Category: Non-EU Countries

  • UK Prime Minister  apologises for MI5’s role in murder of Ulster lawyer but wife slams report into police collusion in his murder

    UK Prime Minister apologises for MI5’s role in murder of Ulster lawyer but wife slams report into police collusion in his murder

    Pat Finucane

     

    • 38-year-old was shot dead in front of his wife and children at home in 1989
    • Report by Sir Desmond de Silva QC published today reveals the killing might not have happened without the involvement of security agencies
    • Widow Geraldine has repeatedly called for a full public inquiry
    • David Cameron admitted there was collusion between police and loyalists responsible for the killing but only ordered a review of the case

    David Cameron said the Government was ‘deeply sorry’ yesterday after a report into the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane found the security services colluded with the loyalist terrorists who killed him.

    A review of the case by Sir Desmond de Silva, QC, found the father-of-three would probably not have been executed by the Ulster Defence Association without the encouragement of British agents.

    Sir Desmond said state employees ‘furthered and facilitated’ the shooting of the 38-year-old, who was gunned down in front of his family in 1989.

    But his finding that there was no evidence of an over-arching conspiracy involving ministers or security chiefs to target Mr Finucane sparked calls for a full public inquiry.

    The widow of murdered Belfast solicitor Mr  Finucane slammed a report into his death as ‘a sham… a whitewash… a confidence trick’.

    Geraldine Finucane said Sir Desmond de Silva’s report was ‘not the truth’ and renewed her call for a full public inquiry.

    In a Commons statement today, David Cameron admitted Mr Finucane might still be alive had police and state agencies not colluded in his murder.

    The Prime Minister said the ‘appalling crime’ was the result of ‘shocking levels’ of state collusion and apologised on ‘behalf of the government and the whole country’.

    The de Silva review into the 1989 killing found that state employees actively ‘furthered and facilitated’ the loyalist murder of Mr Finucane.

    But the victim’s family have criticised the review, insisting only a full public inquiry will reveal the truth about his murder.

    The 38-year-old was shot in front of his wife and children at home by loyalist paramilitaries from the Ulster Defence Association in 1989.

    At a press conference after the review was published, Mrs Finucane accused the British Government of suppressing the truth while attempting to blame dead individuals and disbanded organisations while exonerating ministers, serving officers and existing security agencies.

    Mrs Finucane said: ‘Yet another British government has engineered a suppression of the truth behind the murder of my husband, Pat Finucane.

    ‘At every turn it is clear that this report has done exactly what was required – to give the benefit of the doubt to the state, its Cabinet and ministers, to the Army, to the intelligence services and to itself.

    ‘At every turn, dead witnesses have been blamed and defunct agencies found wanting. Serving personnel and active state departments appear to have been excused.

    ‘The dirt has been swept under the carpet without any serious attempt to lift the lid on what really happened to Pat and so many others.

    ‘This report is a sham, this report is a whitewash, this report is a confidence trick dressed up as independent scrutiny and given invisible clothes of reliability. But most of all, most hurtful and insulting of all, this report is not the truth.’

    Mr Cameron told the Commons said the review had found the Army and Special Branch had advance notice of a series of assassinations planned by the loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), but nothing was done.

    The review found a ‘relentless’ effort to stop justice being done with Army officials giving the Ministry of Defence highly misleading and inaccurate information, Mr Cameron said.

    Successive UK Governments are accused of a ‘wilful and abject failure’ to properly control secret agents within paramilitary groups.

    Mr Cameron said: ‘It is really shocking this happened in our country. Collusion demonstrated beyond any doubt by Sir Desmond, which included the involvement of state agencies in murder, is totally unacceptable.

    ‘We do not defend our security forces or the many who have served in them with great distinction by trying to claim otherwise. Collusion should never, ever happen.

    ‘On behalf of the Government and the whole country, let me say again to the Finucane family I am deeply sorry.’

    The review found no evidence that any Government was informed in advance of Mr Finucane’s murder or knew about the subsequent cover-up.

    Sir Menzies Campbell, former Lib Dem leader, said he had never heard a statement in the Commons which filled him with more ‘revulsion’.

    However, today Mr Finucane’s son John said he could not believe that there had been a public inquiry into newspapers hacking mobile phone messages but not into state involvement in the death of a British lawyer.

    ‘We’re talking about the murder of a lawyer in the UK,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    ‘I rather flippantly announced last year that I thought it would have been easier if my father’s phone had been hacked rather than being killed. That’s not in any way to disrespect the victims of phone hacking.

    ‘But if we can have an inquiry into something as important as that, this case is the murder of a lawyer which the British government have admitted there was collusion, you don’t then deal with that, such a fundamental attack on democracy, by holding a non-statutory review behind closed doors.’

     

    Mr Cameron has apologised more than once for the collusion between police and the loyalists responsible for the murder.

    But Mr Finucane added today: ‘An apology is not in the correct running order. You don’t apologise for something but then not fully admit what it is you’re apologising for. I think that’s what the Prime Minister has done.’

    The Finucane are unhappy that in 2001 the British government agreed during peace talks to meet honour for public inquiries into deaths. Of five recommended, four were held but in Mr Finucane’s case it was rejected.

