New UNHCR report says global forced displacement at 18-year high News Stories, 19 June 2013
June 19, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentTags: UNHCR Report forced displacement
New UNHCR report says global forced displacement at 18-year high
News Stories, 19 June 2013
GENEVA, 19 June (UNHCR) – More people are refugees or internally displaced than at any time since 1994, with the crisis in Syria having emerged as a major new factor in global displacement.
UNHCR’s annual Global Trends report, released on Wednesday, covers displacement that occurred during 2012 based on data from governments, NGO partners, and the UN refugee agency itself. The report shows that as of the end of 2012, more than 45.2 million people were in situations of displacement compared to 42.5 million at the end of 2011.
This includes 15.4 million refugees, 937,000 asylum seekers, and 28.8 million people forced to flee within the borders of their own countries. The report does not include the rise in those forced from their homes in Syria during the current year.
War remains the dominant cause. A full 55 percent of all refugees listed in UNHCR’s report come from just five war-affected countries: Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria and Sudan. The report also charts major new displacement from Mali, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and from Sudan into South Sudan and Ethiopia.
“These truly are alarming numbers. They reflect individual suffering on a huge scale and they reflect the difficulties of the international community in preventing conflicts and promoting timely solutions for them,” said António Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees and head of UNHCR.
The report highlights worrisome trends, including the rate at which people are being forced into situations of displacement. During 2012 some 7.6 million people became newly displaced, 1.1 million as refugees and 6.5 million as internally displaced people. This translates to a new refugee or internally displaced person every 4.1 seconds.
Continued….
Ottoman Provincial Boundaries, Shiite Federalism, and Energy Conflict in Iraq
June 19, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentTags: Ottoman provinces Iraq, Vilayets of Mosul
Ottoman Provincial Boundaries, Shiite Federalism, and Energy Conflict in Iraq
By Reidar Visser (http://historiae.org)
[This is the English version of an article which appeared in Turkish in Stratejik Analiz (Ankara), November 2006, originally titled "Osmanli eyalet sinirlari, Sii federalizmi ve Irak’taki enerji anlasmazligi" and available as PDF file.]
Among the internal provincial borders of the eastern Ottoman lands, the old boundary between the vilayets of Mosul and Baghdad has historically been the most momentous one in international affairs. But the line that divided Baghdad from Basra could in the future become equally important – as a factor in Iraqi politics, in wider regional power struggles, and not least in geopolitical conflicts over energy resources. Already today, the heated debate about new federalism legislation in the Iraqi parliament has shown that this ancient border relates to regional sentiments that on certain issues pit Shiites against Shiites.
The unknown boundary
Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect about the old Ottoman Basra–Baghdad frontier is that surprisingly few contemporary Iraq analysts are aware of exactly where it was. That certainly is the case in Europe and the United States, where even experts seem locked in a belief that the Basra vilayet covered approximately the area of Iraq where today there is a Shiite majority. Western maps purporting to show the administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire often use a rough line drawn just to the south of Baghdad to mark the border; even prestigious academic publishers and news media tend to reiterate this fallacious image.

The old vilayet of Basra bordering on Arabia (west), Baghdad (north) and Persia (east). The border with Baghdad sliced the Shiite areas in the region in two; note the location of Karbala in the upper left corner, in the centre of the Baghdad vilayet. Taken from an Ottoman atlas dating from the early twentieth century
In reality, most Shiites in the Ottoman Empire lived in the vilayet of Baghdad. The boundary between Basra and Baghdad ran much further to the south than is commonly thought: for long periods it extended roughly from north of Nasiriyya to north of Amara. As a result of this, the majority of Shiite regions in today’s Iraq – including such key Shiite shrine cities as Najaf and Karbala – have historically had their fortunes intimately connected with Baghdad rather than with Basra as “their” centre.
