The JFK Assassination Marked the End of the American Republic

August 20, 2013 By administrator

Interview with Martin Broeckers, author of JFK: Coup d’Etat in America“

On occasion of the publication of his latest book, German author Mathias Broeckers talks about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, which he sees as a coup d’etat that was never rolled back.

Mathias Broeckers, born 1954, is a German investigative journalist and the author of more than ten books, most of them related to the topics of drugs, terrorism and deep politics. He works for the daily German newspaper TAZ and the webzine Telepolis. His latest book, “JFK: Staatsstreich in Amerika” (“JFK: Coup d’Etat in America“), was published this August at Westend Verlag in Frankfurt, Germany.

Lars Schall: Mr. Broeckers, a writer who authors a book about the assassination of John F. Kennedy that does not follow the verdict of official history faces the problem of being condemned on an instant basis as a “conspiracy theorist” who engages in “conspiracy theories.” May I ask you at the beginning of this interview to explain to our readers that those critics – consciously or unconsciously – are acting exactly according to the “playbook” of the CIA?

Mathias Broeckers: In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term “conspiracy theorists” for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term “assassination theories” when it came to alternative views of the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon “conspiracy theories” became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better.

LS: What do you see as the prime motive(s) to get Kennedy killed?

MB: To make a long story, which I elaborate in the book, short: JFK had made definitive steps to end the cold war. He had denied the involvement of the army in the Bay of Pigs invasion, which he had inherited from his predecessor, he had solved the missile crisis in Cuba through direct and secret contact with the Soviet-leader Khrushchev, he had ensured a nuclear test-stop with the Soviets, and he had ordered the withdrawal from Vietnam. All this against the will of the military, the CIA, and even against many members of his own administration.

LS: If one looks at the crime from the perspective of “motive, means, opportunity,” which groups are the most likely culprits? Some of the usual suspects may have had a motive, but neither the means nor the opportunity, right?

MB: Yes. This is a crucial point with many JFK theories. A lot of people had motives, be it the hardcore commies in Russia, China, Cuba, be it the Israelis because of JFKs dismissal of nukes in Israel, be it the Federal Reserve because of his idea for a new US dollar backed by silver, the mob because of his dismissal to invade Cuba to get their casinos and brothels back, the racist Southerners because of his engagement for civil rights… but no one of them had the means and opportunity for the murder and above all the means to cover it up over the years.

LS: Which party had the necessary components of “means and opportunity” available?

MB: Only the CIA and the military – and the FBI and the Johnson administration for the cover-up. A moment after the shootings, a policeman ran up to the grassy knoll, his gun pulled out, and stopped a man there, asking for his ID. The man showed a Secret Service card and the cop let him go. Several other men on Dealey Plaza also showed genuine looking Secret Service IDs when asked by cops – but there were no real Secret Service men placed on the knoll and the plaza this day.

These IDs were fakes but the FBI and the Warren Commission didn’t investigate this at all. Only in the 80s it came out who was responsible for the printing of Secret Service IDs and passes at that time: it was the CIAs Technical Division, headed by Sydney Gottlieb of “MK Ultra” fame. This fact alone rules out that the mob or the Russians, Cubans, Chinese or some other autonomous killers did this on their own bill. And even if these groups would have been able to fake genuine looking Secret Service IDs – the fact that this deception was not investigated, immediately brings Hoover’s FBI into a top-position of suspects.

LS: One crucial point regarding the cover up of the crime is the false autopsy report – also in connection to “means and opportunity”. Please elaborate.

MB: The ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) established beyond any doubt that the autopsy and x-rays, which are in the National Archives, were doctored. No mobster, bankster or Cuban would have been able to do this. These fakes were done at the Bethseda military hospital, where JFKs autopsy was supervised by Curtis LeMay, the Joint Air Force Chíef and one of JFKs keenest enemies. He was at a fishing vacation when the Dallas shooting happened and flew to Washington immediately – not for any military emergency but to sit in the autopsy room – and smoking a cigar! The faked pictures and x-rays, which were presented to every investigator since then, are a main reason why the crazy magic bullet theory could hold for so long. Only the military, where these pics and x-rays were taken, was able to arrange these fakes and place them in the archives.

LS: Another important point is the tempering with the so called “Zapruder film”. Why so?

MB: Also thanks to the ARRB there is a lot of evidence that the film was tempered with on the day after the assassination. However, even the existing “original” seems to show clearly a shot from the front, the grassy knoll – so the fake wasn’t perfect. That the Warren Commission was shown only a bad black/white copy indicates that the perpetrators were aware of that. That the Zapruder film was bought by the Time/Life publishers – and kept secret to the public for years; as the Nix-film bought by UPI and disappeared – indicates the guiltiness of the media in the cover-up.

LS: Coming back to the CIA, do you think that the CIA had separated itself from governmental oversight during the 1950s and 1960s, or would it be more correct to suggest that the Agency actually was a ploy of financial interests from the outset? Or more bluntly spoken: was democratic oversight ever intended?