    Mr Funucane said: ‘The only case that’s outstanding is the case of my father. This review, we feel, is the embodiment of a broken promise of the British Government. We do feel that if they are sincere in dealing with this issue then they need to grasp this issue and they need to deal with it in a credible fashion.’

    The loyalist paramilitaries shot Mr Finucane 14 times as he sat eating a Sunday meal at home, wounding his wife in the process. The couple’s three children witnessed the attack.

    The former head of the Metropolitan Police in London, Sir John Stevens, has previously investigated collusion claims surrounding Mr Finucane’s death.

    Shortly after starting the new inquiry, the Stevens team charged former Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch agent and loyalist quartermaster William Stobie in connection with the killing.

    But in November 2001 the case collapsed and he was shot dead outside his home within weeks.

    In September 2004 a loyalist accused of murdering the solicitor pleaded guilty to murdering him. Ken Barrett entered his plea at the beginning of his trial.

    Prime Minister David Cameron, who ordered the de Silva review, will deliver a statement to the Commons

    In 2004, retired Canadian judge Mr Justice Peter Cory, asked by the Government to investigate cases of suspected collusion, concluded that military and police intelligence knew of the Finucane murder plot and failed to intervene. He recommended a public inquiry.

    That year, Barrett was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.

    In 2004, then Northern Ireland Secretary Paul Murphy announced an inquiry under new legislation introduced in 2005.

    The Finucane family opposed the Inquiries Act 2005, arguing it would allow government to interfere with the independence of a future inquiry because a government minister could rule whether the inquiry sat in public or private.

    As a result, plans to establish an inquiry were halted by former Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain.

    In October 2011, the Government ruled out a public inquiry into Mr Finucane’s murder but put forward a proposal for a leading QC to review the case. That review is to be published today.

     

    Former Met Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens published the results of his four-year inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder in 2003. The report confirmed that rogue elements in the security forces were involved in a deadly plot with loyalist paramilitaries to carry out a series of sectarian murders in Northern Ireland
    Former Met Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens published the results of his four-year inquiry into Pat Finucane’s murder in 2003. The report confirmed that rogue elements in the security forces were involved in a deadly plot with loyalist paramilitaries to carry out a series of sectarian murders in Northern Ireland

     

    Daily Mail

     

  • Turkey turns to human rights law to reclaim British Museum sculptures

    Turkey turns to human rights law to reclaim British Museum sculptures

    Campaigners are going to European court in attempt to repatriate artefacts created for the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus

    Dalya Alberge

    guardian.co.uk, Saturday 8 December 2012 19.29 GMT

    Mausoleum of Halicarnassu 008

    Mausoleum of Halicarnassus

    Two marble statues from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus. Photograph: The Trustees of the British Museum

    Human rights legislation that has overturned the convictions of terrorists and rapists could now rob the British Museum of sculptures created for one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

    A Turkish challenge in the European court of human rights will be a test case for the repatriation of art from one nation to another, a potential disaster for the world’s museums.

    Despite criticism of their own country’s human rights record, Turkish campaigners are turning to human rights law – a dramatic move to reclaim sculptures that once adorned the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, an ancient wonder along with sites such as the hanging gardens of Babylon and Egypt’s pyramids.

    Greek sculptors in 350BC created a 40-metre-high monument, crowned by a colossal four-horse chariot on a stepped pyramid. A magnificent horse’s head is among sculptures acquired by the British Museum in the mid-19th century, which campaigners want returned to their original site – Bodrum in south-west Turkey.

    An Istanbul lawyer, Remzi Kazmaz, told the Observer that a lawsuit will be filed at the European court on 30 January and that 30 lawyers are acting on behalf of the town of Bodrum as well as district and provincial governors, the Turkish ministry of culture and other bodies.

    Kazmaz said: “We thank the British authorities and the British Museum for accommodating and preserving our historical and cultural heritage for the last years. However, the time has come for these assets to be returned to their place of origin … Preparations for formal requests are taking place now.”

    A petition with 118,000 signatures has been organised and the Strasbourg court will be shown a documentary on how Turkey lost its ancient treasure.

    Kazmaz said: “We do not believe that the artefacts were removed legally.”

    But he declined to elaborate on the planned legal arguments: “The lawsuit is a sensitive subject so, while I can confirm that the information you have is correct, we have to be understandably cautious”.

    Gwendolen Morgan, a human rights lawyer with Bindmans LLP, suggested that “the most likely line of attack” will be a breach by the UK of article 1, 1st protocol of the European convention of human rights, which states: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”

    She said: “I suspect they’ll use the litigation to ramp up the moral pressure on the British government … So it’s quite a powerful campaigning tool … How this case will be interpreted by the European court of human rights will also be informed by the domestic law in force in the 1850s in the Ottoman empire when the mausoleum was taken by the British Museum.”

    She joked: “I must go to the British Museum again soon before they [the sculptures] vanish.”

    Norman Palmer, a leading QC specialising in cultural property law, said: “I have not heard of it [human rights] being used to raise a claim for the specific restitution of particular tangible objects … This would be a novel claim.”

    The case will be keenly watched by Greece, which is seeking the return of the Parthenon marbles, and Nigeria, which wants the Benin bronzes back, and other nations seeking the repatriation of cultural artefacts.

