The Whitaker Report is not specifically related to the Armenian Genocide.
The Whitaker Report is commonly associated with a different issue. It is often referred to as the “Whitaker Report on Genocide,” and it was prepared by Benjamin Whitaker, a British lawyer, for the United Nations in 1985. The report focused on the topic of genocide and the legal and practical measures that should be taken to prevent and punish it. It played a significant role in shaping the legal and political discourse surrounding genocide prevention and the eventual establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The UN Sub commission did not accept the report, but decided to “receive” it.
Since 1985, the UN Spokesperson has three times declared that the UN does not accept the Armenian case as genocide.
Of the seven independent organizations who provided their expert opinions, three were later to be found to be fronts for Armenian groups that support the Dashnaks.
The Special Rapporteur (Whitaker) who snuck in the footnote later admitted that he had been retained by the Armenian lobby, but that he did not receive any money for his report. However, he later did work for the Armenian lobby for money.
Whitaker report stated in paragraph 24 that:
The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974, the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary [1985] Iranian killings of Baha’is. — Whitaker Report, (paragraph 24)
The documents that show the UN does not accept the Armenian case as genocide are provided by Emre Serbest.
People walk by an image of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on 10 May 2021 (AFP)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was re-elected for the 4th term in office with 95.1% of the votes. According to Assad’s government, the election results proved Syria is functioning normally.
This will extend his rule over a country despite harsh criticism from the United States, Germany, Italy, France and Turkey as well as Assad’s opponents in the country said the vote was illegitimate.
Despite their condemnation of his brutal and authoritative regime during the decade-long Syrian civil war, imposing economic sanctions and militarily backing his opponents, the Syrian leader was able to remain in power and save the country from the territorial divide. Like a true captain of the wrecked ship, Bashar Al-Assad did not leave the war-torn country and, what’s important, did not let it collapse despite West’s multiple efforts to intervene.
With Russia’s support, Assad arranged constant humanitarian help flows to the country and save the sovereignty of secular state despite endless clashes and civil war in the country. Moreover, Assad assured his supporters get access to education and healthcare while his government provided jobs to workers.
Prior to the elections, the White House have warned Syrian President that it would not recognize the result of upcoming presidential election unless the voting is free, fair, and supervised by the United Nations while Biden administration said it had no plans to restart the dialogue “any time soon” claiming the Assad government failed to restore legitimacy in the country. With no doubts such open statements mean the West will continue its pressure to the Assad’s regime and will try to remove him from his post demonstrating a double standard “legitimacy” at its best.
On the left, Ambassador Y. Halit Çevik, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations
Statement by Ambassador Y. Halit Çevik, Permanent Representative of Turkey to the United Nations during the Meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States
Mr. Chairman,
Today we are faced with pressing global challenges. World population is expected to go over 9 billion by 2050 creating unprecedented pressure on our resources, especially on water, food and energy. Almost one billion human-beings are still undernourished. Environment is getting polluted. Biodiversity has deteriorated like never before and environmental degradation is unfortunately not getting enoughattention. Climate change is posing threat to our wellbeing, even to human existence in some parts of the World.
While the climate threat to the entire planet goes on virtually unchecked, sea level is rising at an alarming rate due to the negative effects of increasing carbondioxide (CO2)concentration in the atmosphere, thereby posing an immediate and real threat to the survival of those peoples and communities who live on small land either by the sea or surrounded by immense ocean masses. The magnitude of the social and humanitarian threat posed by sea level rise far surpasses any economic consideration; loss of homeland and related identity, relocation, changes in ways of life are its real and potentially devastating consequences.
In the first place, Small Island Developing States are confronted with all the adverse effects of the above, not to mention gravely detrimental consequences of the rising sea levels of unprecedented magnitude. If urgent action is not taken, living conditions in these places will get worse eventually leading to disastrous consequences.
We regard the Declaration of Barbados and theProgramme of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS, the Mauritius Declaration and the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS as UN landmark documents and cornerstones for global action.