Since the early days of Islam, “the province of Basra” – when it existed – had tended to denote the Gulf city plus its immediate tribal hinterland, rather than any larger unit extending northwards in the direction of Baghdad. In classical times Basra formed an opposite pole to the province of Kufa (where the holy cities of the Shiites would later emerge). When on a few occasions Basra was enlarged to a greater area, this tended to be in the southerly direction along the Arabian shores of the Gulf, or, alternatively, to the northeast along the Tigris. The often inaccessible Euphrates districts, on the other hand, tended to remain within Baghdad’s sphere of influence, if not actual control. There was really only one substantial historical attempt at combining the central areas of Iraq and Basra in the south in a single polity; this project, led by the semi-autonomous Hilla-based Mazyadid Bedouin emirate in the early twelfth century, met with considerable opposition in urban Basra and collapsed shortly after its inception.(1)
These geographical–political patterns were perpetuated during the first centuries of Ottoman rule after their conquest of the region in 1534, when the principal dynamic in the affairs of the Basra vilayet was the struggle between the established urban centre of Basra and tribal forces in the Jaza’ir and Muntafiq tribal regions to the immediate north. Rarely was any internal regional harmony achieved, but there were short periods in the seventeenth and eighteenth century when semi-independent principalities based on this delta region emerged, under such local rulers as the urban Afrasiyab dynasty (who contemplated severing all links with the Ottomans in favour of ties with European powers) and tribal rulers of the Muntafiq Sa‘dun clan (who repeatedly sought to impress on the urban population of Basra that they alone could guarantee tranquillity and a safe trading environment).(2) However, none of these entities extended much further northwards than the junction of the Tigris and the Euphrates at Qurna, and this tradition of a small-scale Basra province was reproduced by Ottoman administrators in the 1880s when they gave the Basra vilayet its final shape by formally designating it as a triangle from Nasiriyya on the Euphrates via Amara on the Tigris and down to Basra at the head of the Gulf (and with an extension, of a decidedly more theoretical nature, southwards to Hufuf in present-day Saudi Arabia).
The oil boundary
The Ottoman boundary line between Basra and Baghdad did more than creating internal splits between the Shiites in the region. It was not known at the time, but the line that separated the two vilayets also correlated closely to geological patterns, which meant that almost all the hydrocarbon reserves in this region fell to Basra. However, in twentieth-century history this remained largely irrelevant. After Basra, Baghdad and Mosul became administratively amalgamated under a British mandate in 1920, the population of the oil-bearing regions of this country – the Shiites of Basra included – embraced the new Iraqi nationalist ethos and its unitary state paradigm with remarkable ease. By the time oil exploration started in Basra in the 1930s (and certainly before actual drilling commenced in the 1950s) Iraq had a firmly unitary state tradition – and oil was widely considered a common national resource, especially in the Arab areas, whether Shiite or Sunni. Whereas Kirkuk oil would sometimes be claimed as “Kurdish”, there emerged no parallel particularistic demands on Basra oil, which was consistently referred to as a common national good, by regime and oppositionists alike.(3)
Since the Gulf War in 1991, there has been increased focus on the connections between Iraq’s oil resources and identity politics. But in this regard another unfortunate media simplification has emerged, quite similar to the one that habitually equates the “vilayet of Basra” with “the Shiites”. Thus, in much reporting from Iraq today, it is widely assumed that every square inch of territory downstream of Baghdad is overflowing with oil and gas. Journalists are often content to speak of the “the vast energy resources of Shiite Iraq” and tend to overlook how most of the oil is really in the “far south” – and not in any sense distributed evenly across the Shiite-dominated territories. All the key existing fields, as well as important future ones, can in fact be found within short distance of Basra, Amara and Nasiriyya.(4)
Shiite federalism and the boundary question
The reason why the Basra vilayet boundary is again becoming relevant is quite simple: despite the long-standing unitary state tradition in Iraq, after 2003 the people living in what was the old Ottoman vilayet of Basra have shown an increasing interest in the geology of their patria. Back in 2004 they were the first Shiites to launch a bid for a federal region, when the governorates of Basra, Dhi Qar and Maysan combined in a bid to unite as a single southern federal region. Named the Region of the South or iqlim al-janub, this project aimed at restoring a high standard of living to the long-neglected southern region, not least by securing a local share of the enormous proceeds of the oil industry. At first, the idea of a federal unit in these three governorates attracted interests from both secularists and Islamists, but since 2005 the chief protagonists for a small-scale “southern” region have been from the Fadila Party (who are particularly strong in Basra) and from tribal blocs in all three governorates.(5) (Additionally, independent-minded Sadrist factions, who control the Maysan governorate, have at least been flirting with regionalist schemes.)