    A senior source in Greece said: “Greece will be following this with interest.”

    The mausoleum – built for Mausolus, king of Caria – is believed to have collapsed after a medieval earthquake. Some of its sculptures were taken by crusaders to their castle at Bodrum, from where they were recovered in 1846 by the British smbassador at Constantinople and presented to the British Museum. Others were retrieved in the 1850s during site excavations by the museum.

    A British Museum spokeswoman said: “We have not heard anything about the legal case … so we can’t comment.” But, she added: “These pieces were acquired during the course of two British initiatives, both with firmans – legal permits issued by the Ottoman authorities – that granted permission for the excavation of the site and removal of the material from the site … to the British Museum.”

    Turkey is also pursuing claims against other institutions worldwide, including the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.

    via Turkey turns to human rights law to reclaim British Museum sculptures | Culture | guardian.co.uk.

  • Joint British Turkish Cypriot NGO Action Group calls for David Burrowes MP to resign as APPG Chairperson for Cyprus

    Joint British Turkish Cypriot NGO Action Group calls for David Burrowes MP to resign as APPG Chairperson for Cyprus

    David Burrowes with Greek Cypriot protestors

    FROM: Cetin Ramadan

    Dear Editor,

     

    Joint British Turkish Cypriot NGO Action Group calls for David Burrowes MP to resign as APPG Chairperson for Cyprus

    Tuesday, 04th December 2012:  The British Turkish Cypriot Association (BTCA) in conjunction with over 55 British Turkish and British Turkish Cypriot non-government & civil society organizations have collectively undersigned this statement as listed in Addendum A.  They are requesting the resignation of David Burrowes as the Chairperson of The British All Party Parliamentary Group for Cyprus (“APPG”).

     

    03 December 2012

     

    To all members of the Cyprus All Party Parliamentary Group

    House for Commons

    London SW1A 0AA

     

    Dear APPG Member,

     

    RE: DAVID BURROWES

     

    Over 55 British Turkish and British Turkish Cypriot non-government & civil society organizations have collectively undersigned this statement as listed in Addendum A.  We are requesting the resignation of David Burrowes as the Chairperson of The British All Party Parliamentary Group for Cyprus (“APPG”).

     

    Turkish Cypriots living in the UK have lost confidence in David Burrowes as an impartial guardian for the APPG.  We feel that his representation of Cypriot affairs in particular to the House of Commons is far from balanced and contrary to HMG policy.  He has consistently ignored the views of the overwhelming majority of the Turkish Cypriots living in the UK.

     

    As Chairperson of the APPG, and in accordance with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association principles, his actions should be impartial.  It is incumbent upon him to represent the views of ALL Cypriots.  Openly and without any reasonable justification dismissing British Turkish Cypriot NGO groups simply as “extremists” is incorrect and inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr Burrowes.  Moreover, his selective refusal to communicate with British Turkish Cypriot NGO groups shows an absolute bias and a closed mindset.

     

    He has failed to exemplify any genuine intentions of using his position to re-connect the two communities and allowing a fair and equitable solution because his door is not open to ALL the Cypriot people and the APPG is not an impartial interlocutor as it is claimed.  David Burrowes has consistently expressed a one-sided attitude in relation to handling British Turkish Cypriot concerns.

     

    By far the worse illustration of his bias is his purposeful omission and demeaning of the destruction of the Turkish Cypriot National Heritage in the south.  More than 25% of the mosques left under the jurisdiction of the “Republic of Cyprus“ have been destroyed.  In contrast, less than 4% of the churches left in the north under Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ jurisdiction have been destroyed.  However, Mr. Burrowes’ commentary on this matter leads others to believe that the problem only exists in Northern Cyprus.

     

    David Burrowes conveniently chooses to ignore the facts and unashamedly misleads the House of Commons with false accusations and incorrect statements.  This deliberate and manipulative strategy is unacceptable behaviour from a person who is meant to be impartial.  His polarised views are harming the negotiation process because his actions entrench positions on all sides and he undermines any confidence building measures of the UN and/or the International Community at large.

     

    Turkish and Turkish Cypriots in the UK & Cyprus will no longer tolerate his bias and insulting views.  As the Chairperson of the APPG Mr Burrowes cannot continue to claim to represent both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities if he is consistently singing the virtues of one over the other.  This renders his position untenable.

     

    We therefore request that David Burrowes should be requested to resign from his position as Chairperson of the APPG with immediate effect and appoint a person who is unprejudiced, unbiased and non-partisan.