The outcome document of the Rio+20 UN Conference constitutes a breakthrough development regarding the need to fully address all issues pertaining to the SIDS.
Turkey welcomes the declaration of 2014 as the International Year of Small Island Developing States. We are confident that Samoa will host the Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in a very successful and able manner in September 2014. We attach great importance to the success of this conference. To that effect, Turkey is pleased to extend its financial support to the host country. We would also like to underline the importance of contributions by the interested member states to the SIDS Third International Conference Trust Fund.
Turkey completely shares all the concerns expressed by the SIDS expressed in international fora. We believe that the post-2015 development agenda should properly address the concerns of the SIDS, and the entire UN membership should approach this process with a pragmatic, constructive and forward-looking perspective. Therefore, no effort should be spared during this Conference in order to produce a new development framework for the SIDS which will also be in line with the post-2015 development agenda.
Turkey is committed to assisting and supporting developing countries in their efforts towards sustainable growth and development. Our interest in the vulnerabilities of SIDS should be seen within the broader context of our foreign policy agenda, as a medium-to-long-term and high-priority objective.
Turkey has become increasingly active in sharing its own development experiences and in contributing to international development cooperation efforts as a whole, especially in the SIDS as well as Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs).
With this understanding, we hosted the 4th UN Conference on Least Developed Countries in Istanbul in May 2011, which brought together Governments, parliamentarians, academics, as well as representatives of civil society organizations and the private sector. We also have offered to host the Mid-Term Review Conference of the 4th UN LDC Conference.
Being a developing nation itself, Turkey perceives a special responsibility that our unique location, history and humanitarian tradition bestow upon us to share our development with other nations worldwide. This understanding will guide our continuous engagement with the preparations of the 3rd International Conference on SIDS.
We stand ready to make available the expertise accumulated throughout these processes for the success of development agenda to be designed for the SIDS as well.
In this regard, we also fully support the well-founded request of the SIDS to determine a stand-alone sustainable development goal for oceans in the post-2015 agenda.
Thank you.
In Turkish
New York’taki Türkevi’nde ”Küçük Ada Devletleri Uluslararası Yılı” resepsiyonu
Türkiye’nin BM Daimi Temsilcisi Halit Çevik’in ev sahipliğini yaptığı resepsiyona, Nauru Cumhurbaşkanı Baron Waqa’nın yanı sıra çok sayıda ada devletinin temsilcisi ve üst düzey diplomat katıldı.
NEW YORK (AA) – Gelişmekte olan ”Küçük Ada Devletleri Uluslararası Yılı”nın ilanı nedeniyle New York’taki Türkevi’nde bir resepsiyon verildi.
Ev sahipliğini Türkiye’nin BM Daimi Temsilcisi Büyükelçi Halit Çevik, ada devleti Nauru Daimi Temsilcisi Marlene Moses ve BM Ekonomik ve Sosyal İşler Genel Sekreter Yardımcısı Wu Hongbo’nun yaptığı resepsiyona Nauru Cumhurbaşkanı Baron Waqa’nın yanı sıra Samoa Başbakanı, Barbados ve Morityus Dışişleri Bakanları katıldı.
Resepsiyonda bir konuşma yapan Büyükelçi Halit Çevik, insan hayatı için çevre ve su kaynaklarının önemine değinerek, iklim değişikliğinin tüm insanlığı tehdit ettiğini söyledi. Küresel sorunlara hiç kimsenin gözünü kapatamayacağını vurgulayan Çevik, Türkiye olarak ada devletlerinin gelişmesi için her türlü desteği vermeye hazır olduklarını söyledi.
Çevik, 1-4 Eylül tarihleri arasında Samoa’nın Apia kentinde yapılacak 3. Uluslararası Küçük Ada Devletleri Konferansı Hazırlık Komitesi toplantısının bugün başladığını belirterek, toplantının başarılı geçmesi için çalışmaya devam edeceklerini söyledi.