It is important to distinguish between this regional variant of federalism, and a sectarian competitor which emerged in August 2005. At that point, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) launched the idea of creating a much bigger entity that would cover all the Shiite-majority governorates south of Baghdad – nine altogether – in a single unit. (This project has been named iqlim al-wasat wa-al-janub, partly to distinguish the scheme from its “southern” competitor, but also a reflection of native Iraqi discourse where the Euphrates region around Najaf is usually referred to as the “centre” and not as the “south”.) The principal propaganda element in SCIRI’s vision of a Shiite federal state has been the idea that federalism could serve as a check on anti-Shiite terrorism by Sunni extremists.(6)

Left, the Region of the South (iqlim al-janub); centre, oil fields of Iraq (in black); right, the Region of the Centre and the south (iqlim al-wasat wa-al-janub)
Continued …
Continue Reading Ottoman Provincial Boundaries, Shiite Federalism, and Energy Conflict in Iraq…
Iraq No Closer To Solving Its Electricity Problems
June 19, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentIraq No Closer To Solving Its Electricity Problems
ITF EU representative Dr. Hassan Aydinli met with Brussels Minister Brigitte Grouwels
June 16, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentBrigitte GROUWELS, Brussels Minister and Hassan AYDINLI, ITF EU Representative at the Brussels Parliament
Members of DÜTAP , Dünya Türkleri Avrupa Platformu, (European Platform of Turkish people worldwide) were invited at the Brussels Parliament by Ms Brigitte GROUWELS, Brussels Minister and Brigitte DE PAUW, CD&V-fractievoorzitter Brussel on 16th June 2013.
ITF EU representative Dr Hassan Aydinli (who is also a Member of DÜTAP) met with Minister Brigitte Grouwels. He informed the Minister about the situation of the Turkmens in Iraq and of Kirkuk in particular, explaining that Kirkuk was mainly inhabited by Turkmens before the arabization policy was implemented under the Baath regime several decades ago and before the massive influx of Kurds into the city especially after the occupation of Iraq by the US-UK in April 2003.
He described how this has left the Turkmens vulnerable and how they are constantly being targeted and continue to be marginalized despite the regime change in Iraq, adding that the concept of democracy is taking time to be fully understood and implemented by the Iraqis who have lived under dictatorial regimes since decades.
Dr Hassan Aydinli spoke about the similarities which exist between the city of Brussels (Capital of the European Union) and the city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq as both cities have a mixed population composed of several ethnicities. The city of Brussels has a long experience (20 years) of reaching compromises by democratic means and the city of Kirkuk could greatly benefit from the Brussels example.
Minister Brigitte Grouwels listened attentively and said she is willing to share her expertise on how to reach compromises among different ethnic/cultural components should the officials in Kirkuk city seek her advice on this matter and that she would be happy to meet with them in Brussels.
Where Do Iraqis Get Their Information And News From?
June 16, 2013 at 10:18 am | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentTags: Media sources in Iraq, News in Iraq
Where Do Iraqis Get Their Information And News From?