     

    Yours sincerely

     

     

    Mr. Cetin Ramadan

    Chairman

    British Turkish Cypriot Association

    Joint UK Coordinator

    34-35 D`Arblay Street, London W1F 8EY, United Kingdom

     

    ENDS/

     

      Addendum A

     

    The following UK non-government and civil society organizations have confirmed their support for the statement:

     

    Aksu Türk Birliği
    Anadolu Kultur Merkezi / Anatolian Cultural Centre
    Birmingham Türk Cemiyeti
    British CPTR
    British Turkish Cypriot Association
    Cezire Association
    Doğan Türk Birliği Dayanışma Derneği
    Erenköy Mücahitler Derneği
    Ergazililer Derneği / Ergazililer Association
    Green Tower Turkish Cypriots Elder’s Club
    Güney Londra Türk Yaşlılar Derneği
    Ingiltere Turk Dernekleri Federasyonu / The Federation of Turkish Associations UK

    (representing 16

    Kıbrıs Türk Cemiyeti Baskanı
    Kıbrıs Türk Kültür Derneği
    Kıbrıs Türk Ticaret Odası / Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Commerce
    Kuzey Kıbrısla Dayanışma Derneği
    North London Turkish Islamic Trust / Kuzey Londra Türk İslam Vakfı
    Limasollular Dernegi
    Olıve Tree Educatıon Foundatıon
    Plan B Platform
    Polilıler Derneği
    Serdarlı Kıbrıs Türk Derneği
    Southwark Kıbrıs Türk Derneği
    Swindon Turkish Cypriot Union
    Toplumcu Dayanısma Dernegi
    TRNC Freedom
    Türk Birliği
    Turkish Cypriot Foundation
    Turkish Cypriot Surveyors Association
    Turkish Cypriot Trust
    Turkish Elders Club / Türk Yaşlılar Kulübü
    Turkish Forum World Turkish Alliance (TFWTA)
    UBP Londra Dayanısma Dernegi
    USİAD/TABA
    Vroisha-Yagmuralan Association
    Ataturk Society UK  / Ingiltere Ataturkcu Dusunce Dernegi
    Avrupa Turk Birligi
    KKTC Magdurlar Dernegi
    Association of Turkish Cypriots Abroad
    TRNC Human Rights Association (UK)
    The Azerbaijan House (London)

     

      Addendum B

     

    The following TRNC non-government and civil society organizations have confirmed their support for the statement:

     

    ISAD KKTC / TRNC Businessmen Association

    Milli Varolus Konseyi / Council of National Existence

    Ulusal Halk Hareketi  / The National People’s Movement 
    Emekli Ast Subaylar / Retired Non-Commissioned Officers
    K.K.T.C Parlamenterler Birligi / TRNC  Parliamentarians  Union
    T.M.T. Mucahiter dernegi / TMT Association of the Mujahideen
    Dunya Kibris Turkleri Vakfi / Worldwide Turkish Cypriot Foundation
    TRNC Human Rights Association
    TRNC Consumers Association
    Trade Union of the Public Service Personnel
  • The American-Western European Values Gap

    The American-Western European Values Gap

    American Exceptionalism Subsides

    The American-Western European Values Gap

    UPDATED FEBRUARY 29, 2012

    Survey Report

    As has long been the case, American values differ from those of Western Europeans in many important ways. Most notably, Americans are more individualistic and are less supportive of a strong safety net than are the publics of Britain, France, Germany and Spain. Americans are also considerably more religious than Western Europeans, and are more socially conservative with respect to homosexuality.

    Americans are somewhat more inclined than Western Europeans to say that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world. Moreover, Americans more often than their Western European allies believe that obtaining UN approval before their country uses military force would make it too difficult to deal with an international threat. And Americans are less inclined than the Western Europeans, with the exception of the French, to help other nations.

    These differences between Americans and Western Europeans echo findings from previous surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center. However, the current polling shows the American public is coming closer to Europeans in not seeing their culture as superior to that of other nations. Today, only about half of Americans believe their culture is superior to others, compared with six-in-ten in 2002. And the polling finds younger Americans less apt than their elders to hold American exceptionalist attitudes.

    These are among the findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted in the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain from March 21 to April 14 as part of the broader 23-nation poll in spring 2011.

    Use of Military Force

    Three-quarters of Americans agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world; this view is shared by seven-in-ten in Britain and narrower majorities in France and Spain (62% each). Germans are evenly divided, with half saying the use of force is sometimes necessary and half saying it is not.

    Germans are more supportive of the use of military force than they have been in recent years. For example, in 2007, just about four-in-ten (41%) Germans agreed that it was sometimes necessary, while 58% disagreed. Opinions have been more stable in the U.S., Britain and France.

    For the most part, opinions about the use of force do not vary considerably across demographic groups. In Germany and Spain, however, support for the use of military force is far more widespread among men than among women. Six-in-ten German men agree that it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world, compared with just 40% of women. And while majorities across gender groups in Spain believe the use of force may be necessary, more Spanish men than Spanish women say this is the case (68% vs. 56%).

    In Britain, France, Spain and the U.S., conservatives, or those on the political right, are more likely than liberals, or those on the left, to agree that the use of force is sometimes necessary to maintain world order. However, in the four countries, majorities across ideological groups express this view.1

    When asked whether their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with international threats, American opinion differs considerably from that of Western Europeans. Americans are almost evenly divided on the question, with 45% saying that the U.S. should have UN approval while 44% say this would make it too difficult to deal with threats; in contrast, solid majorities in the four Western European nations surveyed, including about three-quarters in Spain (74%) and Germany (76%) say their country should have UN approval before it takes military action.

    In Western Europe, those with a college degree are more likely than those with less education to say their country should have UN approval before using military force, although majorities across both groups share this view. For example, in Spain, 84% of those who graduated from college say UN approval should be obtained, compared with 70% of those who do not have a college degree. Double-digit differences are also evident in Britain (15 percentage points), Germany (11 points) and France (10 points). This is not the case in the U.S., where respondents across education groups offer nearly identical views.