MB: In general, democracy and intelligence services are antagonists; democracy depends on transparency and intelligence services on the opposite. So the democratic / congressional / governmental oversight is always a quite rotten compromise. The CIA’s camouflage from the beginning was that it is a service to gather intelligence – and centralize the intelligence gathering of the different other services – to keep the president informed. The main job of the CIA were and are covert operations, and because such operations depend on “plausible deniability,” it was usual from the beginning to inform the president – if at all – only minimally. Since the CIA’s “father” Allen Dulles was a Wall Street lawyer and his brother John Foster ran the foreign policy, covert operations were a family business done by the Dulles-Brothers and their clients on Wall Street. This is what JFK tried to finish and what marked him to death.

LS: You´re citing investigative journalist Joseph Trento, saying about former CIA director Allen Dulles: “Dulles had decided not to leave the future of the Agency to Congress or the President.” What made Dulles powerful enough to risk such a decision?

MB: Dulles’ clients were bankers and big corporations, who were in big business with Nazi-Germany in the 30s and even during the war. Some of them, like Prescott Bush – George W.’s grandfather – were indicted for “dealing with the enemy”, and Allen Dulles, head of the OSS in Switzerland during the war, arranged a lot of these dealings. He arranged the secret integration of Nazi spy chief Reinhard Gehlen and some hundreds of his SS officers into the US army and the building-up of the CIA apparatus. Between 1945 when the OSS was dismantled and 1947 when the CIA was founded he did this privately – without any official position – from his office at the “Council on Foreign Relations.”

LS: Would it have been more appropriate if Dulles would have been interrogated with regard to Kennedy’s death, instead of having been the mastermind behind the Warren Commission?

MB: It’s a perfect irony, or better: huge cynism, by the puppet of Texas-oilmen, Lyndon B. Johnson, to have Dulles masterminding the Commission. But since it worked out so well they tried it again, this time unsuccessful, to have “Bloody Henry” Kissinger masterminding the 9/11 Commission. In my opinion Dulles is one of the main suspects in the Kennedy murder and should have been persecuted immediately.

LS: How did both the CIA and the FBI mislead the Warren Commission in various ways?

MB: The result of the Commission was clear from the beginning, the Commission didn’t do any investigations at all, and it depended on the data given by the FBI. Hoover knew about the many fingerprints of the CIA in the case, he knew that they had brought up fake evidence of Oswald’s visits in Mexico to blame him as a communist – and concluded only two days after the shooting that there was only the lone shooter LHO.

Hoover hated the Kennedys, especially his boss Robert F Kennedy, and was the main evildoer in the framing of Oswald and the cover-up of the case. The CIA arranged the false evidence for what Peter Dale Scott (“Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”) called Phase 1 of the cover-up – the “communist”-connection, which enabled Johnson – screaming of the dangers of a nuclear war – to press the commission members to take part, and to make sure Phase 2 of the cover-up and the result of their pseudo-investigation: the deranged lone nut Oswald.

LS: One usual suspect in the “JFK conspiracy literature” is the mob. In your book you’re writing that it doesn’t always make sense to distinguish between organized crime and the CIA. How did you come to this conclusion?

MB: From the “Luciano Project” in 1943 – the help of the imprisoned mob-boss Lucky Luciano with the invasion of Sicily – the mob became the tool of choice for covert CIA-operations and generating black money from the drug business. Where ever the US-military set their boots in or the CIA is doing “regime changes,” drug money is essential for financing these operations, from South East Asia in the 60s till today in Afghanistan. And since Langley can’t sell the stuff directly over their counter, they need the mobsters to do this – and get its share to finance warlords / freedom fighters / terrorists…

LS: May I ask you to talk a bit in that regard about Permindex (Permanent Industrial Exposition), please?

MB: Permindex was a front-company for CIA, MI-6 and Mossad and a straw for their money-laundering and weapons-business. They worked together with Meyer Lansky’s bank in Switzerland, which was run by Tibor Rosenbaum, who did most of the weapons-business of the Mossad.

LS: Was Jim Garrison in general heading into the right direction?

MB: He was, because Clay Shaw, the owner of the New Orleans International Trade Mart and one of the directors of Permindex, was clearly working with the CIA. That’s why Garrison’s case was sabotaged by the Washington Establishment right from the beginning.

LS: Why is it remarkable that CIA had a 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald?

MB: John Newman (“Oswald and the CIA”) has done remarkable research on how the CIA manipulated its files on Oswald and faked a 201 personal file to present it to the Warren Commission, showing that they had virtually nothing on him before 1962. This is clearly impossible after Oswald’s defection to the USSR in 1959. The most likely cause for this manipulation is that Oswald was part of the false defector program headed by JJ Angelton, the counterintelligence chief.

LS: You are arguing if Lee Harvey Oswald would have been indeed solely responsible for Kennedy’s death that the case would have been solved beyond a reasonable doubt. Why so?

MB: From all crimes, murder is the one with the most cases solved by courts. There would have been no need for all the cover-ups since 50 years, if LHO indeed was a lone nut.

LS: Moreover, you’re arguing that Oswald would have been acquitted of the charge of having killed Kennedy, if he would have survived. Why so?

