Tag: UK

  • BBC, the Washington Post and PKK

    BBC, the Washington Post and PKK

    The national interests are pursued not only by means of tanks and guns both in the US and the UK because the power of media is regarded as a crucial tool to be utilized in the defense policy of the country. Especially in cases of military operations to be conducted against any country, the public relations constitute the most important aspect of the issue. As many as the number of soldiers operating on the field, there exist those people acting to shape the public opinion worldwide just like the litheness of a machine. The public opinion is tried to be captured’ with the help of diplomatic representatives, so called NGOs, charity organizations, environment clubs, child associations, archaeology institutes, corporations, newspapers and TV channels and many other official, semi-official and civil society organizations. Even though we do not approve, some photos are produced and given meaning, if necessary, as in the case of the Gulf War. Then, you watch on the TV screens the tragedies of those spurious victims swearing and testifying their countries in order to settle down theUSA. Whenever you happen to gather information about a country to be invaded, you realize that the required information is diffused excessively and freely by an invisible hand throughout the internet. The American info-production centers prepare such excessive and functional data that you may not even need any other sources to be informed. For instance, 80% of all the information floating in the net on the nuclear activities of Iran is consciously diffused by the US herself. If you want to reach the basic information about Iran, the most convenient source to be found is probably either Wikipedia or CIA World Factbook. Moreover, even some diplomats, whose countries are the enemies of America, reach some information about their country via CIA World Factbook.

    Shortly, the defense (offense) is not realized by tanks and guns. Those targeting the results only through hard power are the ones possessing solely that power, and always end up with disappointment. What is played is the intelligence game in which the most important area of clash is the media, and generally public relations. Therefore, no state has the right to survive in this game if it is not well-advanced in terms of communication.

    In that regard, the seemingly independent broadcasting organizations such as BBC, CNN and theWashington Post can easily transform into a spy or a soldier within quite a short time. We have experienced the most animate examples of this issue in the fight against PKK terrorism, and we are still continuing to experience. Almost all the Western media organizations reject to call PKK as a ‘terrorist organization’. In spite of the tons of protest letters sent to BBC, the so called independent British press organization, which has the full public support for its expenditures, states that they choose to use impartial language with regard to such issues. The BBC Editorial Guideline states that when reporting terrorism “other people’s language should not be adopted” and “the use of the term of terrorism should be avoided, other people should be let to characterize.”[1] Even if it seems quite nice on paper, the organization in question (PKK) is the one labeled as ‘terrorist’ and accepted as such in the laws by almost the whole world. The British Anti-Terror Law is not immune to this general rule. Therefore, there exists no situation according to which BBC would act with the fear of treating unjustly to anybody. Nevertheless, if BBC has not been able to comprehend whether PKK is a terrorist organization or not, there is something strange here. What is more, BBC has not demonstrated the same sensibility in the case of IRA, whose activities have been labeled as ‘terrorist’ by the same BBC. It has been BBC which quite easily censored the news related to IRA, and which could not stand hearing even the voices of the IRA leaders, but instead replaced them with the voices of machines. In other words, the principles of BBC Editorial Guideline do not apply when it comes to the members of IRA. For instance, in the news of 15 April 2001, entitled as “Real IRA Linked to Post Office Blast”, it was stated that the blast “is thought to have been the work of dissident Irish republican terror group the Real IRA”.[2] In another case of 26 January 2006 news, the activities of IRA were presented as “the IRA terror campaign”. In line with such examples, according to BBC, there is no doubt about Al-Qaeda’s being a terrorist organization. Almost in each and every news, the expression of “terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden” is utilized for the leader of Al-Qaeda.[3] BBC, with regard to ETA, utilizes the same approach and easily calls it as a ‘terrorist organization’.[4] The examples are so of a mass amount that it is impossible to cite each and every of them.

    In short, BBC does not take it hard to label those terrorist organizations, other than PKK, as ‘terrorist organization’. With regard to those organizations, the principles of Editorial Guideline do not cause any problems. However, when it comes to a terrorist organization pouring the bloods of Turks and Kurds, BBC feels the necessity of being impartial. It seems the blood of 5.247 civilians murdered by PKK is not so enough that BBC mentions about its being not ready to call PKK as a terrorist organization. PKK is such a terrorist organization that it can bomb in front of an education institution in the middle of a crowded city in which many Kurds live. And, BBC happens to find regarding PKK as a terrorist organization as incompatible with its principles…

    In this case, is BBC the only one acting on double standards?

    Of course, not!

    Those so called respectable newspapers and channels do not use the expression of ‘terrorist organization’ for PKK while it is utilized for Al-Qaeda unhesitatingly.