In November 2009, the Turkish company KA Research Limited was contracted by D3 Systems to survey Iraqis about their media habits. The study included 2,200 people across all 18 of Iraq’s provinces with a +/- ratio of 2%. KA asked 132 questions total. The firm had been in Iraq for seven years, operated 28 offices across the nation, and had been doing interviews with Iraqis since 2003. The report broke the country up into three regions. The north consisted of Dohuk, Irbil, Sulaymaniya, and Tamim. The central area was made up of Ninewa, Salahaddin, Diyala, Baghdad, and Anbar, while the south was Karbala, Babil, Wasit, Qadisiyah, Najaf, Maysan, Dhi Qar, Muthanna, and Basra. 2009 was a perfect time to ask Iraqis questions as the civil war had just ended, and the public was able to return to their normal lives.
The first questions involved what types of media did people use the most. 100% of respondents watched TV. That was followed by 24% listening to the radio, 3% reading newspapers, and 3% using the Internet. Amongst television viewers 72% watched Iraqi satellite TV, 46% watched international Arabic satellite TV, 32% viewed local television using an antenna, 17% liked foreign satellite TV that wasn’t in Arabic, and 7% subscribed to cable TV. With radio listeners, 24% favored Iraqi radio stations compared to 17% foreign. Television was obviously the most popular form of media used with an average number of 16 million people using it each day. That compared to seven million who used the Internet or listened to the radio, with the newspapers in last place with five million. Iraqis also watched TV the longest more than anything else. When asked what type of media they spent 45 minutes with each day, television came in first at 58%, an average of 9.3 million people, Internet was second at 69%, 4.9 million, followed by the radio 10%, 700,000 people, and newspapers at 5%, 300,000 Iraqis. When broken down by region, TV was most popular in the north. They also listened to the radio more than used the Internet, but they surfed the web longer when online. In central and southern Iraq, after TV, people spent the most time on the Internet. All this showed the dominance of television over all other forms of media. Usage was changing however with the Internet becoming more and more popular. With the civil war over, access to the Internet probably increased as it was easier to install in people’s homes now that they did not have to worry about violence as much.
|
Overall
|
North
|
Central
|
South
|
|
|
Iraq TV
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
Iraq Satellite TV
|
72%
|
91%
|
63%
|
71%
|
|
International Satellite TV (Arabic)
|
46%
|
25%
|
40%
|
69%
|
|
Aerial TV
|
32%
|
73%
|
11%
|
32%
|
|
Subscription Cable TV
|
7%
|
0%
|
3%
|
17%
|
|
Foreign Satellite TV (not Arabic)
|
17%
|
11%
|
5%
|
37%
|
|
Iraq Newspaper
|
3%
|
7%
|
1%
|
3%
|
|
Iraq Radio
|
24%
|
39%
|
11%
|
34%
|
|
Foreign Radio
|
17%
|
13%
|
10%
|
29%
|
|
Internet
|
3%
|
5%
|
2%
|
4%
|
|
Blogs
|
1%
|
2%
|
0%
|
2%
|
|
Mobile Phone
|
1%
|
0%
|
1%
|
0%
|
5th Iraqi Turkmen Media Conference in Istanbul – VIDEO
June 9, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentTags: Video 5th Iraqi Turkmen Media Conf
The Chilcot Inquiry. The British Government’s Role in the War on Iraq. Margaret Aldred and the Judicial Coverup
June 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentTags: Chilcot inquiry
By Dr. C. Stephen Frost
The Chilcot Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot was launched in 2009 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, with the mandate to inquire into role of British government in the Iraq War.
There have been five inquiries in the United Kingdom into the Iraq War: the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC), the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), the Hutton Inquiry, the Butler Inquiry and the Chilcot Inquiry (the Iraq Inquiry). Not a single word of evidence at any of those inquiries has been heard under oath. Sir John Chilcot, presently chairing the Chilcot Inquiry, has the unique distinction of sitting on two of those inquiries: the Butler Inquiry and the Chilcot Inquiry. Does this not constitute a conflict of interests?
