of conscience as well as of Turkey's unitary state structure and territorial integrity'. Also according to Bahceli, 'in contemporary democracies [such issues as] cultural and ethnic differences among the people is no longer the stuff of political conflict. Today, democracy has left behind political cleavages based on religion, sect, and race. Presently one comes across in democracies a careful balance between conflict and consensus'.
Bahceli also wishes to see politics revolve around competing policies about everyday problems rather than around 'high politics', that is, the issues concerning the political regime itself and its basic priorities. Just as Dankwart A. Rustow suggested more than three decades ago, Bahceli too is of the opinion that consensus on matters that properly belong to 'high politics' is a prerequisite for a healthily functioning democracy. Being a moralist, an intellectual and an honest person, Bahceli thinks Turkish politics and democracy suffer from low intellectual levels of political actors, political corruption and the lack of principled conduct in politics. According to him, under the circumstances, politics in Turkey does not turn out to be a competition to solve problems and thus serve the country. Thus Bahceli argues that 'there is a need for national concordance (milli uzlasma) on a democratic republic, social justice, the rule of law, and a secular state that acts as the guardian of the freedom of conscience as well as of Turkey's unitary state structure and territorial integrity'. Also according to Bahceli, 'in contemporary democracies [such issues as] cultural and ethnic differences among the people is no longer the stuff of political conflict. Today, democracy has left behind political cleavages based on religion, sect, and race. Presently one comes across in democracies a careful balance between conflict and consensus'.
Just as was the case during the single-party years in Turkey (1923–45), during the following multi-party period, too, 'cultural' rather than 'functional cleavages' continued to be salient. The controversies among the political elite, as well as the intelligentsia, about secularism versus Islam, hard ideologies on the right and the left, the proper role of the military in politics, and the issue of the state versus civil society continued to dominate politics and, at times, led to the military taking power into its own hands. Even today, the Turkish military's influence in politics is far beyond the role militaries in established democracies play. Bahceli too has pointed to this particular characteristic of Turkish politics and has expressed his dissatisfaction with it: Past events, beliefs, ethnic sensitivities, and current political and ideological conflict continue to be the primary weapons that politicians [in this country] frequently brandish against each other. This leads to an overlap between ethnic and cultural fault lines on the one hand and political cleavage and conflict on the other.
Devlet Bahceli and 'Far Right' Politics in Turkey 879 It must be for this reason that Bahceli calls on the political elite in Turkey to leave behind their 'old blood feuds'.
As a nationalist, Bahceli has a longing for a prosperous Turkey that can effectively provide for its external security in the face of threats posed by most of its neighbors in the unstable Balkans and the Middle East. He envisions a Turkey that can successfully compete in the globalized international markets. According to Bahceli, however, in order to attain such strength and prosperity Turkey should first substitute 'normal politics' for high politics. He thus calls for a consensus amongst the political elite on constitutional issues and on the basic priorities of the state as well as on democratic principles. Bahceli hopes the said elite would focus their attention exclusively on such currently pressing problems in Turkey as the overhauling of the economy (so that the country will not again face severe economic crises like the ones it encountered in November 2000 and February 2001) and the accession of Turkey to the EU as a full member.
Bahceli's nationalism is based on neither 'race, nor ethnicity, nor imperialism'. His nationalism derives from measured patriotism. Consequently, the November 2000 MHP Congress condemned irredentist-ethnic nationalism. Bahceli opposes even the term 'nationalism', preferring 'national' because in his view while the former is an exclusive, thus a discriminatory term, the latter is an inclusive, thus a nondiscriminatory term. The 2000 Program of the MHP defined nation as a social entity with (1) a will to live together, (2) a feeling of common fate and common future, and (3) a belief that in the community of nations each nation has a sui generis identity.
Thus, while Bahceli subscribes to cultural nationalism, i.e. those who essentially share a common culture make a nation, Le Pen and Belgium's Flemish Bloc have tended towards ethno-nationalism. For Le Pen, belonging to the French nation is marked by 'linear descent'. According to the Flemish Bloc, the nation is defined as a group of people that share, among other things, an 'ethnic origin'. In contrast, Bahceli once stated: 'It is not important which particular identity the [Kurdish] people in the southeast [of Turkey] feel they belong to. What is important is that they should think that Turkey is indispensable for them'. Concerning this issue, on one occasion he also quoted from Sufi mystic poet Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi (1207–73): 'Not those who speak the same language but those who share the same culture and mission would get along well!'
There is a sharp contrast between Bahceli's attitude towards (what would usually be considered as) the 'other' and that of Le Pen who had once said, 'I prefer my daughters to my cousins, my cousins to my neighbors, and my neighbors to strangers', and who on another occasion had even stated that the gas chambers during the Second World War were nothing more than a detail of history. Le Pen's anti-Semitic discourse is criticized even in his own party. Le Pen calls for a 'France for the French' because of his hatred for immigrants. Not unlike Le Pen, Haider too had no sympathy towards those of non-Austrian ethnic descent. According to him, threats to national unity were no longer the 'Slavic barbarians or Jews, but immigrants'. The Belgian Flemish Bloc has adopted a similar line towards non- Flemings. According to the party, in the ethnic hierarchy in Belgium the Flemings were on top. Immediately below them were Dutchmen and Dutch South Africans. Then came assimilated Flemings of Brussels, Wallonia and French Flanders. European foreigners followed these groups. At the bottom of the ethnic hierarchy were the non-European foreigners.