MB: Even Gerald Posener, the author of “Case Closed” – the apology of the Warren Commission’s findings -, meanwhile is saying that. There is no hard evidence that Oswald was on the 5th floor when the shooting took place; there is no evidence that the “Mannlicher”-gun, that he had mail-ordered, was fired that day; there is no hard evidence that he killed Officer Tippit, because witnesses saw two men shooting at him… and so on. Oswald would have left the court room as a free man.

LS: Why was it necessary that Jack Ruby killed Oswald? And furthermore, did they know each other?

MB: They knew each other well, and since Oswald was an asset of FBI and CIA, he had to be silenced before he could talk.

LS: There was not just one plot to kill Kennedy in Dallas, but there was at least one more planned for a visit of Kennedy to Chicago, right?

MB: Yes, there was a plot planned in Chicago with clear parallels to what happened in Dallas – with an ex-Marine as the prepared patsy, who got a job on a high rise building on the route that the motorcade was planned to take some weeks before, and who had trained with exile-Cubans like Oswald. By chance the sharp-shooters were detected by an hotelier and the Chicago visit was cancelled.

LS: Why did JFK die on November 22, 1963?

MB: JFK had made a radical change while president, from a classic cold warrior to a policy of reconciliation and peace. He had made angry enemies in the military and the CIA and when he announced to end the cold war in his speech on June 10th 1963 he finally was marked to death.

LS: Can you tell us something about the role of the Secret Service and the U.S. military in the assassination?

MB: The Secret Service men were mostly Southerners, who deeply dismissed JFKs civil rights politics. They did a very lax security in Dallas and there is a probability that some of these men were sweetened to do so. The memories of Abraham Bolden, the first Afro-American brought to the Secret Service by JFK in 1961, tells that when he tried to contact the Warren Commission to talk about the supremacist, racist attitude of his colleagues, he was indicted by corrupted false witnesses and brought to prison.

The military played a crucial role in the false autopsy & x-ray-pictures made at the Bethseda hospital in Washington DC and the testimony of the doctors. General Curtis LeMay, Joint Chief of the Air Force and one of the harshest opponents of JFKs peace politics, was present in the autopsy room in Bethseda, smoking a cigar! I think his presence was not by chance.

The military intelligence also played a crucial role in Dallas – the first interviews of Marina Oswald was not by Dallas Police but by officers of the military intelligence, which also arranged a dubious translator for her testimonies, which helped to frame Oswald in the first place.

LS: Where did the funding for the coup come from?

MB: The Texas oilmen and billionaires H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison are the most probable financiers, even if there is no hard evidence for it. They paid for the ad in the Dallas paper the day before the visit, naming Kennedy a communist and a traitor. They hated JFK to the bones and they had LBJ in their pocket, their insurance that everything would be covered up properly.

LS: How many people lost their lives over the years related to the Kennedy assassination?

MB: A well-researched new book by Richard Belzer (“Hit List”) lists 1.400 persons with a connection to the murder and in the first three years after the assassination 33 of them came to death on unnatural causes. The probability that this happened by chance is 1: 137 billion.

LS: Was it basically the right-wing / fascist and racist mindset in the U.S. that won the coup d’etat on November 22, 1963?

MB: Yes. And in Dallas, Texas these right-wing fascists, who called themselves “patriots,” had a home game.

LS: What would the history of the “Cold War” have been if the nuclear arms race had ended in Kennedy’s second term? Would the Berlin Wall have come down sooner?

MB: After the nuclear test stop, JFK announced to his confidants that he would go to Moscow after the re-election to negotiate a peace treaty. In public he had already announced to stop the arms race in order to end the cold war. In a National Action Security Memorandum he had called for a co-operation with the Russians in space. After the exchange of secret letters with Khrushchev, which ended the missile crisis, he was on good terms with the Soviet leader, who in the Kremlin also had called for disarmament. The death of JFK encouraged the Soviet hardliners to get rid of him. With Kennedy alive, Khrushchev would have stood in power and the cold war could have been ended in the 60s.

LS: Why does the death of JFK still matter?

MB: It’s the most important crime in the second half of the 20th century, it is still unsolved and it marked in a way the end of the American Republic. Since then the financial-military-industrial complex rules and no president after JFK had the balls to challenge that. There is, in the words of Gore Vidal, “a one-party-system with two right-wings”; there are corporate media brainwashing the population 24/7 and propagating wars for global imperial dominance; there are covert operations all over the world to ensure this dominance – and this will go on and on as long the truth about the covert operation, the coup d’ état, against JFKs presidency is kept hidden.

LS: Thank you very much for taking your time, Mr. Broeckers!

Source: globalresearch.ca

Close Tehran-Washington ties, common nightmare of Russia and Arabs

August 8, 2013 By administrator

Summary of an interview of Irdiplomacy.ir with Dr. Davood Hermidas Bavand, a university professor and international affairs analyst

– Considering the fact that the differences and tensions between Saudi Arabia and Russia over the Syrian crisis are growing day by day, Bandar bin Sultan has visited Moscow and met with Putin. How would you assess the objective of this meeting in such a tense atmosphere?