    ***

    Keep aside the utilized language, in the last operation (Operation Sun), some broadcasting organizations, primarily BBC and the Washington Post, went well beyond this language and produced news that can be rightly regarded as being clear psychological support to PKK. While the Operation was underway, the Iraq-originated news of BBC seemed just like a PKK campaign conducted in an explicit, planned and programmed manner. To exemplify, if the news written byCrispin Thorold under the title of Sympathy for Rebels in Northern Iraq”[5] were penned by the PKK, there would be not much of a difference. Firstly, when you look at the photos published in the newspaper, you can think of the Iraqi town of Ranya as a town in the US. In the photo, the SUVs of the newest models, a wide motorway and a peaceful town were quite successfully portrayed. The mountain covered with snow was so successfully displayed in the photo that the ordinary town of the north part of Iraq resembled a skiing center in Canada. Considering all these, one tends to think that the image to be created should be the image of civilized members of PKK living peacefully among the civilized people. Moreover, no Ranyanian is troubled with the PKK. On the contrary, according to Mr. Thorold, PKK is quite popular and welcomed in Ranya. “In Ranya, local people have got used to their neighbors in the PKK”, says the ‘journalist’ of BBC.One man with whom MrThorold talked states: “I like the PKK. They are very good people. They look after people here. The PKK are fighters but they are not dangerous people like other people, like Islamic people. Like Osama bin Laden.” The British journalist told with one man in enormous Northern Iraq without mentioning his name, and, this one man praised PKK in an unbelievable manner. What is strange here is that this ‘one man’ used the expression of ‘dangerous’ for the Islamic people. Then, is this ‘one man’ non-Muslim?

    Another person with whom the British journalist told is again unnamed one middle-aged man. This middle-aged man states: “The Turkish government wants to attack all the Kurdish people and not just the PKK. Turkey just wants to make things complicated here in the Kurdish region of Iraq.” The British journalist does not give the name of this middle-aged man, but does not hesitate to add: “That view is shared by many local politicians…” The third man with whom BBC told in this region again does not have any name. The person is presented as an elderly man in the news. This elderly man says: The PKK are human beings like us. They just want to stay in their country. The Turkish government is like Saddam Hussein’s regime. In the south ofTurkey they cannot even study their own language. The situation is getting worse. We just want it to improve and for there to be peace.”

    How is it possible to mention about the good will and independent journalism of BBC after seeing such expressions? If we, by stating to have told with three unnamed people, publish those writings praising Al-Qaeda and make a comparison between the British government Saddam Husain, how would be the reaction of London to such condemnation? By the way, let’s to remind, the article ofThorold was just only one example that can be regarded as BBC’s explicit support to PKK.

    ***

    The Washington Post

    The Washington Post was among the newspapers ‘supporting’ PKK during and after the Operation. The news entitled as A Kurdish Society of Soldiers[6], written by Joshua Partlow and photographed by Andrea Bruce, constitutes on its own such an excellent example that it can serve as the basis of the book to be prepared for the course on the issue of how to support terrorism with media.  Partlow portrayed PKK as ‘a Kurdish movement and army seeking for justice’. What is more, he presented PKK as a civilized movement far from the violent culture of the Middle East, and went even to a point to state: “They relate their struggle to those of the American revolutionaries who fought the British crown.” The Andrea Bruce’s camera tried to create an image of poor but proud people who are romantic, civilized and in a struggle for right. The journalists claim to follow the operation with PKK terrorists for 5 days. I say ‘they claim to’ because there is no sign of clashes in their photos. In the writings of Partlow and the photos of Bruce, instead of a harshly devastated Zap region, there exist the terrorists of PKK who stand to challenge Turkey and behave so calm and romantic to feed a little bear with baby bottle. Additionally, Partlow noted that the ‘guerrillas’ of PKK received no salaries. It is obvious that Partlow regards PKK members not as terrorists, but as laborers who should get salaries in return for their jobs.

    Especially Andrea Bruce’s photo showing a member of PKK feeding a little bear with a baby bottle should be analyzed more closely. Of course, Bruce did not put the expression of ‘terrorist’ under this photo, too. This person called as ‘A PKK rebel’ smiles while feeding the baby animal with the compassion of a mother. He has a Kalashnikov put on the rocks, but Bruce stated that PKK is a self-sufficient society, and bears no resemblance to the rest of Iraq. Within such a portrayal, the one looking at the photo either feels sorry for PKK or admires it.

    Wp PKK

    In another photo, Bhoz Erdal is displayed. The note made by WP is as such:

    The Turkish army could not capture any of our territory, could not get one of our bases, our weapons or even a scrap of nylon.”

    Wp PKK2

    WP states that these words belong to “the PKK commander”. Again, he mentions neither the expression of terrorism nor the sign of “terrorists”. As if there existed a legitimate army in before us (!)

    Conclusion

    The US sometimes acts as such. When the balances are thought to have broken down, she puts some amount of weight in one side of the teeter-totter. Such amount is placed sometimes in the Turkish sides, sometimes in the side of the terrorist. It has been proven as such in the Operation Sun as well. When Turkey showed the signs of going out of control, the number of anti-Turkey news began to increase in the Western media. The attempts to present PKK as a pleasant-romantic people’s movement increased substantially. While the Turkish general staff was distributing the press, someone was ensuring the balance with the photos of dead women, of ‘pleasant terrorists’ feeding baby bear. While BBC was diffusing the news that PKK got the support of all the Kurds,Turkey was trying to ‘enlighten’ an enormous operation by means of short statements. While even PKK was working with some associated journalists, Turkey fought against PKK on the one hand, and the misunderstandings on the other.