The person running the Chilcot Inquiry on behalf of Chilcot is one Margaret Aldred, an unelected civil servant, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, is not fit to be running any inquiry (she infamously ordered Carne Ross before he gave evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry not to mention Dr David Kelly and outlined the consequences if he did so), and certainly not the Chilcot Inquiry (because of an overwhelming conflict of interests, and other reasons, as carefully outlined below).
Margaret Aldred is fatally tainted by a huge conflict of interests
Stephen Frost
Elfyn Llwyd MP outlines in a Westminster Hall debate why Margaret Aldred should not be running the Chilcot Inquiry:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?gid=2011-01-25b.52.1
Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Williams, ably chairing this debate as always.
One of the vital prerequisites of a Government-initiated inquiry is that it should be utterly independent and devoid of any conflicts of interest that might undermine its credibility and the veracity of its conclusions and findings. I shall detail why I have grave misgivings about the independence of the Chilcot inquiry, and why I believe that the inquiry process may be flawed and even compromised from the beginning. I realise that those are grave allegations, but I do not make them lightly.
Before I detail the problems as I see them, I should mention that about three years ago, some documents were dispatched to my office from an unknown source, bearing a note saying that they were top secret. Some were British in origin; others may well have been from other intelligence sources. They showed that in 2001-02, active discussions were taking place on how to move in against Saddam Hussein using overwhelming military force. The term “regime change” appeared. The documents proved beyond doubt that the UK Government were on course for war even then.
ITF EU representative Dr Hassan Aydinli attended the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) event : ‘The forgotten Nation: Turkmens in Iraq” in Geneva
June 8, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentTags: Bashir, Dr Hassan Aydinli's intervention at UNPO's side event Geneva, Properties and land confiscation, UNPO side event UNHRC June 2013
On this photo: Sheikh Fateh Kashif Al-Ghitaa, Adviser to Prime Minister Al-Maliki; Dr Hassan Aydinli, ITF EU Representative and Commissioner Dr. Sallama H. Al-Khafaji, High Commission for Human Rights Iraq.
The UNPO and Minority Rights Group International organized a side event during the 23rd Session of UNHRC at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on 6th June 2013 to raise awareness about the human rights situation of the Iraqi Turkmens.
At this side event ITF EU representative Dr Hassan Aydinli raised the Unresolved Property Rights Issue of the Iraqi Turkmens who were evicted from their properties and agricultural lands under the Arabization policy of the Baath regime over 30 years ago and who – despite the regime change in Iraq 10 years ago – are still waiting to recuperate their confiscated properties and agricultural lands and receive fair compensation for their loss of income.
Being himself a victim of land grabbing, he cited the case of his village, the Turkmen village of Bashir (Beşir in Turkish), which is situated some 40 km south west of Kerkuk city centre, as it represents a perfect Case Study of the consequences of the former regime’s policies, and also because he has all the official documents and deeds proving that the Turkmen inhabitants of Bashir were the rightful owners of the lands in and around the village. Indeed, his tribe had settled in Bashir many centuries ago, the Turkmen village of Bashir and the number of its households (89) was mentioned for the first time in 1556 in the Land Registry, under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. These records are kept in Ankara in the archives of the Republic of Turkey.
Dr. Hassan Aydinli spoke extensively on the problem of property and land confiscation from the Turkmens in Iraq. He described the inadmissible conditions imposed on the Turkmens in Iraq since 1921 and the intolerable human rights violations committed against them during decades under the Baath regime.
Taking the subject of land grabbing and property confiscation from the Turkmens as an example of their human rights violations in Iraq, he showed secret official Iraqi documents proving these confiscations and he also showed the deeds of the properties and of the agricultural lands belonging to his family in Beşir which were confiscated by the Baath regime in 1984 and which remain confiscated, despite all his efforts with the new regime since 2003 to recuperate them.
Dr Aydinli underlined the fact that Turkmens did not receive any compensation from the Iraqi government for the loss of their properties during the last three decades up to now, even though the Iraqi government, according to Prime Minister Mr Al-Maliki, has already spent more than one billon USD for the compensation of victims of property and land confiscations under the Baath regime. This shows that the Turkmens continue to be discriminated in Iraq even though they are recognised victims of a well defined agressor: the Baath regime.