– Saudi Arabia has played a major role with regard to Middle Eastern affairs, particularly the issue of Syria, in line with other members of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council. The Saudis were pioneers in the establishment of the Arab League and its members (except Iraq, Lebanon, and Algeria) have expressed common positions with regard to Syria; positions on the basis of which Syria’s membership has been suspended and the presence of representatives of Bashar Assad’s opposition in this League was agreed upon. Saudi Arabia and other members of this League have, since long before, begun the transfer of military and financial aids to Assad’s opposition.

In the beginning of the crisis in Syria, the general assumption was that the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and even Yemen would be repeated in Syria and the government of Bashar Assad would be overthrown after a few months. But after two and a half years, everyone has come to understand that this was an incorrect prediction and the unrests in Syria have been transformed into a domestic crisis. This crisis has, hitherto, taken the lives of more than 100,000 people and many Syrians have been displaced.

Now and with the deepening of the crisis and the entrance of different regional and extra-regional players into the Syrian issue, this issue has become a matter of regional reputation. This means that on one side, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt and smaller countries like Jordan and Qatar are in one front, and on the other side there are Iran and Iraq. Therefore, from within the domestic crisis in Syria, a regional rivalry has been created. Therefore, Saudi Arabia’s failure in this regard would damage its regional reputation. Considering the common position of Iran and Russia with regard to Syria, Saudi Arabia began its support of Bashar’s opposition in line with removing the imaginary threat of a “Shiite Crescent” so that it could eliminate the existing solidarity between Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Now, Riyadh’s failure in Syria means the failure of its macro-strategy in the region and the loss of its reputation.

Hence, Saudi Arabia has now moved towards Russia with the intention of separating Moscow or balancing its positions with financial and economic incentives. It must be noted that the Russians have traditionally pursued bargaining but to what extent Saudi Arabia has retreated and balanced its position is a question of which the response will be clarified in the near future.

– One of the other issues that has created more concerns for Saudi Arabia in the region is the improvement of relations between Iran and the West and the US following the election of Mr. Rohani. Can it be said that this issue is a common point of discussions between Bandar bin Sultan and Putin?

– The issue is that the interests of these countries in politics are not sustainable. This means that it would be wrong for a country to base its policies on the basis of continuation. As Lord Palmerston, Britain’s Prime Minister, stated in 1865, Britain neither has permanent friends nor permanent enemies; it rather has permanent interests.

Any time that relations between Iran and the West, particularly the US, are improving, in addition to the dissatisfaction of the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, their inclinations toward becoming closer to Iran grow and any time that Iran-US relations get worse, the Arabs are happier and their positions against Iran become harsher. Therefore, the resolution of Iran’s problems with some Arab countries depends on solving the problems with the US. In other words, the improvement of relations between Iran and the US would lead to a softer atmosphere which would help to solve Tehran’s problems with the neighboring and regional countries.

– But the improvement of relations between Tehran and Washington would not be satisfactory for the Russians either.

– Yes. The changing of relations between Iran and the US or the resolution of problems through diplomacy could not be sustainable since Russia’s interests would be threatened. As long as there are differences between Tehran and Washington, Russia will continue to use Iran as a tool and, of course, the Russians will also continue to blackmail Iran. In other words, Russia will gain concessions from the US in exchange for its vote in the Security Council.

– Saudi Arabia attempts to block the Muslim Brotherhood in the region and is happy about what has happened in Egypt today. It has also stood in the way of Qatar, which is one of the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. How would you assess the Saudi situation in Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood?

– In the movement that appeared in the Arab countries, it can be said that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated Egypt and Libya and the Arab world, particularly North Africa. This is while the Muslim Brotherhood was in ideological contradiction with the Salafis. The Muslim Brotherhood inclines towards a moderate Islam, but the Salafis tilt towards fundamentalism in Islam. As we see in Syria, the Salafi fundamentalist faction is completely different from the Sunnis who follow the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, Saudi Arabia attempted to develop the Salafi armies and infiltrate them within the framework of al-Qaeda in and even beyond the Arab world. But considering the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections in Egypt and has a relative upper hand in Tunisia as well and also has a good status in Libya, Saudi Arabia considers them as its ideological rivals. Now, this movement has appeared in Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia intends to force the Muslim Brotherhood out of the circle of competition as much as possible.

Source: Panorama.am

PKK Military Leader: ‘Our Withdrawal Comes When Struggle is at Peak’

April 29, 2013 By administrator

Report By: RUDAW

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – Last week Murat Karayilan, the military leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), announced that a phased withdrawal of fighters from Turkey will begin May 8. He said the move was in line with the call last month by jailed PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, who has been engaged in peace talks with Ankara to end a 30-year armed struggle that has resulted in an estimated 40,000 deaths. In this interview with Rudaw Karayilan states that the PKK is not agreeing to peace out of weakness, but at a time when the group’s struggle is at its peak. He clarifies that the fighters will not be leaving their arms behind, and will go to their base in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan Region with their guns. Karayilan warns that any attempt by Turkey to confront fighters or disrupt the withdrawal will mean a resumption of the conflict, and adds that the end goal is Ocalan’s release from his Turkish prison, at which time the rebels would be willing to discuss an end to their struggle and a permanent peace. Here is his full interview:
Rudaw: Some people criticize your decision to withdraw your fighters from Turkish territories next month. What do you say about this?