In contrast, Bahceli does not insist on having an ethnically homogenous Turkish nation. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, a group of rightist intellectuals in Turkey argued that the country did not have distinct ethnic groups, and that the Kurds were no more than 'mountain Turks' (who lived in the highlands in south-eastern Turkey) and who had forgotten their earlier Turkish ethnic identity. Then, as noted, for a while Turkes¸ too had toyed with the idea of ethnic nationalism by claiming that those with a different accent could not be considered as Turks. Bahceli's views are far removed from such 'ethnic parentheses' in the Turkish political evolution. He argues that 'every country evinces a mosaic of cultures though in different degrees. What is required is that those who belong to one of those cultures should feel themselves as also belonging to the larger political entity and demonstrate loyalty to that entity. The state in its turn should not try to eliminate distinct cultures'.
Not only does Bahceli take the mosaic of cultures in a country as a fact of life, but he also welcomes it: 'We consider regional and traditional differences in our country as the richness of our national life'. Consequently, he has no prejudices towards those with a different cultural identity: 'It does not disturb us if one calls a Kurd a ''Kurd''. We have Kurds in the MHP, too. We are against using the term ''Turk'' in a discriminatory manner. We ourselves do not use it in that sense. For us the term ''Turk'' is a nominal term for people living in this country. It is an all embracing concept'. Bahceli takes the term 'Turk' as a reference, not as a definition.
Not unexpectedly, Bahceli does not think a political party should represent only one distinct ethnic group. While deputy prime minister, Bahceli had cordial relations with the Kurdish oriented People's Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – HADEP). In September 2000, he visited the local headquarters of the party in Diyarbakır (the most important city in the south-east) and applauded a speech made by the HADEP mayor of the city. When he was asked why he had approved of the mayor's speech, Bahceli responded by saying that the mayor was for a unitary state.
The goal the MHP pursues today is that of elevating Turkey to the level of contemporary civilization. Earlier, by adopting the idea of the so-called 'Turkish– Islamic Synthesis', the MHP had taken Islamic morality and virtue as one of the critical elements that would provide the necessary impetus for that transition to take place. Presently, the MHP places less emphasis on Islam. Bahceli perceives nationalism as adequate to 'inject idealism and enthusiasm to the project of rendering Turkey a leading country in the twenty-first century'.
Bahceli's nationalism has a human face. According to Bahceli, nationalism should be complemented by democracy that, in his view, would 'foster respect for different views and ideas and [thus] make a significant contribution to social peace and harmony'. On the other hand, at least from 2000 onwards, the reference to the Turkish–Islamic Synthesis was replaced by the discourse of 'moral and humanitarian concerns . . . that form the premise on which Turkish nationalism has been built'.
Bahceli's nationalism has also been open to the outside world. As he put it, 'If there is a national state, there would be a national identity; if there is a national identity there would be nationalism. However, this would not mean Turkish nationalism turning inward'. Bahceli's MHP states that 'Turkey should adopt universal values'. The party perceives globalization as an indispensable fact of life and thus, at least in principle, has no qualms about it: 'One can no longer ignore and even belittle the phenomenon of globalization that manifests itself as the free movement of capital, financial and technological innovations, competitive markets, and open society'. In Bahceli's opinion, globalization is not alien to the MHP philosophy:
Our nationalism underlines the equality of nations, cooperation among them, and global justice . . . The motto of our nationalism is 'Live and Let Live'; thus, our national ideals would induce us to make contributions to the goals derived from the emerging global values. The MHP supports every project that would bring peace and happiness to the Turkish nation and the whole of humanity. Anxious to create a more prosperous Turkey, Bahceli thinks the Turkish economy should be fully integrated with the world economy. He once pointed out that amongst the largest 500 companies in the world there are only two Turkish companies, and that their numbers should increase.
Bahceli is of the opinion that 'Turkey's accession to the EU [as a full member] will be more meaningful and significant than that of several other countries'. Here Bahceli must have in mind the fact that Turkey has a western leaning that harks back to the end of the eighteenth century, and it is as a consequence of this that Turkey is the only Muslim country that has adopted democracy as a way of life.
In contrast to Bahceli's hope that Turkey will soon become a full member of the EU, Le Pen and Haider have reservations concerning the EU. In 1991, the French National Front perceived European integration as a danger for France. At the time, it stated that 'the Europe of Brussels is constructed around an institutional framework inspired by the American federal model that would lead to the disappearance of the sovereign states and peoples'. Upon the adoption of the Single European Act and the Maastrict Treaty the party turned aggressively anti-European and opposed the economic and political integration of Europe. It believed in 'French France in a European Europe' and campaigned against both Maastricht and the Euro. In Austria, the Freedom Party has been the forerunner in the populist opposition to the increasing central power of Brussels and to the introduction of a common currency. Although Bahceli thinks Turkey should adapt itself to the emerging values of globalization, in his view Turkey should not allow the latter development to have an adverse effect on the country: 'Turkey should integrate with the globalizing world without sacrificing national and moral values'. This is because while on the one hand Bahceli upholds peace, humanitarian values, modernity, democracy and freedom of speech, on the other hand he stresses the importance of national sovereignty, loyalty to nationally sacred objects, vigilance concerning internal and external security threats, and thus national unity.