Nauru Cumhurbaşkanı Baron Waqa ise konuşmasında küresel ısınma ve iklim değişikliği ile mücadelede birlikte hareket etmenin önemine vurgu yaparak, Türkiye’nin ada devletlerine gösterdiği yakın ilgiye teşekkür etti.
Resepsiyonda Türk mutfağından çeşitli örnekler misafirlere ikram edilirken, ada devletlerinden gelen müzik gruplarının sergilediği performanla bazı misafirler dans etti.
LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron faced an uphill struggle on Thursday to secure parliament’s approval for military intervention in Syria after the main opposition party said it would vote against the motion.
Opening the debate to lawmakers recalled from their summer recess, Cameron said what was at stake was “one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century.”
He insisted that taking action against the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability was “not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict.”
But the outcome of the vote hung in the balance after a party source said the center-left opposition Labour Party had been having “increasing doubts about the opaque nature of the government’s motion.”
The motion that lawmakers are being asked to approve “does not mention anything about compelling evidence” that a suspected chemical attack last week outside the Syrian capital was launched by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, the source said.
The Syrian regime strongly denies it was responsible and blames opposition fighters for the attack.
Under growing pressure from Members of Parliament who feared Britain was rushing into action, the government was forced to agree late Wednesday that Britain would not take part in any military strikes before United Nations inspectors report back on the gas attacks believed to have killed hundreds near Damascus.
While the political temperature rose, Britain dispatched six Typhoon fighter jets to its Akrotiri base on Cyprus as a “protective measure,” although the defense ministry said the planes will not take part in any direct military action.
Cameron’s government was said to be outraged by the decision of Labour leader Ed Miliband to change his stance on Wednesday — having previously offered the government conditional backing for military action.
The government has been forced to dilute the vote to one on merely the principle of military action.The motion to be debated says that a final vote should only take place after U.N. inspectors report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Thursday the investigators would leave Syria by Saturday and report to him immediately.
Cameron does not have a clear majority in parliament and his Conservative party is forced to rely on the far smaller Liberal Democrats to rule in a coalition.
With British lawmakers now facing the prospect of having to vote for a second time on a different day — possibly early next week — it raises the possibility that the United States will go it alone with missile strikes, without involvement from Britain, its main military ally.
Muddying the waters, the government also said it had received legal advice that under international law, Britain could still launch military action even without a mandate from the U.N. Security Council.
Miliband is pushing ahead with his own amendment that calls for a greater U.N. role before any military action is authorized, and has not said whether the party will support the government if that is rejected.
He said: “I’m clear that this is a very grave decision to take military action that the House of Commons would be making and I didn’t think that that decision should be made on an artificial timetable when the House of Commons wouldn’t even have seen the evidence today from the U.N. weapons inspectors.
“I’m determined to learn the lessons of the past, including Iraq, and we can’t have the House of Commons being asked to write a blank check to the PM for military action.”
Cameron will try to convince that targeted strikes would punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons and deter any further attacks.
He will also insist that any strikes would not drag Britain into a wider conflict.
Haunted by their experience of the war in Iraq, a growing number of MPs — including some within Cameron’s own center-right Conservative Party — are reluctant to back British military involvement.
In 2003, parliament gave then Prime Minister Tony Blair a mandate to join the U.S.-led offensive in Iraq on the basis of allegations that dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons never materialized and Britain became embroiled in the war for years.
TURKEY’S REACTİON TO UN İNVİTATİON AND REPLYING REASONS FOR IT:
In order to fully understand Turkey’s position concerning the Korean War,it would be beneficial to take a brief look at the prevailing situations in and around Turkey prior the war. During the course of World War-II, Turkey was faced with the threat of invasion by Germany, her historical ally, whose Armies advanced all the way to the Turkish borders in Thrace and who requested her to change her neutral position. In the later years of the war, she was this time pressured by the Allies to enter the war against Germany. President Ismet Inonu and his colleagues succeeded in maintaining strict neutrality by continued maximum resistance to pressures from both sides. As much as the political situation permitted and thus kept Turkey out of the war.