Murat Karayilan: We talk about peace because we believe in peace and brotherhood among nations; we have the power to fight for the freedom of our nation and achieve it. We have always believed in our abilities in this respect and we still do. You will discover that in the next stage (of the peace process). We want a solution, but an honorable one. When we step toward peace, you need to help us and support us. We call everyone to support the struggle for freedom.

We talk about peace because we believe in peace and brotherhood among nations

Rudaw: What is the difference between your 1999 withdrawal and this one?

Murat Karayilan: Our withdrawal today comes at a time when our struggle is at its peak. Hence, this withdrawal is not like the unilateral one of 1999. We believe in our leadership and in our ability to achieve progress in this stage. Our main demand is to solve the Kurdish issue in a democratic way. We are very enthusiastic about it, but we cannot say that all is good and everything is solved. Not everything is solved yet, especially the conditions of our leadership, which is a fundamental issue for us. No doubt, taking this decision was not very easy, but our faith in our leadership is firm. In case of any military operations against us, we will resume our guerrilla struggle as well. No one should have doubts about this. If the Turkish army attacked our withdrawing units, it means the end of the withdrawal and our forces retain the right to defend themselves.
Rudaw: What would the next steps be after the withdrawal?

Murat Karayilan: The next necessary steps are: ceasefire, withdrawal, political changes and legally consolidating these changes. We believe the biggest obstacle ahead of the democratization of Turkey is solving the Kurdish issue. Solving the Kurdish issue in Turkey will pave the way to solve the Kurdish issues in Syria and Iran as well. The achievements of south Kurdistan will also have its role in this. The democratization of Turkey will become a role model for democracy in the Middle East.

Rudaw: Does that mean disarmament?

We believe the biggest obstacle ahead of the democratization of Turkey is solving the Kurdish issue

Murat Karayilan: No. The guerrillas will not lay down their weapons. This withdrawal just means pulling back the guerrillas and silencing the weapons. When the guerrillas withdraw, they bring back their weapons as well. We are dealing with this matter properly.

Rudaw: It is said that Iran is worried about peace talks between the PKK and Turkey.

Murat Karayilan: This process will benefit the whole region, including Iran. We hope they will support this process as well.

Rudaw: What do you expect leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to do at this stage?

Murat Karayilan: No doubt we have great expectations of the officials in the south, especially in this delicate stage. The leadership of the Kurdistan Region and (KRG President) Massoud Barzani have supported this process and arbitration in the past. We expect more of them this time. The support of KRG and (KRG Premier) Nechirvan Barzani are also important. Nechirvan Barzani played a positive role in the past. We believe that he will be supportive in this stage as well. As we have stated before, the Kurdistan Region will become the resting place for our guerrillas and we ask them to treat our guerrillas positively and formally. We are expecting the support of all the groups of our nation.

This process will benefit the whole region, including Iran.

Rudaw: What are the details of the withdrawal?
Murat Karayilan: The withdrawal will be in the following way: First, without allowing any forms of conflict, the guerrillas will use their usual routes to withdraw in an orderly manner. Second, in light of the ongoing preparations, the withdrawal of our forces will commence on May 8, 2013. The withdrawal will be in groups, and well planned. It will take place in steps, following the discreet movements and discipline of guerrilla forces. We will try to do it in the shortest time possible. Third, after the withdrawal, our resting place will be in the Kurdistan Region. We ask all the concerned forces, especially the KRG, to treat our forces in a formal and positive manner. Fourth, during our withdrawal, the Turkish army should behave in the same responsible and serious manner. If our forces were exposed to any form of attack or bombing, withdrawal would be ceased immediately and our forces shall retain their right to respond and protect themselves. Fifth, during the withdrawal the Turkish army must not allow any provocative or deceptive behavior and not allow opportunists to instigate military action. For the withdrawal to be carried out properly, the Turkish state must respect the instructions that we have addressed previously in our letters to our leadership, which the Turkish state is also aware of. Sixth, monitoring of this stage by an independent delegation is important for recording violations from either side, and for the peaceful progress of the process. The withdrawal will be in groups, and well planned

This stage consists of three steps. The democratization process can be achieved through these three steps. With ceasefire and the successful withdrawal of the guerrilla forces, the first step will be concluded. In the second stage, the state and government must carry out their responsibilities. By instituting reforms within the constitutional framework, the true conditions for solving the Kurdish issue and the democratization of Turkey will be created. The local paramilitary system, the special teams and other special operation groups must be stopped and allow civil societies and democracy to function. Writing a new constitution, democratizing Turkey, ending the marginalization of Kurds, acknowledging all freedoms, rights and equality of all ethnic groups and religions are extremely crucial. With the implementation of these steps, the third stage of “normalization” will start. The normalization stage is the stage of consolidating peace, social accord and freedoms. At the same time, the freedom of our leader will bring freedom to everyone. At that time, disarming the guerrillas and ending armed struggle permanently can also be talked about.