    In Germany, gender differences are also notable; even though German men are more likely than women to say the use of military force is sometimes necessary, more men than women say their country should have UN approval before using force (83% vs. 70%).

    The view that their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with threats is far more prevalent among American liberals than among conservatives. Close to six-in-ten (57%) liberals favor obtaining UN approval, while 33% say this would make it too difficult for the U.S. to deal with threats; in contrast, most conservatives (52%) say getting UN approval would make it too difficult to deal with threats, while 38% say this is an important step. Political moderates fall between the other two groups, with 49% saying the U.S. should seek the approval of the UN before using military force and 42% saying this would make it too difficult to deal with threats. The same ideological difference is generally not evident in Western Europe.

    Views on International Engagement

    About four-in-ten (39%) Americans say the U.S. should help other countries deal with their problems, while a narrow majority (52%) says the U.S. should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with their problems as best they can. In this regard, Americans are not drastically different from respondents in France, where 43% believe their country should help other countries and 57% say it should focus on its own problems.

    The British are nearly evenly divided; 45% say their country should help other countries deal with their problems and about the same number (48%) believe Britain should deal with its own problems.

    Compared with the U.S., France and Britain, Spain and Germany stand out as the only countries where majorities favor international engagement: 55% and 54%, respectively, say their countries should provide assistance to others, while 40% in Spain and 43% in Germany take the more isolationist view.

    Opinions about international engagement have changed somewhat in the U.S., France and Spain since last year, but while publics in the two Western European countries are now more in favor of helping others than they were in 2010, more Americans currently take an isolationist position. Last year, about the same number of Americans said their country should help other countries (45%) as said it should let other countries deal with their own problems (46%). Similarly, the Spanish were nearly evenly divided, with 49% favoring engagement and 47% taking an isolationist approach. In France, where a majority continues to take an isolationist view, even more (65%) did so a year ago.

    In the U.S. as well as in the four Western European countries surveyed, those with a college degree are far more likely than those with less education to offer an internationalist view. This is especially the case in Germany, where about three-quarters (73%) of those who graduated from college believe their country should help other countries deal with their problems, compared with a narrow majority (52%) of those without a college degree.

    Political ideology is also a factor in Germany, France and Spain. In these three countries, those on the right are more likely than those on the left to take the isolationist view when it comes to international engagement. For example, while about half (48%) of left-wing French say their country should deal with its own problems and let other countries deal with theirs as best they can, about six-in-ten (59%) on the right offer this opinion.

    Cultural Superiority

    About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.

    While opinions about cultural superiority have remained relatively stable over the years in the four Western European countries surveyed, Americans are now far less likely to say that their culture is better than others; six-in-ten Americans held this belief in 2002 and 55% did so in 2007. Belief in cultural superiority has declined among Americans across age, gender and education groups.

    As in past surveys, older Americans remain far more inclined than younger ones to believe that their culture is better than others. Six-in-ten Americans ages 50 or older share this view, while 34% disagree; those younger than 30 hold the opposite view, with just 37% saying American culture is superior and 61% saying it is not. Opinions are more divided among those ages 30 to 49; 44% in this group see American culture as superior and 50% do not.

    Similar age gaps are not as common in the Western European countries surveyed, with the exception of Spain, where majorities of older respondents, but not among younger ones, also think their culture is better than others; 55% of those ages 50 or older say this is the case, compared with 34% of those ages 30 to 49 and 39% of those younger than 30.

    As is the case on other measures, opinions about cultural superiority vary considerably by educational attainment. In the four Western European countries and in the U.S., those who did not graduate from college are more likely than those who did to agree that their culture is superior, even if their people are not perfect. For example, Germans with less education are about twice as likely as those with a college degree to believe their culture is superior (49% vs. 25%); double-digit differences are also present in France (20 percentage points), Spain (18 points) and Britain (11 points), while a less pronounced gap is evident in the U.S. (9 points).

    Finally, among Americans and Germans, political conservative are especially likely to believe their culture is superior to others. In the U.S., 63% of conservatives take this view, compared with 45% of moderates and just 34% of liberals. Similarly, a majority (54%) of right-wing Germans see their culture as superior, while 47% of moderates and 33% of those on the political left agree.

    Individualism and the Role of the State

    American opinions continue to differ considerably from those of Western Europeans when it comes to views of individualism and the role of the state. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Americans believe it is more important for everyone to be free to pursue their life’s goals without interference from the state, while just 35% say it is more important for the state to play an active role in society so as to guarantee that nobody is in need.

    In contrast, at least six-in-ten in Spain (67%), France (64%) and Germany (62%) and 55% in Britain say the state should ensure that nobody is in need; about four-in-ten or fewer consider being free from state interference a higher priority.

    In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide significantly across ideological lines. For example, three-quarters of American conservatives say individuals should be free to pursue their goals without interference from the state, while 21% say it is more important for the state to guarantee that nobody is in need; among liberals in the U.S., half would like the state to play an active role to help the needy, while 42% prefer a more limited role for the state.