Not unlike Bahceli, Le Pen wishes France to safeguard its cultural identity in the face of European integration. However, unlike Bahceli Le Pen does not reconcile his views on this matter with the requisites of democracy. His National Front rejects libertarian values in political matters while Le Pen himself has strong authoritarian tendencies.
Bahceli thinks that humanity would live in peace and harmony if the relations among nations were based on global justice. He observes that: It would be misleading to perceive the movement of capital, financial and technological innovations, competitive markets, and open society as the final stage of human destiny and global Right. Globalization in its present form needs to be complemented by the emergence of a new morality . . . Globalization as an ideal would be fully realized if it displays respect towards national and moral values and if it does not disrupt stable democracies by having disorienting effects upon the social contexts on which those democracies are based.
Bahceli thinks that some foreign countries' efforts to promote Kurdish national aspirations would work against the efforts to consolidate democracy in Turkey. It would lead to the emergence of a new cultural cleavage, which would be difficult to resolve by democratic means. Such thinking on his part leads Bahceli to adopt a critical attitude towards western countries in general and the EU countries in particular. He argues that even those countries that have established democracies and thus do not experience regional problems on the scale and severity that Turkey has faced during recent decades, approach ethnic problems with a view to civic nationalism and equality before the law. He therefore finds it difficult to understand why those same countries insist that Turkey should grant minority rights to some of its citizens. Bahceli finds this preoccupation on the part of the said countries unacceptable because, he says, for years Turkey faced subversive terror, which in economic terms alone dealt the country an enormous blow. He thinks the EU should make a definitive distinction between terrorism and human rights. This is what on one occasion he stated on this issue: 'The EU should not tie Turkey's accession to the Union as a full member to a murderer [Ocalan]. They should not display a double standard concerning terrorism, which is looked upon in all international legal charters as an act against humanity . . . In short, the EU should refrain from engaging in unjust behavior against the Turks'.
In Bahceli's opinion, globalization is not alien to the MHP philosophy:
"Our nationalism underlines the equality of nations, cooperation among them, and global justice ... The motto of our nationalism is 'Live and Let Live;' thus, our national ideals would induce us to make contributions to the goals derived from the emerging global values. The MHP supports every project that would bring peace and happiness to the Turkish nation and the whole of humanity." Anxious to create a more prosperous Turkey, Bahceli thinks the Turkish economy should be fully integrated with the world economy. He once pointed out that amongst the largest 500 companies in the world there are only two Turkish companies, and that their numbers should increase.
Bahceli is of the opinion that "Turkey's accession to the EU (as a full member) will be more meaningful and significant than that of several other countries." Here Bahceli must have in mind the fact that Turkey has a western leaning that harks back to the end of the eighteenth century, and it is as a consequence of this that Turkey is the only Muslim country that has adopted democracy as a way of life.
In contrast to Bahceli's hope that Turkey will soon become a full member of the EU, Le Pen and Haider have reservations concerning the EU. In 1991, the French National Front perceived European integration as a danger for France. At the time, it stated that "the Europe of Brussels is constructed around an institutional framework inspired by the American federal model that would lead to the disappearance of the sovereign states and peoples." Upon the adoption of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty the party turned aggressively anti-European and opposed the economic and political integration of Europe. It believed in "French France in a European Europe" and campaigned against both Maastricht and the Euro. In Austria, the Freedom Party has been the forerunner in the populist opposition to the increasing central power of Brussels and to the introduction of a common currency. Although Bahceli thinks Turkey should adapt itself to the emerging values of globalization, in his view Turkey should not allow the latter development to have an adverse effect on the country: "Turkey should integrate with the globalizing world without sacrificing national and moral values." This is because while on the one hand Bahceli upholds peace, humanitarian values, modernity, democracy and freedom of speech, on the other hand he stresses the importance of national sovereignty, loyalty to nationally sacred objects, vigilance concerning internal and external security threats, and thus national unity.
Not unlike Bahceli, Le Pen wishes France to safeguard its cultural identity in the face of European integration. However, unlike Bahceli Le Pen does not reconcile his views on this matter with the requisites of democracy. His National Front rejects libertarian values in political matters while Le Pen himself has strong authoritarian tendencies.
Bahceli thinks that humanity would live in peace and harmony if the relations among nations were based on global justice. He observes that: It would be misleading to perceive the movement of capital, financial and technological innovations, competitive markets, and open society as the final stage of human destiny and global right. Globalization in its present form needs to be complemented by the emergence of a new morality ... Globalization as an ideal would be fully realized if it displays respect towards national and moral values and if it does not disrupt stable democracies by having disorienting effects upon the social contexts on which those democracies are based.