Dr. Aydinli also mentioned the fact that the Iraqi central government had decided, on 30th March 2006, to rebuild the village of Beşir which had been razed to the ground by the Baath regime in 1987 and that it had allocated a budget of 43 Billon Iraqi Dinars (equivalent of +/- 36 million USD) for rebuilding Beşir. Unfortunately, the local government in Kirkuk did not cooperate with the central government in Baghdad regarding the realisation of the project in Beşir, on the contrary, it complicated the situation even further with futile bureaucratic decisions which prevented the realization of the project and nothing has been built in Beşir by the Iraqi government since then. This is another example of neglect of Turkmens’ interests by the local authorities in Kirkuk which are dominated by the Kurds since 10th April 2003.
Three delegates from Iraq attended the side event, two members of Iraq’s High Commission for Human Rights, Dr Sallama H. Al-Khazraji and Mr Masrur Aswed and the Adviser to Prime Minister Nuri-Al Maliki Sheikh Fatih Kashif Al-Ghitaa, they were in Geneva to attend the 23rd Session of UNHRC. Dr. Aydinli discussed the Turkmens’ Plight with them in detail and they promised to pass his message to Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki.
Parler de la situation des Turkmènes irakiens, Gilles Munier
June 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentTags: Conférences des médias Turkmènes irakiens, Gilles Munier
Je remercie les organisateurs de cette conférence de m’avoir invité et donné l’occasion de dire quelques mots.
Je suis Français et connaît assez bien l’Irak pour y avoir effectué environ 150 voyages depuis 1974. J’y ai accompagné des journalistes, des hommes politiques, des universitaires, des hommes d’affaire… J’ai surtout été témoin des malheurs qui se sont abattu sur ce pays : guerre Iran-Irak, 1ère guerre du Golfe, embargo, 2ème guerre du Golfe… Mon dernier voyage a eu lieu en mars 2003, au cours duquel je me suis rendu à Bagdad et à Mossoul avec une délégation française de spécialistes des armes de destruction massive qui ont dénoncé –preuves à l’appui – les mensonges de George W. Bush et de Tony Blair. J’ai quitté Bagdad la veille du bombardement. Depuis, comme journaliste indépendant, je suis quotidiennement l’actualité de l’occupation du pays – ou de sa double occupation, pour être plus précis – ainsi que les activités de la résistance - civile ou armée – et, pour revenir au sujet qui nous concerne tous ici : la volonté des dirigeants de la Région autonome du Kurdistan de s’emparer de Kirkouk et de territoires avoisinant gorgés de pétrole, peuplés depuis des siècles par les Turkmènes.
Mon premier passage au Pays des Turkmènes – appelés généralement en France : Turcomans – date de 1976. Membre permanent d’une association franco-arabe qui entretenait alors de bonnes relations avec l’Irak, j’accompagnai un cadre d’une chambre de commerce de Bretagne – région située à l’ouest de la France - qui souhaitait rencontrer les dirigeants de la Région autonome du Kurdistan, nouvellement créée. En visitant Erbil, je n’ai pu que constater que la ville était peuplée, pour une large part, de Turkmènes. J’y suis retourné trois fois ensuite et me suis aperçu que la proportion de Kurdes allait grandissante, ce qui me semblait tout naturel puisque la ville était en quelque sorte la capitale du Kurdistan irakien. Je ne savais pas, à l’époque, que Saddam Hussein – alors vice-Président – avait, quelques années plus tôt, autorisé Mustapha Barzani à« kurdiser » Erbil et qu’en dépit de la reprise de la rébellion – soutenue par les Etats-Unis, l’Iran du Chah et Israël -, c’est ce qui était arrivé sous la direction des partis et tribus kurdes liés au pouvoir central.