    Those on the political right in Britain, France and Germany are also more likely than those on the left in these countries to prioritize freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference. Unlike in the U.S., however, majorities of those on the right in France (57%) and Germany (56%) favor an active role for the state, as do more than four-in-ten (45%) conservatives in Britain.

    American opinions about the role of the state also vary considerably across age groups. About half (47%) of those younger than 30 prioritize the freedom to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state and a similar percentage (46%) say it is more important for the state to ensure that nobody is in need; among older Americans, however, about six-in-ten consider being free a higher priority, with just about three-in-ten saying the state should play an active role so that nobody is in need. No such age difference is evident in the four Western European countries surveyed.

    Asked if they agree that “success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,” Americans again offer more individualistic views than those expressed by Western Europeans. Only 36% of Americans believe they have little control over their fate, compared with 50% in Spain, 57% in France and 72% in Germany; Britain is the only Western European country surveyed where fewer than half (41%) share this view.

    In the U.S. and in Western Europe, those without a college degree are less individualistic than those who have graduated from college; this is especially the case in the U.S. and Germany. About three-quarters (74%) of Germans in the less educated group believe that success in life is largely determined by forces beyond one’s control, compared with 55% of college graduates. Among Americans, 41% of those without a college degree say they have little control over their fate, while just 22% of college graduates share this view.

    Religion More Important to Americans

    Americans also distinguish themselves from Western Europeans on views about the importance of religion. Half of Americans deem religion very important in their lives; fewer than a quarter in Spain (22%), Germany (21%), Britain (17%) and France (13%) share this view.

    Moreover, Americans are far more inclined than Western Europeans to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 53% say this is the case in the U.S., compared with just one-third in Germany, 20% in Britain, 19% in Spain and 15% in France.

    In the U.S., women and older respondents place more importance on religion and are more likely than men and younger people to say that faith in God is a necessary foundation for morality and good values. About six-in-ten (59%) American women say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 41% of men; and while a majority (56%) of Americans ages 50 and older say religion is very important to them, 48% of those ages 30 to 49 and 41% of those younger than 30 place similar importance on religion.

    Similarly, while a majority of American women (58%) say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, men are nearly evenly divided, with 47% saying belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality and 51% saying it is not. Among Americans ages 50 and older, 58% say one must believe in God in order to be moral and have good values; 50% of those ages 30 to 49 and 46% of those younger than 30 share this view.

    Education also plays a role in views of religion in the U.S., to some extent. Although Americans with a college degree are about as likely as those without to say religion is very important to them (47% and 51%, respectively), the less educated are far more inclined to say that one must believe in God in order to be moral; 59% of those without a college degree say this, compared with 37% of those who have graduated from college.

    Views of religion and whether belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality vary little, if at all, across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed. In Spain, however, respondents ages 50 and older place more importance on religion than do younger people, although relatively few in this age group say it is very important to them; 33% say this is the case, compared with 16% of those ages 30 to 49 and 11% of those younger than 30.

    Politically, conservatives in the U.S., Spain and Germany are more likely than liberals to say it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values, but while solid majorities of conservatives in the U.S. (66%) take this position, fewer than half of conservatives in Spain (31%) and Germany (46%) share this view. Meanwhile, just 26% of liberals in the U.S., 11% in Spain and 19% in Germany say belief in God is a necessary foundation for morality. Conservatives in the U.S. are also far more likely than liberals to consider religion very important in their lives (67% vs. 29%); in Western Europe, few across ideological groups place high importance on religion.

    Religious vs. National Identity

    American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46% of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90%), Germany (70%), Britain (63%) and Spain (53%) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion.

    In Britain, France and Germany, more Christians now see themselves in terms of their nationality than did so five years ago, when national identification was already widespread in these countries. This change is especially notable in Germany, where the percentage seeing themselves first as Germans is up 11 percentage points, from 59% in 2006.

    Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70% in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22% say they are primarily American. Among other American Christians, more identify with their nationality (55%) than with their religion (38%).

    Homosexuality

    Tolerance for homosexuality is widespread in the U.S. and Western Europe, but far more Western Europeans than Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society; at least eight-in-ten in Spain (91%), Germany (87%), France (86%) and Britain (81%), compared with 60% in the U.S.

    Acceptance of homosexuality has increased in recent years, and the shift is especially notable in the U.S., where only slightly more said it should be accepted (49%) than said it should be rejected (41%) in 2007. Today, more Americans accept homosexuality than reject it by a 27-percentage point margin.

    While there are some differences in opinions of homosexuality across demographic groups in the Western European countries surveyed, overwhelming majorities across age, education and gender groups believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. In the U.S., however, these differences are somewhat more pronounced. For example, while 67% of American women believe homosexuality should be accepted, a much narrower majority of men (54%) share that view. Among Americans with college degrees, 71% accept homosexuality, compared with 56% of those with less education. Finally, about two-thirds (68%) of Americans younger than 30 say homosexuality should be accepted by society; 61% of those ages 30 to 40 and 55% of those ages 50 and older share this view.