    ***

    We have not been able to comprehend, yet.

    We still regard the fight against terrorism as the fight against terrorist.

    We have stuck to the point of the number of the dead terrorists.

    We are still unable to realize that the most important part of the fight against terrorism is conducted in the minds. Therefore, we are still running after the terrorists in the areas defined by the fairness of the others; and cannot jump into the stage of fight against terrorism.

    For those wondering the attitudes of BBC and The Washington Post in the next operation, let me say that they will continue not to call PKK as ‘terrorist organization’. However, the question of which side to be ‘supported’ will be determined by the conditions. Nevertheless, irrespective of whichever side is supported, they will continue to rely on the Book of Editorial Guidelines.


    [1] ‘Editorial Policy BBC Guidance Note’ Available athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/assets/advice/reporting_terrorism.pdf

    [2] ‘Real IRA Linked to Office Blast’, BBC News, April 15, 2001. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1278355.stm

    [3] ‘Bin Laden Suspects Fight Extradition’, BBC News, October 22, 2001. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1613919.stm

    [4] ‘Journalists in the Frontline’, BBC News, October 1, 2001. Available at:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_newas/1567324.stm

    [5] ‘Sympathy for Rebels in Northern Iraq’, BBC News, October 26, 2007. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7063402.stm

    [6] ‘A Kurdish Society of Soldiers’, The Washington Post, March 8, 2008. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/07/ST2008030703635.html

    Turkish Weekly

  • UK-Turkey defence cooperation

    UK-Turkey defence cooperation

    The Defence Secretary, Dr Liam Fox, visited Ankara on 24 January. He discussed UK-Turkey defence cooperation with the Turkish Defence Minister and senior military officials. He visited Ataturk’s Mausoleum and gave an interview to Haber Turk. He also set out UK priorities in an article for Cumhuriyet newspaper.

    Handshake

    Article by the UK Secretary of Defence for Cumhuriyet newspaper

    My visit to Turkey this week has the aim of building stronger relations in the defence and security sphere. I want to see increased political and military engagement between the Turkish and British Armed Forces. I want to see more joint training, more officer exchange, closer cooperation on equipment procurement.  We are natural strategic partners.
    As British Prime Minister David Cameron said when he visited Turkey last year “Turkey is vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our politics and our diplomacy.”. Britain and Turkey have an enduring friendship and like the best friendships this is based on mutual interests.  We share many of the same security concerns: terrorism, the Middle-East Peace Process, stability in Iraq, concerns with Iran’s nuclear programme, energy security, piracy, and success in Afghanistan. This is why  the David Cameron and British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited Turkey last summer so soon after the new Coalition government was formed in the UK and why  the British Prime Minister signed a strategic partnership agreement with Prime Minister Erdogan.  And it is why we should also pursue closer cooperation in the defence and security sphere.  With all that Turkey does inside NATO and for European defence it is astonishing that it has been eight years since a British Defence Secretary has had a bilateral visit to Turkey.
    Turkey has an important and strategic role in global affairs. The UK is determined that this role is properly understood by all of our partners.  Turkey connects Europe and the Islamic world. It is a trading partner with a strong economy and a major player in the energy market. As a vitally important member of NATO Turkey makes a major contribution to the collective security of Europe. No organisation, especially the EU, can be serious about European defence without the full participation of Turkey.
    Turkey’s military contribution to regional and global security is an example of why Turkey is such a valuable partner. Your country has deployed thousands of troops to Afghanistan and has been at the centre of seeking economic and political progress there. Turkey plays a significant part in counter piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and in Operation Active Endeavour, NATO’s first ever Article 5 military operation.  Turkey’s contribution to European security should be praised and viewed as an example to many of our NATO allies. It is imperative that the NATO-EU relationship evolves to recognise what Turkey has to offer. After considering all that Turkey does for the defence and security of Europe I find it frustrating that its accession process into the EU has been stalled. I fear that at times, some EU Member States are so focused on their national agendas that we have collectively failed to realise that Europe needs Turkey just as much as Turkey needs Europe.
    Some believe that Turkey faces a choice between looking west towards Europe or east towards Asia. I think this is a false dichotomy. Turkey is simultaneously a European and Near-Eastern country that has cultural and economic interests that extend well into Central Asia, the Middle-East, North Africa and Western Europe. This unique attribute is one of the reasons why Turkey is an asset to Europe. Because of its history, its culture and its strategic position, Turkey has influence on some issues that others in the West cannot match.
    Take the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will be a disaster – it could destroy the hopes for peace in the Middle East and cause a nuclear arms race and further conflict through the region, impacting directly on Turkish security.  We believe Turkey shares that view and we are grateful for Turkish support for international efforts to address these concerns. This includes hosting last week’s talks between the E3+3 and Iran in Istanbul. We must keep up the pressure, including through robust implementation of sanctions. I welcome Turkey’s commitment to do just that. Like all of us, Turkey has an important responsibility to ensure it is not used by Iran to help it avoid its international obligations.
    On the 5th of February, 1952 the British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, stood up in the British Parliament and reminded people that Turkey is an “old and trusted friend” of the United Kingdom and that was why, he said, the UK was the first NATO country to give formal approval of Turkey’s admission to the alliance. Later that month Turkey attended the Lisbon Conference as a full member of NATO beginning 59 consecutive years of what has been one of the most important contributions to Europe’s defence and security. Today, the UK-Turkish relationship has never been closer.  Turkey stands at the new military, economic, energy and political crossroads of the world and it would be profoundly wrong for Europeans to turn their backs at this time. The UK will continue to be Turkey’s strongest advocates for EU membership. I will take every opportunity possible to remind my European colleagues who are sceptical about Turkey’s future inside Europe just how short-sighted they are. What a mistake of truly historic proportions it would be if, the leaders across Europe delivered future generations into a much more dangerous and destabilised continent because Turkey was excluded from something it rightly deserves—membership of the EU.