The Turkish administration was keeping a close watch on Soviet activities during the war. The Soviet desire to gain territory, their disregard for accepted rules and violations, the fact that they did not move out of any country they occupied before setting up puppet regimes loyal to them, were clearly witnessed and were all being taken into account.
Soviet Russia’s historical claims over the “Turkish Straits” had not changed. They wanted new and expanded rights over Straits and formally claimed land from Eastern Turkey, confirming Turkey’s concern and without hesitation by the government of Turkey even if this would have meant risking a new war. On the other hand; the victorious western nations wanted to give the whole islands which were granted to Italy at the end of World War-I, were under Italian occupation and most of which were only a few miles from the Turkish coast, totally to Greece and were putting political pressure on Turkey in order to achieve their goal. Thus, Turkey found herself completely isolated politically and militarily against one of the most powerful victors of the war. In order to continue her existence, Turkey had to find new and strong allies in the west. The new World Power, which predominated world politics, was the U.S. This country seemed to believe that the expansionist policy of the Communists had to be stopped and she appeared ready to help Turkey. Friendly relations were initiated with this Super Power.
In 1949, The North Atlantic Alliance was formed and Turkey had not been included in it. This Alliance was to provide the greatest political, economic and cultural solidarity against the USSR and her expansionist policy. Turkey had to enter this alliance for the benefit of her national interests. She could only then find herself the place she desired and needed to have in the Western World within a new, strong defense chain.
Turkey had entered into an era of multi party democracy. “Democratic Party” which came into power through elections held on 14th May 1950 was willing to have close cooperation with her Western Allies and to undertake major social, political, cultural, military and economic reforms in the country.
Turkey was aware that she could be subject to the same treatment the Soviets had given to her satellites. The enemy in Korea was a common enemy and this initial attempt had to be stopped, and the enemy should not be given a chance to initiate a new assault against Turkey or any other country. The most important fact for whole world that, Turkey was just over the expansionist route of Communists toward Middle East and North Africa and domination for these areas Soviets must have control over Turkey.
For all these reasons we have listed, Turkey replied on 29 June 1950 to the U.N. cable dated 27th June pleading for aid to Korea, following the attack initiated by North Korea on 25th June. The cable stated: “Turkey is ready to meet her responsibilities.” The Government of the Republic of Turkey decided on 25th July 1950, to prepare in Ankara, a brigade of 5000 troops comprising 3 infantry battalions, 1 artillery battalion and auxiliary units, to fight under U.N. Command in Korea against the aggressor. With this decision Turkey wanted to demonstrate that she sincerely believed and had faith in the U.N. convictions concerning the establishment and continuation of peace in the world.
GENERAL OFFENSE OF THE U.N. FORCES:
On 24th Nov 1950, the U.N. Forces launched their attack north from the line of contact with its center of mass in the 8th Army area with all Army (Ist and IXth U.S.Corps, Ist Turkish and 27th British Brigades),Xth U.S. Corps and Ist South Korean Corps. Since the weak enemy forces on the 8th Army front retreated hastily, the advance elements moved quickly forward 8-10 miles. This easy advance gave misleading impression that “the enemy is withdrawing to Manchuria and that peace was on hand. Only units of IInd South Korean Corps on the Armies right flank held its position. The attack continued on 25th Nov with Ist and IXth U.S. Corps advancing in the 8th Army area and II Korean Corps again remaining in its position. However, on 26th Nov attack initiated by Ist and IXth Corps were met with stiff resistance. While the attack was loosing its intensity, the IInd South Korean Corps on the U.N. Force’s right flank was suddenly struck a massive counter offensive by some 180.000 Chinese Troops in 18 divisions. In consequence, the shattered IInd South Korean Corps had to retreat to the east of Tokchon. The enemy forces continued their attack on the night of the 26th Nov. and forced the IInd South Korean Corps 40 Kilometers South, to the Taedong River. The enemy is believed to have used 8 Communist Chinese divisions to spearhead this attack. A holding attack in this area was launched the same night with about 6 divisions against the IXth Corps units. However, with the withdrawal of the IInd South Korean Corps, the right flanks of two U.S. Corps were exposed, making them highly vulnerable. The enemy, whose center of mass was believed to be here, was capable of enveloping the entire 8th Army. With this sudden change of events, this exposed flank had to be refused in order for the 8th Army to withdraw in an orderly manner. This duty was assigned to the Turkish Brigade, which was in the army reserve.