    In addition to demographic differences, an ideological divide on views of homosexuality is also notable in the U.S., where more than eight-in-ten (85%) liberals and 65% of moderates express tolerant views, compared with 44% of conservatives. In the four Western European countries surveyed, at least three-quarters across ideological groups say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

    1. In the U.S., respondents were asked, “In general, would you describe your political views as very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?” In Western Europe, respondents were asked, “Some people talk about politics in terms of left, center and right. On a left-right scale from 0 to 6, with 0 indicating extreme left and 6 indicating extreme right, where would you place yourself?” Throughout this report, we use the terms left/liberal and right/conservative interchangeably. In the U.S., an analysis of partisan differences shows that, for the most part, the views of Democrats align with those of liberals, while views of Republicans mirror those of conservatives; we refer to ideology rather than partisanship for a more direct comparison between Americans and Western Europeans. ↩

    2011 VALUES0014

    Source :

  • REMINDER / HATIRLATMA: David Burrowes MP/ Milletvekili

    REMINDER / HATIRLATMA: David Burrowes MP/ Milletvekili

    David Burrowes MP who is known as the Fanatic Greek Cypriot Supporter
    David Burrowes MP who is known as the Fanatic Greek Cypriot Supporter

    > English
    >
    >
    > Throughout the years, many British MPs have taken a one-sided view
    > against Turkish Cypriots regarding the Cyprus issue.  David
    > Burrowes, the MP for Enfield-Southgate, is a perfect example of this
    > conduct.  He is the Chairperson of the All party Parliamentary Group

    > for Cyprus (APPG), an influential body in the UK’s Cyprus affairs, but
    > we feel that his representation of Cypriot affairs to the House of
    > Commons is far from balanced.  He conveniently chooses to ignore the
    > facts and his false accusations and incorrect statements are
    > misleading.  As head of the APPG he claims to represent both
    > communities whilst openly adopting the views and positions of Greek
    > Cypriot lobbyists; the fact that not a single speaker has appeared at
    > an APPG event to explain the concerns and views of Turkish Cypriots
    > speaks volumes.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > As Chairperson of the APPG, David Burrowes is in a strong position to
    > influence other MPs in order to take a pro Greek Cypriot stance.  This
    > renders his position untenable as he continues to ignore the
    > legitimate concerns of the UK’s Turkish Cypriots.  He is not
    > interested in our views and we therefore request that the Minister for
    > Europe and APPG members for Cyprus ask David Burrowes to resign from
    > his position with immediate effect, and a new Chairperson who
    > is willing to take on board and represent the views of Turkish
    > Cypriots which have been ignored for far too long.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >    We all wish to see constructive and decisive action by midday on
    >  Wednesday 28th November 2012 and in anticipation we have taken this
    >  opportunity to show unity by way of a collective letter addressed to
    >  the Minister for Europe, David Liddington and to all members of the
    >                Cyprus All Party Parliamentary Group.
    >
    >
    >
    > The British Turkish Cypriot Association (BTCA) would like to formally
    >    invite you/your organisation to join us in this JOINT action.
    >
    >
    >
    >  IF YOU WISH TO SUPPORT THIS LETTER, PLEASE EMAIL:  cetin077@aol.com
    >  with your full personal name and title and the name of the NGO you
    >                              represent
    >
    >
    >
    >    The closing date to notify us of your wish to be included as a
    >      signatory is midday (GMT) on Wednesday 28th November 2012.
    >
    >
    >
    >  ***Many thanks to all those people who have already indicated that
    >  they wish to have their names included as joint signatories and who
    >        have also helped in the preparation of this statement***
    >