Bahceli thinks that some foreign countries' efforts to promote Kurdish national aspirations would work against the efforts to consolidate democracy in Turkey. It would lead to the emergence of a new cultural cleavage, which would be difficult to resolve by democratic means. Such thinking on his part leads Bahceli to adopt a critical attitude towards western countries in general and the EU countries in particular. He argues that even those countries that have established democracies and thus do not experience regional problems on the scale and severity that Turkey has faced during recent decades, approach ethnic problems with a view to civic nationalism and equality before the law. He therefore finds it difficult to understand why those same countries insist that Turkey should grant minority rights to some of its citizens. Bahceli finds this preoccupation on the part of the said countries unacceptable because, he says, for years Turkey faced subversive terror, which in economic terms alone dealt the country an enormous blow. He thinks the EU should make a definitive distinction between terrorism and human rights. This is what on one occasion he stated on this issue: "The EU should not tie Turkey's accession to the Union as a full member to a murderer (Ocalan). They should not display a double standard concerning terrorism, which is looked upon in all international legal charters as an act against humanity ... In short, the EU should refrain from engaging in unjust behavior against the Turks."
The views of Bahceli's MHP on Turkey's foreign policy rest on the principles of justice, political equality and mutual protection of national interests. Until the early 1990s the MHP had kept its distance from the EU. Since then the party has adopted a closer but cautious policy towards the EU. Bahceli concludes that in its relations with the Union Turkey should adopt a middle-of-the-road approach: He emphatically points out that "Turkey should neither terminate its ties with the West, nor should it be a slave of the West."
In the 2002 presidential elections in France, all other parties formed an alliance to stop Le Pen's National Front. Following the 1999 national elections in Austria, Haider was forced by the EU to resign. And following the 1999 national and 2000 local elections in Belgium other political parties did not wish to form a coalition government with the Flemish Bloc. In contrast, in the wake of the 1999 national elections in Turkey, the MHP joined a coalition with a democratic leftist party (DSP) and a liberal rightist political party (ANAP), and Bahceli became deputy prime minister. It is true that in the Ocalan case and Turkey-EU relations Bahceli and the MHP policies were colored by nationalism; however, the nationalism in question was not ethno-nationalism; it was again a nationalism based on patriotism.
Why have the far right in such countries as Austria, Belgium and France continued to evince strong signs of ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and strong state while concerning the "far right" in Turkey racism and xenophobia were never on the agenda and ethno-nationalism and authoritarianism were no more than "parentheses" in its evolution from the 1960s to the present so that Bahceli could render the MHP a dignified member of the Turkish polity? Here it should be remembered that while in the Europe of the nineteenth century nationalism flourished, in the Ottoman Empire nationalism remained an alien concept until the end of the century. During that time people in the Ottoman Empire identified themselves either as Muslims or non-Muslims, not as Turks and non-Turks. Europeans, not Turks, first used the term "Turk." Furthermore, given the fact that Ottomans at the time were preoccupied with salvaging what was left of their empire, the nationalism that emerged towards the end of the century was a defensive nationalism, aiming at creating a new Turk with self-confidence and good training; it was not one that would have led Turks to look down upon 'the others'. Consequently, the nationalism in question drew upon patriotism rather than ethnicity.
During the Republican period (from 1923 to the present), by attributing the demise of the Ottoman Empire to the opposition of Islam to modernizing reforms the founders of the Republic initiated a cognitive revolution that aimed at substituting a secular nation for a religious community. The ultimate goal behind building the nation-state in question was that of creating a new Turk who would think logically, i.e. s/he would no longer take her/his cues from "dogmas of Islam." The pep-motto of this defensive modernization project was, "Oh Turk! Be proud of yourself, have self-confidence, and work hard' ("Turk! Ogun, guven, calis"), again implying a yearning for self-improvement rather than bragging. In any case, the cardinal policy of the new Republic was "peace at home and peace abroad." It is true that another pep-motto of the modernization project was "A Turk equals all other nationals put together" (Bir Turk dunyaya bedeldir). However, the motto in question simply meant, "You too can do it." Again there was an effort to promote patriotism, without any reference to ethno-nationalism.
It was under those circumstances that the MHP of the 1970s was engaged in a life and death struggle against "communists;" however, the party has not taken a hostile stance against Kurds. This was because patriotism rather than ethno-nationalism informed the MHP discourse and praxis too. Consequently, during recent decades, with communism gradually ceasing to be a threat, the MHP started to shed its authoritarianism too and thus further adapted itself to Turkey's democratic political system.
Immigration has recently been the main cause of population growth in Europe. In 2002 there were 19 million non-national people living in Europe, accounting for 5.1 percent of the population. In most European countries this has led to fear of the future, heightened political insecurity, extreme differences in wealth and opportunity combined with a high employment rate. Hostility to immigration has pushed some political leaders in Europe to the far right. Since the 1980s, there have also been large migration flows to Turkey. However, the migrants in question generally came from countries that had earlier been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and they were generally Muslims. For these reasons their arrival in Turkey has not caused hostility towards them. There was also migration to Turkey from such regions as the Middle East (predominantly Iraq and Iran), Asia (e.g., Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), and Africa (e.g., Congo, Nigeria and Somalia). Nevertheless, the latter were transit migrants, their aim being to reach European countries. As such their arrival in Turkey has not caused hostility and hatred among Turks either. For these reasons, unlike most of the European countries, immigration is not conceived as a major threat to national unity in Turkey. It is true that Turkey has had a strong state tradition. However, the strong state in Turkey was not supposed to act on behalf of any social or political group. Rather, it was expected to see to it that the long-term interest of the community was not overlooked.