    Article by the UK Secretary of Defence for Cumhuriyet newspaperMy visit to Turkey this week has the aim of building stronger relations in the defence and security sphere. I want to see increased political and military engagement between the Turkish and British Armed Forces. I want to see more joint training, more officer exchange, closer cooperation on equipment procurement.  We are natural strategic partners.
    As British Prime Minister David Cameron said when he visited Turkey last year “Turkey is vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our politics and our diplomacy.”. Britain and Turkey have an enduring friendship and like the best friendships this is based on mutual interests.  We share many of the same security concerns: terrorism, the Middle-East Peace Process, stability in Iraq, concerns with Iran’s nuclear programme, energy security, piracy, and success in Afghanistan. This is why  the David Cameron and British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited Turkey last summer so soon after the new Coalition government was formed in the UK and why  the British Prime Minister signed a strategic partnership agreement with Prime Minister Erdogan.  And it is why we should also pursue closer cooperation in the defence and security sphere.  With all that Turkey does inside NATO and for European defence it is astonishing that it has been eight years since a British Defence Secretary has had a bilateral visit to Turkey.
    Turkey has an important and strategic role in global affairs. The UK is determined that this role is properly understood by all of our partners.  Turkey connects Europe and the Islamic world. It is a trading partner with a strong economy and a major player in the energy market. As a vitally important member of NATO Turkey makes a major contribution to the collective security of Europe. No organisation, especially the EU, can be serious about European defence without the full participation of Turkey.
    Turkey’s military contribution to regional and global security is an example of why Turkey is such a valuable partner. Your country has deployed thousands of troops to Afghanistan and has been at the centre of seeking economic and political progress there. Turkey plays a significant part in counter piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and in Operation Active Endeavour, NATO’s first ever Article 5 military operation.  Turkey’s contribution to European security should be praised and viewed as an example to many of our NATO allies. It is imperative that the NATO-EU relationship evolves to recognise what Turkey has to offer. After considering all that Turkey does for the defence and security of Europe I find it frustrating that its accession process into the EU has been stalled. I fear that at times, some EU Member States are so focused on their national agendas that we have collectively failed to realise that Europe needs Turkey just as much as Turkey needs Europe.
    Some believe that Turkey faces a choice between looking west towards Europe or east towards Asia. I think this is a false dichotomy. Turkey is simultaneously a European and Near-Eastern country that has cultural and economic interests that extend well into Central Asia, the Middle-East, North Africa and Western Europe. This unique attribute is one of the reasons why Turkey is an asset to Europe. Because of its history, its culture and its strategic position, Turkey has influence on some issues that others in the West cannot match.
    Take the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will be a disaster – it could destroy the hopes for peace in the Middle East and cause a nuclear arms race and further conflict through the region, impacting directly on Turkish security.  We believe Turkey shares that view and we are grateful for Turkish support for international efforts to address these concerns. This includes hosting last week’s talks between the E3+3 and Iran in Istanbul. We must keep up the pressure, including through robust implementation of sanctions. I welcome Turkey’s commitment to do just that. Like all of us, Turkey has an important responsibility to ensure it is not used by Iran to help it avoid its international obligations.
    On the 5th of February, 1952 the British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, stood up in the British Parliament and reminded people that Turkey is an “old and trusted friend” of the United Kingdom and that was why, he said, the UK was the first NATO country to give formal approval of Turkey’s admission to the alliance. Later that month Turkey attended the Lisbon Conference as a full member of NATO beginning 59 consecutive years of what has been one of the most important contributions to Europe’s defence and security. Today, the UK-Turkish relationship has never been closer.  Turkey stands at the new military, economic, energy and political crossroads of the world and it would be profoundly wrong for Europeans to turn their backs at this time. The UK will continue to be Turkey’s strongest advocates for EU membership. I will take every opportunity possible to remind my European colleagues who are sceptical about Turkey’s future inside Europe just how short-sighted they are. What a mistake of truly historic proportions it would be if, the leaders across Europe delivered future generations into a much more dangerous and destabilised continent because Turkey was excluded from something it rightly deserves—membership of the EU.