European Parliament deputy appeals to respect self-determination rights of Artsakh people

April 26, 2013 By administrator

10:56, 26 April, 2013

YEREVAN, APRIL 26, ARMENPRESS: The Head of the newly established EU-Armenia Friendship Group Eleni Theocharous has been in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic for 20 times. “In most of the cases people have the feeling that the country is a mother. For me Nagorno Karabakh is a baby, a little baby, for which I want to take care and treat it well”, – stated Eleni Theocharous during her interview with Armenpress.

The Head of the EU-Armenia Friendship Group is an honorable citizen of Nagorno Karabakh Republic. Her 19th visit to Artsakh was last year summer, when she was implementing observing mission during the presidential elections. “I was happy to participate in the monitoring procedure with some of my colleagues. I will tell you that the democracy is priming in Nagorno Karabakh. It was quite an impressive procedure and I admire the people of the Nagorno Karabakh not only because of their fight for liberty or freedom but because they have established a priming democracy in their country”, – said Eleni Theocharous.

Eleni Theocharous highlighted the right of the Artsakh people for self-determination, stating that all should respect that right and take it into account. “We need to ask the people what they prefer. It is their fundamental right to decide what they want. And we must respect their will. If they want independence, we have to respect independence. And if they want to be one nation with Armenia, we must accept it and protect them”, -said the Head of the EU-Armenia Friendship Group.

Some of the members of the newly established EU-Armenia Friendship Group, headed by the Head of the Group Eleni Theocharous, visited Yerevan and on April 24 they commemorated the innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide. On April 25 the Group members were hosted by the President of the Republic of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan. On April 26 the Group will make an official visit to the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

The EU-Armenia Friendship Group consists of about 40 members, and 5 of them are in Armenia now. By the way, the deputy of the French National Assembly, the member of the EU-Armenia Friendship Group Valérie Boyer as well is a member of the Group, who is the author of the draft bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide in France. The EU-Armenia Friendship Group intends to hold several events in Armenia.

The EU-Armenia Friendship Group was established on January 9 2013. The opening ceremony was attended by the President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia Hovik Abrahamyan. It is symbolical that the members of the Group along with the Armenian nation respect the memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide.
Interviewed by Arusik Zakharyan

Translated by Syune Barseghyan

Photos by Felix Arustamyan

Alevi Kurds’ double oppression and the myths of Turkey’s official history (Must read)

February 16, 2013 By administrator

Interview with Mehmet Bayrak:

Mehmet Bayrak, the veteran Alevi Kurdish writer and publisher, has been prosecuted many times by the Turkish authorities. He was interviewed last year in New York by Ahmet Abidin Ozbek.

AO: As we know you are very sensitive about ethnic and religious identities. Why are our identities so essential?

MB: Each person has multiple identities. As mentioned previously, our ‘class identity’ as a human being will not encompass all other identities. I mean, we need all these different identities. People’s national identity is very important. In this context, I have often mentioned in my writing that people have four essential identities. Ethnic identity is only one of them. Other identities are: religion, class and gender. I reflected and showed these realities in my work because I came from an Alevi, Kurdish and labor background. You can see this in my research, especially as someone with a Kurd national identity, and from the Alevi faith. I also espoused class and women’s identity in the context of questioning gender and labor oppression.

AO: You have mentioned in your speeches that Alevi and Kurdish identities are often intertwined. Can you elaborate a little.

MB: Some identities overlap each other, such as Ezidi, Kurd or Alevi. These people are minorities within a minority. If we look more closely at Kurdish Alevis, we see this same phenomena. As Kurds we are a minority within Turkish society, but also as Alevis we are minorities inside the Muslim society. In other words, our identities become enveloped in the concept of religion and ethnicity, because we are minorities within a minority.

You know that in our area (Maras or Sivas) people say in Kurdish very commonly, “Em Elevi” (it means, ‘We are Alevi’). This definition stressed also being Kurdish beside Alevi. By coincidence, most of the Alevis in the area are also ethnically Kurds. Thus the identities are intertwined. The Sunni Kurds are considered as Turks. Ironically, Sunni is identified with Turkishness. Therefore, even though some Sunnis are Kurdish, our people called them Turks or ‘Tırk’. In fact, this is a mental delusion but also a complicated case. Therefore, Alevi Kurds in Turkey are one of the most oppressed elements because of their national, religious and class background. So, while Sunni Kurds have been crushed because of their national identity, the Alevi Kurds were crushed even more, due to their religious dimension. We can say that they have been doubly crushed.

AO: According to the thinker Krishnamurti there is a problem for people who have different identities and can’t live together. It is unfortunate that often the difference appears to be due to dislike. My question here is: what is the root of the current problems in our land?

MB: I’ve always said that the main source of the problems in today’s Turkey originated from the Union and Progress Party’s (Ittihat ve Terraki) period. That’s the period of ethno-religious cleansing, homogenization and a policy of Islamisation that was initiated by the Turks. We need to pay attention to this. If there is a Kurdish Alevi issue and other ethnic or ‘identity crisis’ problems we have to find the source of this in the Union and Progress Party (UP) period or even a little further back in time in the Abdulhamid period.

AO: Can you explain this, based on the decisions taken by these parties when they held power?