In an environment where ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and a state acting on behalf of specific social or political group were largely absent there was no reason for a political leader to adopt them as her/his goals. This was even less probable if the leader was one like Bahceli who is known for his high moral standards, a balanced approach to politics, and for his avoidance of polar and utopian views. In Bahceli, we come across neither Le Pen's demagogy, love of rhetoric, intolerance towards change and despotic tendencies bordering on anti-Semitism nor Haider's right-wing extremism leading to neo-Nazism, populism and inclination towards totalitarianism.
All in all, in recent decades while in some European countries the "far right" emerged as a reaction of some political leaders towards immigration and displayed an inclination towards ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and "strong state," in Turkey "far right" tendencies on the part of some political leaders developed in response to communism, and it evinced patriotism. Turkey received immigrants, but they were not seen by political leaders as a threat because those who stayed on were not ethnically alien and those who were not ethnically alien did not stay on. In Turkey even if those immigrants who stayed on were seen as a threat there was no suitable context for the "far right" to show a tendency towards ethno-nationalism, racism, xenophobia, authoritarianism and "strong state." Similarly, in contrast to the characteristics of the leaders of the "far right" in Austria, Belgium and France, the personality of Bahceli in Turkey would not have allowed the development of a "far right" as in those other countries. As far as Bahceli and to some extent mature Turks¸ were concerned, the so-called "far right" in Turkey displayed very little of the far right leanings that one comes across in some political leaders in Europe. The only dimension on which Turks¸ in particular and to a less extent Bahceli resembled some political leaders in Europe was authoritarianism. Turks¸ had for some time toyed with the idea of authoritarianism; however, that was for the sake of warding off the "threat of communism." Bahceli too had to resort to authoritarianism, but only to suppress the militancy of the rank and file in the MHP. It is true that both leaders had second thoughts about "the ulterior motives of the EU for Turkey;" however, in principle both leaders had a European vocation.
Turning to the MHP itself, under the leadership of both Turks¸ and in particular under Bahceli the party gained strong pro-system credentials. Some rank-and-file in the party continue to have far right tendencies; however, so far Bahceli has been able to prevent them from surfacing and creating a threat to Turkey's national unity and democracy.
This article was originally published at Middle Eastern Studies Vol: 42, No: 6
Monday, 2 April 2007
Let the Historians decide on the so-called Armenian Genocide
Prof. Dr. Justin McCARTHY:
Throughout the recent debate on the Armenian genocide question, one statement has characterized those who object to politicians' attempts to write history, "Let the Historians decide." Few of us have specified who we are referring to in that statement. It is now time to do so.There is a vast difference between history written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. History intends to find that the truth is illusive. Historians know they have prejudices that can affect their judgment. They know they never have all the facts. Yet they always try to find the truth, whatever that may be. Nationalists who use history have a different set of goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their own nation's battles. They have a purpose -- the triumph of their cause -- and they will use anything to succeed in this goal. While a historian tries to collect all the relevant facts and put them together as a coherent picture, the nationalist selects those pieces of history that fit his purpose' ignoring the others.
Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his errors when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so. If the facts do not fit his theories the nationalist ignores those facts and looks for other ways to make his case. True historians can make intellectual mistakes. Nationalist apologists commit intellectual crimes.The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools of history a logical and consistent account results. "Let the historians decide" is a call for historical study like any other historical study, one that looks at all the facts, studies all the opinions, applies historical principles and comes to logical conclusions.Historians first ask the most basic question. "Was there an Armenia?" Was there a region within the Ottoman Empire where Armenians were a compact majority that might rightfully demand their own state?To find the answer, historians look to government statistics for population figures, especially to archival statistics, because governments seldom deliberately lie to themselves.
They want to know their populations so they can understand them, watch them, conscript them, and, most importantly to a government, tax them. The Ottomans were no different than any other government in this situation. Like other governments they made mistakes, particularly in under-counting women and children. However, this can be corrected using statistical methods. What results is the most accurate possible picture of the number of Ottoman Armenians. By the beginning of World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman Armenia," the so called "Six Vilayets." Judging by population figures, there was no Ottoman Armenia. In fact if all the Armenians in the world had come to Eastern Anatolia, they still would not have been a majority there.
Two inferences can be drawn from the relatively small number of Armenians in the Ottoman East: The first is that by themselves, the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire. Armenian rebels might have disputed civil order but there were too few of them to endanger Ottoman authority. Armenian rebels needed help from outside forces, help that could only be provided by Russia. The second inference is that Armenian nationalists could have created a state that was truly theirs only if they first evicted the Muslims who lived there.To understand the history of the development of Muslim-Armenian antagonism one must apply historical principles. In applying those principles one can see that the history of Armenians was a history like other histories. Some of that history was naturally unique because of its environment but much of it was strikingly similar to what was seen in other places and times.1. Most ethnic conflicts develop over a long period. Germans and Poles, Finns and Russians, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, Irish and English, Europeans and Native Americans in North America -- all of these ethnic conflicts unfolded over generations, often over centuries.2.