The Turkish Brigade (Bde), tasked with protection the right flank of the 9th Corps, which was threatened with enemy envelopment, and thus that of the 8th Army, was to advance along the Kunuri-Tokchon road and single handedly counter superior enemy forces which had repulsed the IInd South Korean Corps. On 27th Nov, these Communist Chinese forces had, as expected, initiated a fast encirclement and pursuit operation. And a substantial portion of its forces was directed towards Kunuri. The Turkish Bde had started marching from the opposite direction on the same road from Wawon to Tokchon. However, in the afternoon, it stopped and order from IXth Corps Command and returned to Wawon. The order had unfortunately been transmitted to the Bde Commander about 2 hours late. The main units of the Bde had deployed to Wawon area and started to deploy after necessary security precautions were taken. The Bde Commander was informed at around 0100 hours on the 28th Nov that the reconnaissance detachment who had been on rear guard support duty, was attacked by the enemy and destroyed.
Dispute between North and South Korea is growing day by day. We believe that it will be better to give, some background information about these famous hostilities.
The Korean War is one of the most comprehensive and significant wars that took place within almost the 60 odd years following World War II. It began on the morning of 25th June 1950 with a surprise assault initiated by the North Korean Armed Forces who had been preparing for an offensive for a long time, without any apparent pretext or provocation. Consequently, it continued to expand, with the United Nation Forces, formed for the first time in history comprising about 20 free nations including Turkey, fighting on the side of South Korea and Communist Chinese Forces fighting on the side of North Korea until 27 July 1953 on which date the war came to an end through an interim truce
Due to the political conditions prevailing at that time, Turkey was the first nation following the U.S. to respond positively to the United Nations call assigning a 5000 men strong Brigade to the United Nation Armed Forces. The Brigade; which came to be known as “The Turkish Brigade” entered the war in late Nov 1950, at almost the same time as Communist Chinese Forces started fighting on the side of North Korea. The Brigade took an active part in numerous battles of various size until the signing of the truce.
We have prepared this article on the anniversary of this unfortunate episode to commemorate the soldiers who fought and shed blood for a sacred cause, thousand of miles from their homes, and to briefly review the operations conducted by the Turkish Brigade, which was renowned for its exploits during this war. We think that for all military and even civilian personnel, of what country they are from, there are great benefits to be obtained from recognizing and being informed about both the positive and negative aspects of operations conducted by a unit of such a small scale. Thus, it will be possible to have a better idea about the degree of impact a unit may have, regardless of his size, on the outcome of combat and indirectly, even the outcome of the war itself.
HISTORICAL BACKGRAUND:
The Koreans have a 4000 years old history, they are a people bound to the infertile land of the Korean Peninsula, and are different from the Chinese, the Manchurians and Japanese. They had passed the civilization of Ancient China to Japan, and although they are very peaceful people, their geographical location caused the country to be used as a natural bridge and buffer zone, never allowing the Koreans to find the peace they sought. The history of Korea, much like that of Anatolia, which also constitutes a natural bridge between Asia, Europe and Africa, abounds with foreign invasions. Korean Peninsula is regarded both as a bridgehead for those who want to cross to Asia and as a stepping stone for those who want to cross to the Japanese Islands. For these reasons any power whose intention has been or would be to control the Far East for its national interests, must always have and want to have Korea under its control. The region of Korea has been a source of political conflict, confrontation and armed combat, initially between her close neighbors China and Japan; and later, upon Tsarist Russia gaining a foothold in the Far East in the second half of the 19th Century, between China, Japan and Russia. The original reason for conflicts could not have been only Korea; the real objective of the scramble was the reach and widespread lands of Manchuria.