    UK in Turkey

  • Letter to the Leader of the Ealing Council

    Letter to the Leader of the Ealing Council


    ealing council

    To: Honorable Councillor Julian Bell, Leader of the Ealing Council
    c/o Labour Group Members’ Room, Ealing Town Hall , New Broadway,

    Dear Councillor Bell,

    We have read your statement to Turkish Times with great sadness and disappointment. It is hard to believe that such an ill advised and ill judged decision can be taken by wise and presumably informed Councillors. Both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat Councillors seem unfortunately to have been persuaded/pressurised by S Pound MP and Councillor Iskenderian, with participation by The Armenian National Committee of United Kingdom. (ANC UK is the main Armenian association which claims the “recognition” of the “Armenian genocide” and is an arm of Armenian Revolutionary Federation, ARF. The ARF controlled one of the two principal Armenian terrorist groups, the so-called “Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide/Armenian Revolutionary Army” – Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism: the Past, the Present, the Prospects – Boulder -San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press, 1991, pp. 61-62 – this information has already been provided in an email to you by Maxime Gauin 03/01/11).

    What is also fundamentally wrong with this action is that the decision has been taken without listening and weighing up the argument on the other side, and holding the discussion/hearing un-announced to all the interested parties. We can not consider this to be an appropriate action by a truly democratic Council.

    You may like to read below Mr Ergun Kirlikovali’s comprehensive and authoritative response to this ill judged decision. A new book by SS Aya,The Genocide of Truth Continues, (Derin Yayinlari) is full of documentary information and it is a book which is entirely committed to telling the truth (can be obtained via ssaya@superonline.com).

    We would very much appreciate if you and the other responsible Councillors can reconsider their position and appreciate the feelings of the Turkish Community in London .

    Yours sincerely,

    Betula Nelson

    Media Coordinator

    ASOUK
    www.ataturk.org.uk

    OH, EALING COUNCILLORS! HOW COULD YOU?

    Ergun Kirlikovali January 6, 2011  Turkish Forum

    To: Honorable Councillor Julian Bell, Leader of the Ealing Council
    c/o Labour Group Members’ Room, Ealing Town Hall , New Broadway,

    Re: Decision of Ealing Council to officially recognize the long discredited political claim of Armenian ‘genocide’ as settled history

    Dear Honorable Councillor Julian Bell,

    It is difficult and painful for me, the son of Turkish survivors on both maternal and paternal sides, to hear of Ealing Council’s unfortunate resolution, based on an Armenian’s misrepresentations—i.e. Councillor Iskendarian—where Armenian war crimes, Armenian hate crimes, and their Muslim, mostly Turkish, victims, are curiously missing. If one excludes half the story, well, even the American civil war can be made to look like a genocide.

    I realize that this was not a unanimous decision and that some prudent members considered the motion tabled by an Armenian (Cllr Iskanderian) one sided, without input from responsible opposing views and hence, judged it ill-advised and divisive. I am also aware of at least one councillor saying “…I have never come across a motion in my nine years on the council that so blatantly sought to pitch one community against another – especially on a subject which is highly sensitive and where no member of the council is really able to make a proper and considered judgment…” I truly appreciate those members who thought that way, but I wish they took the trouble to stay on and vote no so that this blatant and malicious fraud could be thwarted.

    Those terrible “War Years” of 1912-1922 (known in Turkish as “Seferberlik Yillari”) brought five consecutive wars—Tripoli (North Africa,) Balkan Wars (twice,) World War I, and the Turkish Independence War, in that order— along with wide spread death and destruction on to ALL Ottoman citizens. No Turkish family was left untouched, mine included. Those nameless, faceless Turkish victims are killed for a second time today with politically motivated and baseless charges of Armenian genocide.

    Genocide claims are racist because they ignore the Turkish dead: about 3 million during WWI; more than half a million of them at the hands of Armenian ultra-nationalists; and dishonest because genocide charges blatantly dismiss the six T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict.

    Historians reject the genocide label: This may explain why more than 69 North American scholars categorically rejected Armenian characterizations of genocide, noting that the non-partisan and reliable evidence unearthed so far points to “…inter-communal warfare fought by Christian and Muslims irregulars…” A majority of European historians who specialize on this topic also reject or criticize this label.

    The Malta Trials refuted Armenian claims 90 years ago: If you had heard about the Malta Trials by the Crown Courts in 1919-1921, that never got off the ground due to lack of evidence to support the outrageous Armenian claims, you would not have signed that deceptive edict. ( For your information, the British exiled 144 Ottoman leaders to Malta as war crimes suspects, while scouring the Ottoman, British and American archives for proof and came up empty handed. This paper might explain more: The Armenian Issue: Why The “Genocide” Label Doesn’t Fit )

    Britain does not recognize Armenian claims as genocide: You would do well to, at least, heed the advice and policy of Her Majesty’s Government when this same issue was raised in the same biased manner, again with total disregard for the other side of the story.