MB: Yes, the fundamentals were initiated by the UP, and the same policies were continued by the Kemalist regime during the Republican period. What is the basis of this policy? Ethno-religious cleansing was based on homogenization or Turco-Islamisation. If the republic hadn’t gone in a wrong direction, we might not have these problems today. The Ottomans were in some ways more advanced than the republic. In reality, Ottoman rule was based on a legacy of multi-cultural and multi-class society.

At the beginning, the constitutional monarch movement sought to solve these problems and ensure liberty. The motto was ‘freedom, equality, fraternity’ which excited the masses. The intellectuals of different ethnic groups voiced their support for the movement. However, when the people of Balkan and Caucasian ethnicity took over the management of the UP in 1912 – I do not mind saying this – the situation changed dramatically. From then, the converts and Devshirme[1] , such as the Balkan and Caucasian intellectuals and cadres, became in charge of the entire Turkish politics.

AO: Are you saying that everything changed because the power of the state passed to new immigrants?

MB: Yes. Although they were not Turkish in origin, they embraced Turkishness. They were not Muslim in origin, but they converted to Islam. They considered themselves Turkish and they went so far as to become Turkish racists in the Ottoman Empire. I have already given more details in my past works. They were of Balkan and Caucasus origin. Meantime, those who were in conflict with the Russian Czar, tried to dedicate themselves to Turkishness and Islam before moving to Ottoman territory. These were some famous figures such as Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Ataturk), Enver Pasha, Talat and Cemal Pasha who were also from the Balkans.

The year 1912 was a kind of milestone for me if we look at the past 100 years in Turkey. There was a big Armenian and Assyrian genocide in 1915. This event was the first major ethno-religious fault-line of Turkish Islamisation. The Quzilbash massacre occurred in the Kocgiri area at 1921. In the name of the national struggle, the Albanian-born bearded Nurettin Pasha and his soldiers burnt Izmir city in 1922 and forced all the Greeks into exile. A year later, the same person led the Quzilbash massacre. The exchange law was declared immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. While Turks came to Turkey, Greek people were forced to go to Greece under the framework of this article.

Because the Kurds started to protest against the new Kemalist policies in 1925, more than 15,000 Kurds who defended their national heritage were killed. More than 30,000 Kurds were murdered during the Agri-Zilan rebellion from 1927 to 1930. More than 10,000 Quzilbash-Alevi Kurds were massacred in 1937-38 in the Dersim area. The Prime Minister said the true number could reach 50,000. In the 1940s a variety of informal arrangements were made against non-Muslims. Atatürk’s house in Thessaloniki bombed by the MIT (Turkish intelligence) in 1955. This incident created disorder and a movement against non-Muslims including forced expulsions from Istanbul. The coup d’ etat followed in 1960. There were banners everywhere under the name of Cemal Gursel, who was the head of the coup d’etat. As I myself witnessed, the banner said, “Spit in his face if somebody says you are Kurdish”. These words claim that ‘being a Kurd is so shameful’ and they tried to make people ashamed to talk about their identity.

The TIP (Turkey’s Worker Party) and left movement was strengthening after the 1960 coup d’etat. Wide layers of society were on the left. During this period, the State ordered the establishment of a civilian militia, and created commando camps at 31 sites in Turkey to combat the left. These commando groups were unleashed on the opposition. Prime Minister Demirel led these commando units which were sent against factories, workers, Alevis and leftists in the second half of the 1960s. They tried to organize a massacre in Elbistan in 1967. This is a place densely populated by Alevi Kurds. There were similar initiatives in 1971 at Kırıkhan and in 1975 at Malatya. There was a big Kurdish Alevi massacre at Maras in 1978.

AO: The pro-state Turkish press and media says the Turkish Government was never responsible for revolts and massacres. According to their conspiracy theories, external forces are always responsible for this. In other words, when the matter is about Kurds, the interventions and provocations of foreign powers are invoked.

MB: This is complete disinformation. There was the Maras massacre in 1978, as you know. There was a massacre at Corum in mid-1980. Corum is a place inhabited by the Alevi Kurds. Then in 1993 at Sivas, in 1995 at Gazi, where mostly Alevi Kurds were living. I am mentioning this because, if these massacres were just based on Alevism, they would also have targeted the Arab Alevis in Cukurova or Tahtacilar in Western Anatoly or the Alevi Turkmens on Taurus mountain.

AO: So you say that argument about external support or provocations is not true?

MB: I think it has nothing to do with it. But it has something to do with politics based on ethnic-religious cleansing. Turkish official historians have no shame. For example, they link the Sheikh Said rebellion in 1925 to British intelligence. However, even in the period of the second president, Ismet Inonu, in his memoirs he says there was no trace of any Englishman. Furthermore, there was agent provocateur involvement. There was a Turkish official who impersonated a British person and was sent to the Kurds. I have previously published all the documents about this. When it comes to the matter of Dersim, 1934-35, this was a well-planned massacre. They tried to connect the problem with the Hatay issue. Unethically, they said the Dersim rebellion was provoked by French and British officials because of the Hatay problem. But, did you know that the Hatay issue was resolved in 1938? About four or five years before this, the events of Dersim started, resulting in the massacre of thousands of people by the Turkish state. So there is complete disinformation, the same phenomena as the 1955 bombing of Atatürk’s house in Thessaloniki, which the Greeks were falsely accused of.