Until very modern times most mass mortality of ethnic groups was the result of warfare in which there were at least two warring sides.3. When conflict erupted between nationalist revolutionaries and states it was the revolutionaries who began confrontations. Internal peace was in the interest of settled states. Looked at charitably, states often wished for tranquility for the benefits it gave their citizens. With less charity it can be seen that peace made it easier to collect taxes and use armies to fight foreign enemies, not internal foes. World history demonstrates this too well for examples from other regions to be needed here. In the Ottoman Empire, the examples of the rebellions in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria demonstrate the truth of this.On these principles, the histories of Turks and Armenians are no different from other histories. Historical principles applied.The conflict between Turks and Armenians did indeed develop over a long time. The primary impetus for what was to become the Armenian-Muslim conflict lay in Russian imperial expansion. At the time of Ivan the Terrible, circa the sixteenth century, Russians began a policy of expelling Muslims from lands they had conquered. Over the next three hundred years, Muslims, many of them Turks, were killed or driven out of what today is Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus. From the 1770s to the 1850s Russian attacks and Russian laws forced more than 400,000 Crimean Tatars to flee their land. In the Caucasus region, 1.2 million Circassians and Abazians were either expelled or killed by Russians.
Of that number, one third died as victims of the mass murder of Muslims that has been mostly ignored. The Tatars, Circassians and Abazians came to the Ottoman Empire. Their presence taught Ottoman Muslims what they could expect from a Russian conquest.Members of the Armenian minority in the Caucasus began to rebel against Muslim rule and to ally themselves with Russian invaders in the 1790s: Armenian armed units joined the Russians, Armenian spies delivered plans to the Russians. In these wars, Muslims were massacred and forced into exile. Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such as Karabakh. This was the beginning of the division of the peoples of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into two conflicting sides -- the Russian Empire and Armenians on one side, the Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other. Most Armenians and Muslims undoubtedly wanted nothing to do with this conflict, but the events were to force them to take sides.
The 1827 to 1829 wars between Russians, Persians and Ottomans saw the beginning of a great population exchange in the East that was to last until 1920. When the Russians conquered the Erivan Khanete, today the Armenian Republic, the majority of its population was Muslim. Approximately two thirds, 60,000 of these Muslims were forced out of Erivan by Russians. The Russians went on to invade Anatolia, where large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian cause. At the war's end, when the Russians left eastern Anatolia 50 to 90,000 Armenians joined them. They took the place of the exiled Muslims in Erivan and else where, joined by 40,000 Armenians from Iran.The great population exchange had begun, and mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians was the result. The Russians were to invade Anatolia twice more in the nineteenth century, during the Crimean War and the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. In both wars significant numbers of Armenians joined the Russians acting as spies and even occupation police.In Erzurum, for example, British consular officials reported that the Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians and his Armenian force "molested, illtreated, and insulted the Mohammadan population," and that 6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city. When the Russians left part of their conquest at least 25,000 Armenians joined them, fearing the vengeance of the Muslims. The largest migration though was the forced flight of 70,000 Muslims, mainly Turks, from the lands conquered by the Russians and the exodus of Laz in 1882.By 1900, approximately 1,400,000 Turkish and Caucasian Muslims had been forced out by Russians. One third of those had died, either murdered or victims of starvation and disease. Between 125,000 and 150,000 Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian southern Caucasus.This was the toll of Russian imperialism.
Not only had one-and-a-half million people been exiled or killed, but ethnic peace had been destroyed.The Muslims had been taught that their neighbors, the Armenians, with whom they had lived for more than 700 years, might once again become their enemies when the Russians next advanced. The Russians had created the two sides that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass murder.The actions of Armenian rebels exacerbated the growing division and mutual fear between Muslims and Armenians of the Ottoman East.The main Armenian revolutionary organizations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s in the Russian Empire. They were socialist and nationalist in ideology. Terrorism was their weapon of choice. Revolutionaries openly stated that their plan was the same as that which had worked well against the Ottoman Empire in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria rebels had first massacred innocent Muslim villagers. The Ottoman government, occupied with a war against Serbs in Bosnia, depended on the local Turks to defeat the rebels, which they did, but with great losses of life. European newspapers reported Bulgarians deaths, but never Muslim deaths. Europeans did not consider that the deaths were a result of the rebellion, nor the Turk's intention.
The Russians invaded ostensibly to save the Christians. The result was the death of 260,000 Turks, 17 percent of the Muslim population of Bulgaria, and the expulsion of a further 34 percent of Turks. The Armenian rebels expected to follow the same plan.The Armenian rebellion began with the organization of guerilla bands made up of Armenians from both the Russian and Ottoman lands. Arms were smuggled in. Guerillas assassinated Ottoman officials, attacked Muslim villages, and used bombs, the nineteenth century's terrorist's standard weapon. By 1894 the rebels were ready for open revolution. Revolts broke out in Samsun, Zeytun, Van and elsewhere in 1894 and 1895. As in Bulgaria they began with the murder of innocent civilians. The leader of the Zeytun rebellion said his forces had killed 20,000 Muslims. As in Bulgaria the Muslims retaliated. In Van for example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died. Further rebellions followed. In Adana in 1909 the Armenian revolt turned out very badly for both the rebels and the innocent when the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly Armenians. Throughout the revolts and especially in 1894 and 1897 the Armenians deliberately attacked Kurdish tribesmen, knowing that it was from them that great vengeance was not that likely to be expected. Pitched battles between Kurds and Armenians resulted.But it all went wrong for the Armenian rebels. They had followed the Bulgarian plan, killing Muslims and initiating revenge attacks on Armenians. Their own people had suffered most. Yet the Russians and Europeans they depended upon did not intervene. European politics and internal problems stayed the Russian hand.What were the Armenian rebels trying to create? When Serbs and Bulgarians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire they claimed lands where the majorities were Serbs or Bulgarians.