    Here is a journey down the history, a collection of brief educational glimpses into the past:

    1894

    “…The aim of the Armenian revolutionaries is to foment outbreaks, firstly to induce the Ottomans to react to their violence and secondly to encourage the foreign powers to intervene…” Source: Letter of the British Ambassador Currie to the Foreign Office, on March the 28th of 1894, British Blue Book, N°6, p 57

    1896

    ” …The Dashnaks and Hunchaks have terrorized their own countrymen, they have stirred up the Muslim people with their thefts and insanities, and have paralyzed all efforts made to carry out reforms; all the events that have taken place in Anatolia are the responsibility of the crimes committed by the Armenian revolutionary committees…” Source: Williams, The British vice-consul, writing from Van. (March 4, 1896, British Blue Book, Nr. 8 1896, p.108

    1915

    “…Concerning the Armenian revolutionaries’ tactics, one cannot expect to think up something more diabolic. Killing Moslems in order to punish innocents, robbing in the middle of the night villages that have just paid, the same day, their taxes. (…) The Armenian revolutionaries prefer robbing their own coreligionists rather than fighting against their enemy ; it’s in order to make their compatriots murder that the Armenian anarchists in Constantinople do bomb attacks…” Source: Sir Mark Sykes, “The Caliph’s Last Heritage”, London , 1915, p 409-418

    1922

    “…I was being employed by His Majesty’s Government to compile all available documents on the present treatment of the Armenians by the Turkish Government in a ‘Blue Book,’ which was duly published and distributed as war-propaganda!…” Source: Arnold Joseph Toynbee, “The Western Question in Greece and Turkey : a Study in the Contact of Civilizations,” Boston , Houghton Mifflin, 1922, p. 50.

    1923

    “…In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies…” Source: George M. Lamsa, a missionary known for his research on Christianity, “The Secret of the Near East,” The Ideal Press, Philadelphia (1923), page 133

    1928

    “…A circular was prepared by the War ministry asking the officers to report on the misdeeds of the enemy. According to this circular, exactness was not an essential condition: probability was enough. (…) The most popular lies in England and in America were those concerning atrocities. No war can do without it. One considers that to libel the enemy is a patriotic duty…” Arthur Ponsoby (British Deputy from 1910 till 1918, his book published in 1928 describes propaganda methods used during First World war), Falsehood in War-Time , New York , 1971, p 20-22

    1928

    “Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the ‘seventies, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population…It is at least time that Americans ceased to be deceived by propaganda…” Source: John Dewey, American professor, The Turkish Tragedy, The New Republic, November 12, 1928

    1936

    “…Those who in England are loudest in their sympathy with the aspirations of a(n Armenian) people ‘rightly struggling to be free’ can hardly have realized the atrocious methods of terrorism and blackmail by which a handful of desperados, as careful of their own safety as they are reckless of the lives of others, have too successfully coerced their unwilling compatriots into complicity with an utterly hopeless conspiracy…” Source: Lord Warkworth, after paying a visit to Van. ( William Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism.)

    1964

    “…(The Dashnaks)’ aim was by crimes and assassinations to invite Turkish reprisals and massacres, and thus create an international scandal that would attract the intervention of the other powers…” Source: David Thompson, “ Europe Since Napoleon” (Alfred A. Knopf, 1964, 2nd. Ed.)

    1976

    “… The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora today…” Source: Dr. Gwynne Dyer, a London-based independent journalist with global exposure, 1976

    1999

    “…The British Government had condemned the massacres at the time. But in the absence of unequivocal evidence that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at that time, British governments have not recognized those events as indications of genocide… Nor do we believe it is the business of governments of today to review events of over 80 years ago, with a view to pronouncing on them. The events of 1915-16 remain a painful issue in relation to two states with which we enjoy excellent relations…” Source: Foreign Office spokesman, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, AP News, April14, 1999

    2001

    “…The Government, in line with previous British Governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, a convention which was drafted in response to the Holocaust and is not retrospective in application. The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-16 is still the subject of genuine debate amongst historians.” Source: Baroness Scotland of Asthal, expressing the position of the British Government’s on the alleged Armenian genocide in a written response to a question at the House of Lords, February 7, 2001

    2001

    “…The British government of that time and those that followed considered the massacres of 1915-1916 as a horrifying tragedy. We understand the strong feelings for this problem, given the human losses of both parties. But we do not believe that proofs put forward give evidence that those events must be classified as “genocide” as defined by the 1948 Convention of the United Nations on genocide. (…) The events of 1915-1916 constitute a big tragedy, during which the two parties underwent very heavy losses…” Source: Official Statement by the Embassy of Great Britain in Ankara , July 23, 2001.