AO: Do you think that Prime Minister Erdogan is sincere today about ending all the disinformation against the Alevis and Kurds?

MB: I believe in the laws of social development above all laws. In other words, the laws of social development must comply with all laws. He comes from an Islamic tradition and this could create conflict with official policies of the state. This fact might mobilize some national and international opposition. But events should show how sincere he is. For example, an important step was the establishment of a Kurdish TV channel – an event that occurred as a result of societal developments. He said that the problems couldn’t be solved by military means, but so far he is not sincere about achieving a peaceful solution. Beside, people who are involved in civilian politics have been arrested. This is a serious contradiction and people can see this.

AO: What do you think about the protection of historical and archaeological sites belonging to different ethnic groups such as the Kurds or Alevis in Turkey?

MB: What you have raised is very important. People can only search about their history from archaeological findings from before the invention of writing. Text came later anyway. Archaeological studies and research is very important to understand a region’s history and values. But, like most other issues, these matters are extremely distorted in Turkey. If we look at the Kurdish regions we can see the facts about Hasankeyf. They have made efforts to eliminate or destroy the area. However, Hasankeyf is one of humanity’s most important heritage sites and it is extremely interesting and striking. Hasankeyf and its history would have been flooded and exterminated already, were it not for the contribution and conservation efforts of Kurdish people and intellectuals. I wrote constantly about this subject, during the 1988-89 period, inviting the people to be more sensitive about the protection of heritage. The proposed disappearance of Hasankeyf is an important means to destroy our place in the history of mankind; similarly, the plan to build dams in Dersim. The Dersim area is very important for the heritage of both Kurds and Alevis. This area is very sacred for many Alevis. The significance of the Munzur river for the Alevis is almost the same as that of the Ganges holy river for Buddhist people. By building various dams, the state is trying to move the people out of the area while it also wants to put all the historical-sociological data into the water.

AO: I believe those who promoted the official ideology are also distorting historical and archaeological research. Since the establishment of the Republic, they mainly talk about the Hittites, Greeks and Romans in the recent history of Anatolian civilizations. However, there is little research that focuses on the Hurrians, Medes or Urartus who are ancestors of the Kurds and the Armenians in the area.

MB: Of course it is in line with the official ideology in Turkey to control all branches of scientific research. How can there be anything good, if the state doesn’t have good politics? There was the booklet prepared in the 1930s by the state that outlined Turkish racist history. Everything was said to originate from the Turkish race and culture, even all the languages in the world. It is extremely racist writing used to teach people. That’s why the historical research on the role of Armenians, Kurds and other people was always denied.

AO: One last question. If you have to make a choice, as Mehmet Bayrak, do you prefer Kurdish or Alevi identity?

MB: I carried by chance all the despised and humiliated identities when I was in Turkey. Even though I came from an Alevi and Kurdish family, I also had a labor identity which I have always lived in peace with. It is not necessary to be a member to defend these identities. For example, although I am not a woman I have defended oppressed women, I am not worker but, as a matter of class identity, I have respected labor and supported oppressed working people.

AO: Thank you, Mr Bayrak, for this very informative conversation.

[1] Devshirme was the practice by which the Ottoman Empire took boys from Christian families who were then forcibly converted to Islam.

This interview was originally published in 2011 at sercavan.com by Sukru Gulmus. It was translated by Ahmet Abidin Ozbek.

About Mehmet Bayrak:

Mehmet Bayrak was born in 1948 at Sariz-Kayseri to an Alevi-Kurdish family from the Sinemilli tribe. He graduated from the Turcology Department at Ankara University. From 1971 he started to publish a lot of articles on Turkish modern literature and Turcology issues. His first book was ‘Tevfik Fikret and Revolution’ which was published in 1973. Later, he focused more on village literature and people. His investigative-anthology, ‘Writers and Intellectuals from Village Institutes’, was published 1976 by the TOB-DER Association of Teachers in Turkey. From then on, he focused more on folklore and history – for example, ‘Banditry and Bandit Songs’ (1985 and 1996), which was prosecuted by the Turkish state.

From the mid-seventies he also began to write more about the Kurdish people and he published various article on Kurdology with his nom de plume. He was editor-in-chief and writer at ‘Freedom Road’ from 1975 to 1980. He published ‘Free Future’ issues, mostly focused on the Kurdish question in Turkey, in 1988-1989. After he and the magazine were prosecuted more than 30 times, he decided to open OZ-GE Publishing in 1991. Since then he has published many books on Kurdish issues, Kurdology, history and literature. His more recent historical works include: ‘Alevism and Kurdology’ (document, 2004), ‘Armenian Bards in Alevi-Bektashi Literature’ (2006), ‘Dersim-Kocgiri Massacre’ (2010), ‘Alevi Massacres’ (2011) and ‘Handcuffs for Kurds’ (2009), to name a few.

Mr Bayrak has been prosecuted over many of the books he has published. He has paid numerous fines, spent time in jail and been tortured for his writings and publishing and for his political struggle He continues to this day with his very valuable efforts for his people.