They expelled Turks and other Muslims from their lands, but these Muslims had not been a majority. This was not true for the Armenians.The lands they covered were overwhelmingly Muslim in population.The only way they could create an Armenia was to expel the Muslims. Knowing this history is essential to understanding what was to come during World War I. There had been a long historical period in which two conflicting sides developed.Russian imperialists and Armenian revolutionaries had begun a struggle that was in no way wanted by the Ottomans. Yet the Ottomans were forced to oppose the plans of both Russians and Armenians, if only to defend the majority of their subjects. History taught the Ottomans that if the Armenians triumphed not only would territory be lost, but mass expulsions and deaths would be the fate of the Muslim majority. This was the one absolutely necessary goal of the Armenian rebellion.The preview to what was to come in the Great War came in the Russian Revolution of 1905. Harried all over the Empire, the Russians encouraged ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, fomenting an inter-communal war. Azeri Turks and Armenians battled each other when they should have attacked the Empire that ruled over both. Both Turks and Armenians learned the bitter lesson that the other was the enemy, even though most of them wanted nothing of war and bloodshed.
The sides were drawn.In late 1914, inter-communal conflict began in the Ottoman East with the Armenian rebellion. Anatolian Armenians went to the Russian South Caucasus for training, approximately 8,000 in Kagizman, 6,000 in Igdir and others elsewhere. They returned to join local rebels and revolts erupted all over the East. The Ottoman Government estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti alone, probably an exaggeration but indicative of the scope of the rebellion. Military objectives were the first to be attacked.Telegraph lines were cut. Roads through strategic mountain passes were seized. The rebels attacked Ottoman officials, particularly recruiting officers, throughout the East. Outlying Muslim villages were assaulted and the first massacring of Muslims began. The rebels attempted to take cities such as Zeytun, Mus, Sebin Karahisar and Urfa. Ottoman armed forces which were needed at the front were instead forced to defend the interior.The most successful rebel action was in the city of Van. In March 1915 they seized the city from a weak Ottoman garrison and proceeded to kill all the Muslims who could not escape. Some 3,000 Kurdish villagers from the surrounding region were herded together into the great natural bowl of Zeve, outside the city of Van, and slaughtered. Kurdish tribes in turn took their revenge on any Armenian villagers they found.Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians.
There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets.It is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.Historical principles were once again at work. Rebels had begun the action and the result was the creation of two warring sides. After the Armenian deeds in Van and elsewhere, Muslims could only have expected that Armenians were enemies who could kill them. Armenians could only have feared Muslim revenge. Most of these people had no wish for war, but they had been driven to it. It was to be a merciless conflict.For the next five years, total war raged in the Ottoman East. When the Russians attacked and occupied the East, more than a million Muslims fled as refugees, itself an indication that they expected to die if they remained.
They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled. When the Russians retreated it was the turn of the Armenians to flee. The Russians attacked and retreated, then attacked again, then finally retreated for good. With each advance came the flight of hundreds of thousands. Two wars were fought in Eastern Anatolia, a war between the armies of Russia and the Ottomans and a war between local Muslims and Armenians. In the war between the armies, civilians and enemy soldiers were sometimes treated with humanity, sometimes not. Little quarter was given in the war between the Armenians and the Muslims, however. That war was fought with all the ferocity of men who fought to defend their families.Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. This is as should be expected from historical principles; starvation and disease are always the worst killers. It is also a historical principle that refugees suffer most of all.One of-the many forced migration was the organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants.
Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.)Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat.No claim of genocide can rationally stand in the light of these facts. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian murder of the innocent civilians of Erzincan, Bayburt, Tercan, Erzurum, and all the villages on the route of the Armenian retreat in 1918 must be taken into account. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.That is the history of the Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians. Only when that history is known can the assertions of those who accuse the Turks be understood. In examining the claims of Armenian nationalists, first to be considered should be outright lies. The most well-known of many fabrications on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat Pasa Telegrams," in which the Ottoman interior minister and other officials supposedly telegraphed instructions to murder the Armenians.
These conclusively have been proven to be forgeries by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they would ever have been taken seriously. A whole people cannot be convicted of genocide on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad.
These were not the only examples of words put in Talat Pasa's mouth. During World War I, the British Propaganda Office and American missionaries published a number of scurrilous works in which Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds.One of the best examples of invented Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted by the American ambassador Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that Talat Pasa offhandedly told the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these supposed indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman interior minister would actually have done such a thing? He knew that America invariably supported the Armenians, and had always done so. If he felt the need to unburden his soul, who would be the last person to whom he would talk? The American ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all? The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a practical politician. Like all politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador Morgenthau knew that the U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because he never reported it at the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular book.The use of quotes from Americans is selective. One American ambassador, Morgenthau, is quoted by the Armenian apologists, but another American ambassador, Bristol, is ignored.