    The Armenian claims of genocide were never brought to court and, therefore, a court verdict a la Nuremberg does not exist. By voting yes on a controversial claim that totally ignores Armenian revolts, terrorism, treason, territorial demands and their Turkish victims during WWI, you are lending credence to unsubstantiated, exaggerated, falsified, and fabricated accusations.

    Do you really believe a political body is the place to resolve historical conflicts?

    Do you think academia with its research capability and/or legal realm with its “due process” expertise would be better equipped to handle such controversies ?

    Do you agree that taking one side in a complex historical conflict is offensive, and unfair to the other side?

    Do you see now how grave a mistake it is to honor one side of the story with an official stamp of approval, while totally ignoring the other? Would you like such “lynching” done to your country?

    In a democracy, history is made by political institutions but written by historians. The Blois Appeal of 2008 in France , signed by several hundreds of historians, from Europe, North America , and elsewhere, says: “… History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories. In a free state , no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions… ”

    Muslim, mostly Turkish, victims of Armenian revolutionaries and the treasonous Armenian volunteers of Russian, French and Greek armies are documented in Ottoman archives, Russian archives , American archives (and also Niles & Sutherland,) French archives (Paul Bernard, Six mois en Cilicie, Aix-en-Provence: éditions du Feu, 1929,) and even in Armenian sources
    (Haig Shiroyan, an Ottoman Armenian wrote in his Memories: “…The Russian victorious armies, reinforced by Armenian volunteers, had slaughtered every Turk they could find, destroyed every house they penetrated…” Smiling Through the Tears, New York , 1954, p. 186).

    The alleged “Armenian genocide” was popularized by Armenian terrorism of 1973-1991. The ARF controlled one of the two principal Armenian terrorist groups:

    a) “Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide/Armenian Revolutionary Army”

    (Francis P. Hyland, Armenian Terrorism: the Past, the Present, the Prospects, Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press, 1991, pp. 61-62; br>
    Gaïdz Minassian, Guerre et terrorisme arméniens, Paris : Presses universitaires de France, 2002, pp. 28-37 and 106-109; br>

    Yves Ternon, La Cause arménienne, Paris : Le Seuil, 1983, pp. 218-224.)

    Scotland Yard banned Hrair Maroukian, the leader of ARF from 1972 to 1994, from entering British soil in Autumn 1984, because British police considered him as the real chief of JCAG/ARA (Michael M. Gunter, “Pursuing the Just Cause of their People”. A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, Westport – New York – London , Greenwood Press, 1986, p. 111.)

    The JCAG/ARA killed around thirty innocent victims and bombed the offices of Turkish Airlines in London airport, on May 24, 1978 and even the offices of British airways in Madrid airport, on January 20, 1980.

    The ARF continues to glorify its terrorists, including Hampig Sassounian, jailed since 1982 for the assassination of the Turkish general consul in Los Angeles , Kemal Arikan.

    Vicken Hovsepian, sentenced in 1984 by an US court to six years of prison for an attempt of bombing is a member of ARF the leader of the party in USA .

    b) Another Armenian terrorist group, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), was actively supported by the Union of Armenian students of UK , who published a pro-ASALA newspaper in London , from 1978 to 1988: Kaytzer.

    ASALA killed around forty innocent victims (including at least eight Turkish diplomats), and wounded many more;

    ASALA terrorist Zaven Bedrosian was sentenced to eight years of prison by a British court in August 1983, for illegal possession of explosives and weapons, and conspiracy. Mr. Bedrosian admitted during his trial that he wanted to take the Turkish ambassador in London hostage with the hope of exchanging him with the ASALA murderer Levon Ekmekjian, one of the two perpetrators of attack in Ankara airport, in August 1982 (nine tourists were killed, more than 70 wounded.)

    ASALA claimed his solidarity with Irish Republican Army (IRA) against “British fascism” (sic).

    Ara Toranian, former spokesman of ASALA from 1976 to 1983, who shows no remorse for his violent past, is currently co-chairman of Coordination Council of France’s Armenian Associations.

    I hope that you will realize what a grave mistake you have made by taking the words of Armenian propagandists, falsifiers, crooks and terrorists at face value.

    In summary, if I could manage to raise a grain of doubt in your mind that the Armenian narrative may not be the whole story and that there might be another side, equally ghastly and genuine, where Armenians are the victimizers not the victims, then I consider my mission is accomplished. Thank you for reading.

    Respectfully Yours,


  • Turkey, the UK’s Favourite Destination

    Turkey, the UK’s Favourite Destination

    The UK weather is rapidly becoming colder and UK residents may be thinking of embarking on a short break during the upcoming winter season. Turkish beaches seem to be at the very top of the destinations list for such breaks during 2010.

    oludeniz

    According to new figures released by UK market research agency, GfK, Brits embarking on beach holidays seem to favour Turkish beaches above all others. GfK’s figures were released ahead of the World Travel Market, which is set to be held in London mid-November. The figures have also shown that Turkey is one of the top five destinations for growth in the UK travel market.