Quiconque a traversé, comme moi, les ponts sur l’Altun Su ou l’Aq Su à Altun Kopru ou à Tuz Khurmatu – ou est allé à Tel Afar - s’est aperçu que les noms de lieux et la langue des habitants de la région sont différents d’ailleurs en Irak, qu’une minorité méconnue – les Turkmènes - est majoritaire dans toute une partie du pays. Depuis la chute de Bagdad et le déclenchement de conflits ethniques et religieux, grâce à Internet – et malheureusement aux attentats et aux massacres dont sont victimes les Irakiens, les médias font parfois mention des Turkmènes – on en sait plus, dans le monde, sur les Turkmènes irakiens. En Belgique, l’Association des Amitiés Europe- Turkmènes et le Comité pour la Défense des droits des Turkmènes irakiens ont brisé le silence qui entoure trop souvent leur situation. Mais, en Europe, nombreux sont encore ceux qui les assimilent à des colons Turcs installés par l’Empire ottoman. Très peu de gens savent que leur présence est bien antérieure à la prise de Constantinople par les Ottomans.
Dans les années 1970, des intellectuels et des hommes politiques se réunissaient en Europe occidentale pour sensibiliser l’opinion publique au problème kurde. Je dis « problème kurde », mais en fait exclusivement kurde irakien. Aujourd’hui, les Turkmènes irakiens sont plus de 3 millions - c’est-à-dire à peu près le nombre des habitants du Kurdistan irakien dans les années 1970 – et rien ne les empêche d’en faire autant. Les outils de communication –Internet, Facebook, Twitter, You Tube… etc… - leur faciliteront la tâche et leur permettront d’atteindre sans grands frais beaucoup de monde. Ces outils doivent être utilisés au maximum, c’est-à-dire pas seulement en anglais, en arabe ou en turc. Il ne faut pas oublier le Français, l’Espagnole et le Portugais parlés en Afrique et en Amérique latine.
Pour nous, observateurs de ce qui se passe en Irak, il manque une agence de presse qui rendrait compte de l’actualité à Kirkouk et dans le Pays des Turkmènes. Par exemple, des élections provinciales viennent de se dérouler en Irak, on n’en connaît pas le détail. C’est dommage. Toutes les occasions devraient être bonnes pour parler des Turkmènes.
La Turquie pourrait contribuer – grâce à son expérience dans le domaine des médias – à la diffusion des informations qui nous permettraient, dans nos pays respectifs, de mieux informer l’opinion publique sur la question turkmène.
Par Gilles Munier, sur le même sujet,
Gaza Freedom Flotilla: From The High Seas to the High Court and Beyond
May 31, 2013 at 9:12 am | Posted in Turkmens | Leave a commentTags: Gaza Freedom Flotilla
May 29 2013

By Richard Lightbown
Israel’s raid on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on 31 May 2010 caused the severance of diplomatic relations with Turkey and spawned legal actions in several countries. Claims in compensation cases in Turkish courts from only 40 victims have already amounted to the equivalent of more than 6 million Euros. Meanwhile the case against four former senior commanders on behalf of 490 plaintiffs is slowly progressing through the 7th High Criminal Court in Istanbul. The prosecution alleges that at the time of the raid Chief of Staff Gavriel Ashkenazi, Naval Forces Commander Eliezar Marom, Head of the Military Intelligence Directorate Amos Yadlin and Air Forces Intelligence Director Avishai Levi jointly and personally “ordered the operation in which war crimes and crimes against humanity are alleged to have been committed”.
The defendants have not attended the hearings and the Israeli government does not recognize the trial. Its position has always been that its commandos were safeguarding their country’s security when they were attacked by terrorists. This spurious narrative has been supported by media misinformation such as Panorama’s false assertion that flotilla members used firearms against the commandos, by a UN Panel (the Palmer Committee) devoid of expertise in international maritime law which presumed to declare the Israeli blockade a legal entity, and by Israel’s official investigation (the Turkel Committee) whose report does not withstand scrutiny. Supporters have also ensured that the Wikipedia entry on the raid is sympathetic to the Israeli narrative.