China had maintained control over Korea since the reign of the Manchu’s. In the 19th Century, The Japanese Empire as early as its founding years tried to intervene economically in Manchuria. As a result, Japanese and Chinese Empires started fighting in Korea in 1894. The Japanese defeated Chinese Forces near Pyongyang and with the Shimoneski Treaty, signed on seventeen April 1895; The Manchu Empire resigned its rights over Korea and abandoned Taiwan to Japan. Although Korea came under Japanese control later, the expansionist policies of the Tsarist Russia to the north influenced Russian- Japanese relations. Russia tried to carve out a peace from Manchuria without any regard for the Japanese Empire and Seized bases and fortresses and started approaching the River Yalu in order to gain control over Northern Korea. It is interesting to note that; the idea to divide Korea along 38th Parallel between Japan and Russia first emerged in 1896, during these conflicts. When Japanese Army and Navy defeated Russians in 1904 they gained control over the entire Area.
The Koreans could not make use of Wilson’s Principles at the end of World War-I, since Japan was then in the ranks of Entente Powers. In spite of this, Korean nationalists formed two provisional governments outside Korean territory. One of these was under Dr. Syngman Ree, the other formed by Kim Kao. During World War II, the Korean issue was for the first time dealt with at 1943 Cairo Conference. The portion of the conference communiqué pertaining to Korea and signed by Chiang-Kai-Shek, Churchill and Roosevelt is as follows: “ The three major states, U.S., Britain and China, who are well aware of the captivity of the Korean People, have decided that Korea will be granted her independence due course.” At that time, Soviet Russia had not yet taken part in a war in the Far East and it was decided that Korea would be occupied only by U.S. troops at the appropriate time. Later, when it was understood at the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945 that the USSR would take part in the war in the Far East, the commanders agreed to confer the duty of ousting the Japanese from Korea jointly to Soviet and U.S. troops. As is known, in May 1945, Japan received from the Allies a call to surrender in early August. When Japan refused to oblige, Atom Bombs were dropped for the first time in history on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on 6 and 9 Aug 1945 respectively. Meanwhile, the USSR declared war against Japan on 8 August and Japanese stated they would surrender to the U.S. on August 10th.
Soviet Troops started entering Northern Korea through Manchuria on 12th August. While these troops were rapidly moving through Korea, U.S. forces were hundreds of miles away. Soviet Forces had to be stopped somewhere. Thus 38th Parallel was suggested as a border. Upon adoption of this proposal, there were suddenly two Koreas. These incidents, which took place immediately following World War-II, closely resemble incidents, which took place at the beginning of the war, during the same months six years before when the Soviets invaded Eastern Poland in much the same way they occupied Korea, while the Germans were invading Western Poland.
The developments that took place between Sep 1945 and June 1950 may be summarized as follows:
A. While the U.S. and the Free Nations were striving to settle the dispute by setting up Military Government in South Korea through democratic means and in compliance with U.N. resolutions, the Soviets were not favoring any solution short of uniting Korea under communist rule as they had intended from the outset.
B. Although the Committee, which was set up to work on a solution, was allowed to work freely in South Korea, it was not allowed to cross the 38th parallel. The Committee decided to hold elections in South Korea on 10th May 1948. The elections were held and the “Republic of Korea” was formed five days after a constitution was accepted on 12th July. The first president elected was one of the early freedom fighters, Dr. Syngman Ree.
C. Three and a half months after the elections in the South, North Korea, which had been under the control of the “ People’s Council” since 1945, held elections on 25th August 1948 for 572 members of Parliament, supposedly representing the whole of Korea and “The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea” was formed. Thus, in 1949, two separate governments were established both claiming to be the sole representative of all of Korea.
D. In accordance with a United Nations resolution, U.S. and Soviet occupation Forces left Korea after these governments were formed.