    This new popularity is mostly due to the all-inclusive holiday market seeing steady growth and the number of operators providing packages for Turkey. However, it’s not only the Brits who enjoy Turkey’s beach holidays, the Mediterranean nation expects its tourism sector to expand by more than 12% between 2010 and 2013, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.[…]

    Turkey’s Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ertugrul Gunay, said “Turkish tourism has been a spectacular success this year and the future remains bright, with visitor numbers continuing to grow.”

    He may well be right, as the nation’s largest city, Istanbul, was voted European Capital of Culture during 2010.[…]

    PRWeb

  • Cyprus National Archives

    Cyprus National Archives

    Cyprus National Archives

    Kibris haritasi

    Download

  • Blair must be arrested

    Blair must be arrested

    John Pilger

    Published 04 August 2010

    Having helped destroy other nations far away, our former prime minister — “peace envoy” to the Middle East — is now free to profit from the useful contacts he made while working as a “servant of the people”.

    Tony Blair must be prosecuted, not indulged like Peter Mandelson. Both have produced self-serving memoirs for which they have been paid fortunes; Blair’s, which has earned him a £4.6m advance, will appear next month.

    Now consider the Proceeds of Crime Act. Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenceless country, of a kind the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the “paramount war crime”. This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.

    In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter “liberated” by the British) are now higher than those at Hiroshima. “UK forces used about 1.9 metric tonnes of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003,” the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic “anti-personnel” weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and US forces.

    Such carnage was justified with lies that have been exposed repeatedly. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament: “We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq . . .” Last month, the former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller told the Chilcot inquiry: “There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection . . . [it was the invasion] that gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi jihad.” Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied: “Substantially.”

    The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair’s actions.

    Voracious greed

    Documents released by the high court show that British citizens were allowed to be abducted and tortured under Blair. In January 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, decided that Guantanamo was the “best way” to ensure that UK nationals were “securely held”.

    Instead of remorse, Blair has demonstrated a voracious and secretive greed. Since stepping down as prime minister in 2007, he has accumulated an estimated £20m, much of it as a result of the ties he developed with the Bush administration. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs taken by former ministers, was pressured not to make public Blair’s “consultancy” deals with the Kuwaiti royal family and the South Korean oil giant UI Energy Corporation. He gets an estimated £2m a year for “advising” the investment bank JPMorgan and undisclosed sums from other financial services companies. He makes millions from speeches, including reportedly £200,000 for one speech in China.

    In his unpaid but expenses-rich role as “peace envoy” in the Middle East, Blair is, in effect, a voice of Israel, which has awarded him a $1m “peace prize”. In other words, his wealth has grown rapidly since he launched, with George W Bush, the bloodbath in Iraq.

    His collaborators are numerous. The cabinet in March 2003 knew a great deal about the conspiracy to attack Iraq. Straw, later appointed “justice secretary”, suppressed the relevant cabinet minutes in defiance of an order by the Information Commissioner to release them. Most of those now running for the Labour Party leadership supported Blair’s epic crime, rising as one to salute his final appearance in the Commons. As foreign secretary, David Miliband sought to cover up Britain’s complicity in torture. He promoted Iran as the next “threat”.

    Journalists who once fawned on Blair as “mystical” and amplified his vainglorious bids now pretend they were his critics all along. As for the media’s gulling of the public, only the Observer’s David Rose has apologised. The WikiLeaks exposés, released with a moral objective of truth with justice, have been bracing for a public force-fed on complicit, lobby journalism. Verbose celebrity historians such as Niall Ferguson, who rejoiced in Blair’s rejuvenation of “enlightened” imperialism, remain silent about the “moral truancy”, as Pankaj Mishra wrote, “of [those] paid to intelligently interpret the contemporary world”.

    The fugitive

    Is it wishful thinking that Blair will be collared? Just as the Cameron government understands the “threat” of a law that makes Britain a risky stopover for Israeli war criminals, Blair faces a similar risk in a number of countries and jurisdictions, at least of being apprehended and questioned. He is now Britain’s Kissinger, who plans his travel outside the US with the care of a fugitive.

    Two recent events add weight to this. On 15 June, the International Criminal Court made the landmark decision to add aggression to its list of war crimes that can be prosecuted. It defines this as a “crime committed by a political or military leader which by its character, gravity and scale constituted a manifest violation of the [United Nations] Charter”. International lawyers described this as a “giant leap”. Britain is a signatory to the Rome statute that created the court and is bound by its decisions.

    On 21 July, Nick Clegg, standing at the Commons despatch box, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. For all the later “clarification” that he was speaking personally, the Deputy Prime Minister had made “a statement that the international court would be interested in”, said Philippe Sands, professor of international law at University College London.

    Blair came from Britain’s upper middle classes which, having rejoiced in his unctuous ascendancy, might now reflect on the principles of right and wrong they require of their own children. The suffering of the children of Iraq will remain a spectre haunting Britain while Blair remains free to profit

    New Statesman