Why? Because Bristol gave a balanced account and accused Armenians as well as Muslims of crimes.The most often seen fabrication may be the famous "Hitler Quote." Hitler supposedly stated, "Who after all is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" to justify his Holocaust. The quote now appears every year in school books, speeches in the American Congress and the French Parliament and most writings in which the Turks are attacked. Professor Heath Lowry has cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the quote. It is likely that Hitler never said it. But there is a more serious question: How can Adolf Hitler be taken as a serious source on Armenian history? Were his other historical pronouncements so reliable that his opinions can be trusted? Politically, "Hitler" is a magic word that conjures up an all too true image of undisputed evil. He is quoted on the Armenian Question for polemic and political purpose, to tie the Turks to Hitler's evil. In the modern world nothing defames so well as associating your enemies with Hitler. This is all absurdity, but it is potent absurdity that convinces those who know nothing of the facts. It is also a deliberate distortion of history.Population has also been a popular field for fabrication. Armenian nationalists had a particular difficulty -- they were only a small part of the population of the land they planned to carve from the Ottoman Empire.
The answer was false statistics. Figures appeared that claimed that Armenians were the largest group in Eastern Anatolia. These population statistics were supposedly the work of the Armenian Patriarch, but they were actually the work of an Armenian who assumed a French name, Marcel Leart, published them in Paris and pretended they were the Patriarch's work. Naturally, he greatly exaggerated the number of Armenians and diminished the number of Turks. Once again, the amazing thing is that these were ever taken seriously. Yet they were used after World War I to justify granting Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians and are still routinely quoted today.The Armenian apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie, omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city.The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced by the British Propaganda Office in World War I.
For example, the Bryce Report, "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans. Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had a tradition of not telling the truth.The basic historical omission is never citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories. Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents, hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical arguments are considered.Worst of all is the most basic omission -- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention.
Those of us who have studied this question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and new ones have appeared. For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so, but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan.Much was made of post-war-courts martial that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes against the Armenians.
The accusations did not state that the courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies. The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit that they could find no evidence of massacres.A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct ... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth.
They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was, in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides.
There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.A recent find of the nationalist is the Teskilat-ı Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish any logician:It is alleged that because a secret organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic Teskilat members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were also present in areas where Muslims died. Does this prove that no Teskilat members killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to commit genocide.A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars.
For those who do not know Ottoman history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began.Such assertions are the result of the methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced.Some tactics have been all too successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question.
When the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One professor's house was bombed.Others were threatened with similar violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted.The only question is the truth.Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him.
He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name?I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide."
We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government.
None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.When, despite the best efforts of the nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do.In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know almost nothing.
The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken place because their representatives have recognized it.The Turks are accused of "genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups that the use of the word genocide is meaningless.Why, then, is such a hollow term used against the Turks?
It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political.What must be considered by the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging some criminals.Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt and ethnic conflict.The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was not genocide.Much archival evidence shows Ottoman government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish them. It was not genocide.The majority of those who were deported survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans. It was not genocide.The Armenians most under Ottoman control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide.Why are the Turks accused of a hideous crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political.
Many Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for nationalist political motives that are inexcusable.Does any rational analyst deny that the ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain "reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own?Finally, what is to be done? As might be expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well.I suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries.
All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly.Whether or not such a commission is ever named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem.
This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain.The government would state that the Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement. But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon, perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass.
* Professor Justin McCarthy teaches at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
TurkishArmenians LiveFeed
Books and Articles of Interest
- Armenia Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State The Armenian Great Deception Series - Volume 1 Samuel A. Weems St John Press Dallas 2002
- Armenian Claims and Realities Dr Husamettin Yildirim Sistem Ofset Publications Ankara 2001
- Armenian Massacres in Van, Bitlis, Mus, and Kars Interview with Witnesses Prof Azmi Suslu, Dr Gulay Ogun & M Torehan Serdar Social and Strategical Research Foundation 2000
- Ataturk A biography of Mustafa Kemal Father of Modern Turkey Lord Kinross Morrow Printed in the US Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 65 - 11486
- Between Two Worlds The Construction of the Ottoman State Cemal Kafadar University of California Press London England 1996
- Death and Exile The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821 - 1922 Professor Justin McCarthy The Darwin Press Inc Princeton New Jersey 1999
- History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Volume 1 Empire of the Gazis The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280 -1808 Professor Standford J Shaw Cambridge University Press 1976
- Manufacturing Consent The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Prof's Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky Random House 20 Vauxhall Bridge Rd London 1994
- The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey a Disputed Genocide Guenter Lewy University of Utah Press Utah 2005
- The Kurdish File with all aspects Prof A Haluk Cay Tamga Yayincilik Ankara 2001
- The Kurdish Nationalist Movement Its Impact on Turkey and The Middle East Robert Olson The University Press of Kentucky 1996
- The Kurdish Question and Turkey an example of a Trans State Ethnic Conflict Professors Kemal Kirisci and Gareth Winrow Frank Cass Publishers London 1998
- The Ottoman Centuries The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire Lord Kinross Morrow HarperCollins Publishers New York New York 2002
- The Ottoman Empire 1300 - 1650 Colin Imber MacMillan New York NewYork 2002
- The Ottoman Empire The Classical age 1300 - 1600 Halil Inalcik Phoenix Press London 2000
- Turkes Cemal Anadol Milliyetci Anadolu Yayinlari Istanbul 1977
- Turkey's Kurdish Question Henri Barkey and Graham Fuller Rowman and Littlefield Oxford England
Counter