    >

    Türkce
    >
    >
    > Yıllar boyunca birçok Britanyalı Parlamenter, Kıbrıs konusunda
    > Kıbrıslı Türklerin görüşlerine karşı tek yanlı davranmışlardır. Bu
    > konuda Enfield-Southgate Milletvekili olan David Burrowes çok iyi
    > bir örnektir. Kendisi, Birleşik Kraliyet’nin Kıbrıs siyasetinde sözü
    > geçen Karma Parlamenterler Kıbrıs Grup Başkanıdır (All Party
    > Parliamentary Group for Cyprus – APPG). Biz bu şahısın Kıbrıs konusunu
    > parlamentoya dengeli bir şekilde yansıtmaktan çok uzak olduğuna
    > inanıyoruz. Kıbrıs’taki mevcut gerçekleri gözardı ederek, sahte ve
    > yanlış demeçler vermektedir. Karma Parlamenterler Kıbrıs Grubu (KPKG)
    > Başkanı olarak, her iki Kıbrıslı toplumu temsil ettiğini iddia
    > etmesine rağmen, açıkca sadece Kıbrıs Rum lobicilerinin görüşlerini
    > kabul etmektedir. Hatta  KıbrıslıTürklerin görüşlerini de almak üzere
    > tek bir kişinin KPKG’ye davet edilmemesi çok manidardır.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > KPKG Başkanı olarak, David Burrowes diğer Milletvekillerinin de Kıbrıs
    > Rum yanlısı bir tavır almaları için etkin bir pozisyona sahiptir.
    > Birleşik Kraliyetinde yaşayan Kıbrıslı Türklerin meşru endişelerini
    > gözardı ederek sözkonusu Grup Başkanlık müdafaasını imkansız
    > kılmaktadır. Kendisi bizim görüşlerimizle ilgilenmediği için Avrupa
    > Bakanı ve KPKG üyelerinden David Burrowes’ın sözkonusu Başkanlıktan
    > derhal istifasını talep etmeleri ve onun yerine, çoktan beri dikkate
    > alınmayan Kıbrıslı Türklerinin görşlerine de saygı duyan yeni bir
    > Başkanın seçilmesi için çağrıda bulunuyoruz. Bu konuda Çarşamba 28
    > Kasım 2012 öğle vaktine kadar yapıcı ve kesin kararların alınmasını
    > bekliyoruz. Bu yönde birlik ve beraberliğimizi göstermek amacıyla
    > hepimiz adına başta Avrupa Bakanı ve Milletvekili David Liddington
    > olmak üzere, tüm KPKG üyelerine bir mektup yazmış bulunuyoruz.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Britanyalı Kıbrıslı Türk Birliği olarak sizleri ve örgütünüzü bizimle
    >                  ortak hareket etmeye davet ediyoruz.
    >
    >
    >
    >    Eğer bu mektuba desteğinizi vermek istiyorsanız cetin077@aol.com
    >  e-mail adresine, isim, soy isminizi, ünvanınızı ve temsil ettiğiniz
    >            sivil toplum örgütünün ismini verebilirsiniz.
    >
    >
    >
    >    Sözkonusu mektubun altına sizin de isminizin kaydedilmesini arzu
    > ederseniz, Çarşamba 28 Kasım 2012 öğle vaktine kadar bize bildirmeniz
    >                              gerekiyor.
    >
    >
    >
    > ***Şimdiye kadar bize isimlerini göndererek ve mektubun hazırlanışında
    >      destek veren tüm şahıslara ve örgütlere teşekkür ederiz.***
    >
    >
    >

     

  • Britain ready to back Palestinian statehood at UN

    Britain ready to back Palestinian statehood at UN

    Mahmoud Abbas pledge not to pursue Israel for war crimes and resumption of peace talks are UK conditions

    Ian Black, Middle East editor

    Palestinians hold posters
    Palestinians hold posters of President Mahmoud Abbas during a rally supporting the UN bid for observer state status, in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Photograph: APAimages/Rex Features

    Britain is prepared to back a key vote recognising Palestinian statehood at the United Nations if Mahmoud Abbas pledges not to pursue Israel for war crimes and to resume peace talks.

    Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has called for Britain’s backing in part because of its historic responsibility for Palestine. The government has previously refused, citing strong US and Israeli objections and fears of long-term damage to prospects for negotiations.

    On Monday night, the government signalled it would change tack and vote yes if the Palestinians modified their application, which is to be debated by the UN general assembly in New York later this week. As a “non-member state”, Palestine would have the same status as the Vatican.

    Whitehall officials said the Palestinians were now being asked to refrain from applying for membership of the international criminal court or the international court of justice, which could both be used to pursue war crimes charges or other legal claims against Israel.

    Abbas is also being asked to commit to an immediate resumption of peace talks “without preconditions” with Israel. The third condition is that the general assembly’s resolution does not require the UN security council to follow suit.

    The US and Israel have both hinted at possible retaliation if the vote goes ahead. Congress could block payments to the Palestinian Authority and Israel might freeze tax revenues it transfers under the 1993 Oslo agreement or, worse, withdraw from the agreement altogether. It could also annex West Bank settlements. Britain’s position is that it wants to reduce the risk that such threats might be implemented and bolster Palestinian moderates.

    France has already signalled that it will vote yes on Thursday, and the long-awaited vote is certain to pass as 132 UN members have recognised the state of Palestine. Decisions by Germany, Spain and Britain are still pending and Palestinians would clearly prefer a united EU position as counterweight to the US.

    Willian Hague, the foreign secretary, discussed the issue on Monday with Abbas and the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, offiicals said.

    Palestinian sources said Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, raised the issue with Abbas at his Ramallah headquarters last week, shortly before a ceasefire was agreed in the Gaza Strip, as had Tony Blair, the Quartet envoy.

    Abbas has been widely seen to have been sidelined by his rivals in the Islamist movement Hamas, as well by his failure to win any concessions from Israel. Abbas, whose remit does not extend beyond the West Bank, hopes a strong yes vote will persuade Israel to return to talks after more than two years.

    Officals in Ramallah have opposed surrendering on the ICC issue so it can be used as a bargaining chip in future, but views are thought to be divided. Abbas said at the weekend: “We are going to the UN fully confident in our steps. We will have our rights because you are with us.”

    Leila Shaid, Palestine’s representative to the EU, said: “After everything that has happened in the Arab spring, Britain can’t pretend it is in favour of democracy in Libya, Syria and Egypt but accept the Palestinians continuing to live under occupation. As the former colonial power, Britain has a historic responsibility to Palestine. Britain is a very important country in the Middle East, it has extensive trade relations, and David Cameron should know he risks a popular backlash from Arab public opinion if he does not support us.”

    Palestinians have rejected the claim that they are acting unilaterally, calling the UN path “the ultimate expression of multilateralism”. Israel’s apparent opposition to unilateralism has not stopped it acting without agreement to build and expand settlements, they say.

    guardian.co.uk,