Having gained the advantage in the common perception of the raid, Israel has still to confront the more serious legal challenges which constitute a nuisance and a problem to its interests. The nuisance is illustrated by the fact that the defendants have not left Israel since the Istanbul trial opened. The problem lies in the fact that Turkish courts are independent of government interference. There is also scope for further charges to be brought against other defendants, including those considered directly responsible for the nine deaths and 156 casualties, 52 of whom suffered serious injury.
To help free Israel of these legal impediments while making minimum concessions to justice, President Obama stage-managed an apology via telephone link from Prime Minister Netanyahu to Prime Minister Erdoğan on 22 March. Without consulting the victims, Mr Erdoğan accepted the apology “on behalf of the people of Turkey”. (It was not thought necessary for Mr Netanyahu to apologize to Mr Obama for the unlawful killing of 19-year-old Furkan Doğan who had sole US citizenship.) However, many Turks were disappointed when it became apparent that their Premier had agreed to immunity from prosecution while accepting that Israel will pay a lump sum into a fund to finance compensation agreed between the governments or awarded by the courts.
Mr Erdoğan had previously said that his requirements for the restoration of diplomatic relations were an apology, compensation for all the victims, and the lifting of the Gaza closure. This was not understood to be a bargaining position, but were minimum requirements for a settlement. Israel has since made it plain by word and deed that its siege of Gaza will continue. The fishing zone has again been unilaterally reduced from six miles to three miles offshore, while last month the sole commercial crossing at Kerem Shalom was closed for 17 days and Erez crossing was also closed for seven days. It was this collective punishment which originally inspired the Freedom Flotilla, and it is only the compliance of the Turkish government (which continues to withhold the requisite maritime permits) which prevents the Mavi Marmara from making a second attempt to break the Gaza blockade.
Nevertheless negotiations between the governments of Israel and Turkey continue apace. In order to facilitate immunity from prosecution it is thought that Article 19 of the Turkish Constitution might be invoked whereby international agreements overrule domestic legislation. But since the Turkish parliament is not allowed to make decisions adversely affecting basic human rights, such legislation could be annulled by the Constitutional Court.
Meanwhile the families of the martyrs along with İHH (the ship’s owners) and lawyers working on the case have publicly declared that any agreement which fails to meet all criteria will be a complete waste of time. They remain steadfast in demanding justice and adequate compensation for all the victims, regardless of nationality. They also reject the apology as inadequate, recalling that in June 2010 Benjamin Netanyahu described the victims of the assault as ‘terrorists’. For this malicious slander they insist that he must personally and publicly apologize. They also demand an unreserved apology for all the Israeli crimes committed during the attack, including willful killing, attempted willful killing, intentionally causing serious injury, plunder, hijacking maritime vessels on the high seas, intentionally causing damage to property, and instigating violent crime.
At its next session on 10 October the Istanbul court is expected to declare the four defendants fugitives from justice, issue binding arrest warrants and ask INTERPOL to issue extradition orders. But Israel’s greatest problems may yet come from The Hague. The scope of jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) includes war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Because this incident meets all the criteria of the Rome Statute, the Union of the Comoros (the flag state of the Mavi Marmara) deposited a referral with the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC on 14 May. The Chief Prosecutor announced a preliminary investigation the same day, and a pre-trial chamber will decide whether or not to proceed further. Any investigation accepted by the ICC cannot subsequently be withdrawn but must complete its legal process.
In Istanbul on 31 May a vigil will be held on the Mavi Marmara during which there will be a ceremony of commemoration starting at the time the ship was attacked. Survivors of the voyage recall how prior to that savage act of state terrorism, the members of the 32 nations on board had created a remarkable commonality of humanity which many remember as the best days of their lives. With that as inspiration they are not going to abandon their struggle against abuses of human rights.
- Richard Lightbown contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.







