ANZAC Cove Destroyed !

[Mat McLachlan]

Bill,

I'm flabbergasted at your latest news. Keep us all informed of developments, plus count me in if there is any organised action to be taken to prevent the continued vandalism of the Peninsula.

Cheers,

Mat

[MartinWills]

Speaking with a recent visitor I was interested to hear that to the south of Anzac Cove some substantial hardcore had been used, Upon closer inspection it seems that the stone was in fact broken Turkish gravestones complete with remains of inscriptions on one side. Their source is unknown but it perhaps further underlines the lack of respect for the area - one which inceasingly is suffering from too many visitors.

[Eceabat]

Dear Pals,

just a brief update on Australian Senate's inquiry into the Gallipoli Peninsula. I was notified by the committee secretariat Wednesday that the answers to question on notice, the requests for additional information stemming from the public hearings on June 17, have been accepted as in the public domain and are posted on the committee's website as below.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fap...rings/index.htm

Of particular interest is the refusal of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to release the legal advice it had on the Lausanne Treaty as far as it dealt with the granting in perpituity by Turkey to the Allies of the ANZAC sector. The DFAT position, as outlined in the hearings, was that Lausanne only confired rights over the cemeteries in the sector and at Suvla and Helles. However, they have refused repeated requests to release this advice. As I said, interesting.

The final report of the committee is scheduled to be tabled in the Senate on August 18.

Cheers

Bill

PS Martin, I haven't gone and looked at the broken Turkish headstones you mentioned (I've been doing my rambling at Suvla of late), were they in the modern Turkish and where exactly were they? If they were in the modern Turkish, I would guess they may have come from the Turkish monument at Helles. The authorities removed a representational cemetery there a year or so ago and turned it into a car park. Be interesting to find out.

Bill

[MartinWills]

Bill,

I will speak with the visitor who alerted me to this and check the exact whereabouts. They were not "new" headstones, however, being apparently old and worn. I am well aware of the changes at the Turkish memorial which saw the "new" representational headstones removed to make a car park. I know that particular change was not looked upon kindly by a number of the Turkish population on the peninsula. Am I right in saying that some, but not all, of the representational stones that were removed were reused across from the long relief which was added when the stones were moved to make way for the car park?

Regards,

Martin

[Auimfo]

Have sent emails to D. Kelly, M. Bishop and some media outlets in the last few days. Let's give it a few days and see what comes to light (if anything)

Tim L.

[Auimfo]

Bill and all,

Just saw this is today's Melbourne Herald-Sun newspaper. I don't know if anyone else has contacted the Shadow Minister but I know I sent them an email two days ago.

It may not be front page but at least someone's sat up and taken notice. Let's hope we can end this potential vandalism before it even begins.

Tim L.

[grantmal]

Can't add much to the debate except a sad photo taken in early May. Whilst walking back to the CWGC guest house from Brighton Beach my mate and I were picked up by a couple of young blokes from Ankara; turned out they were engineers supervising the roadworks. They asked us what we thought of the road...my mate and I looked at each other in embarrassing silence before he blurted out "it's really smooth!" We had a good laugh after they dropped us off, but not at the damage done....

good on you,

Grant

[Eceabat]

Hi Pals,

Despite what Mark Sullivan of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Australia might say, yes, there has been discussions on new developments on and around the battlefields. Suggestions that scenic viewing areas with accompanying car parks be built at the Nek, near the Sphinx and on the Q Hills were among the proposals. Other sites include Alcitepe, Hill 971, Mal Tepe, Tekke Tepe and Chunuk Bair.

In a more recent development, the committee of historians and advisors to the Gallipoli National Park strongly recommended against these three projects. However, as one of the committee members told me, their recommendations are just that, and are not binding and have been ignored in the past. I must again stress that no final decision has been taken on these projects and no work undertaken. Hopefully, voicing oppostion to these proposals well before anything is done will have the desire result and this will be nothing but a storm in a Turkish tea cup.

One piece of good news is that the asphalt processing plant that had been set up half way across the peninsula near the turn off to Kocadere village, and which was used to provide the material for the ANZAC sector road and other forthcoming projects, has been dismantled and removed. It was supposed to be in operation for three years, so maybe this means that roadwork has been suspended for a while at least.

Tim,

yes, I have been in contact with Alan Griffin, the new Labor Party spokesman for Veteran Affairs who replaced Senator Mark Bishop in the recent reshuffle, and, as his statements in the media show, he does seem concerned with the issues at hand.

Grant,

not sure if you know it but the photo you posted of the excavations below the Sphinx shows an area of land that was cleared not for construction purposes but only so it could be used as a dumping area for spoil excavated from other areas. Now that construction work has been completed it has been leveled off (sort of) and abandoned as is. All that scarring for a temporary dump site.

Cheers

Bill

[Eceabat]

Just a quick update on the Australian Senate’s inquiry into developments on the Gallipoli Peninsula.

I have been informed that the Howard government is considering extending the deadline for the final report on the finding of the committee to mid September to allow the government members on the committee to draft up a dissenting minority report. If so, this will be the second time the deadline for handing down the findings of the committee has been extended.

While not being privy to general tone of the committee’s deliberations, it is interesting that the Howard government and its representatives on the committee are considering the need for a dissenting report. Both the majority and minority reports could make for interesting reading.

Cheers

Bill

[Eceabat]

Just another update on the Australian Senate’s inquiry into developments on the Gallipoli Peninsula.

The final deadline for the handing down of the report on the roadworks etc on the Peninsula has been extended for a second time and is now due to be tabled on September 15.

Also of possible interest to Pals may be plans announced on Wednesday by the Turkish Culture and Tourism Ministry and the Gallipoli National Park that a private construction company, Nik Insaat Ticaret (Construction and Trade), has been commissioned to restore the Namazgah Battery just below the Kilitbahir castle, the castle itself, the Erturgual Battery (just above the western end of V Beach) and the monument to Yayha Cavuz (Sergeant Yayha) and his platoon that defended the site on 25 April.

I don’t have the details of the other construction work, but the Namazgah battery, an Ottoman era work, is supposed to be restore to its state as of 18 March 1915, the day of the naval assault and turned into a museum, complete with guns and manikins in Turkish uniform.

There is a similar museum in Edirne, on the Greek-Bulgarian-Turkish border, that depicts scenes from the siege of the town during the Balkan War, which is excellent. Hope this turns out the same way.

Cheers

Bill

[Eceabat]

Hi all,

just a quick update. The Australian Senate inquiry into the developments on the Gallipoli battlefields has had the date for the tabling of its final report put back from September 15 to October 12, the third such deferral.

Cheers

Bill

[Devils Own]

Hi Everybody

My Grandad was at ANZAC with 29th Brigade, so I have been keeping an eye on this thread. I was hoping to visit at some time but hope there will be something left to visit.

I have a question, it may have been covered before.

What legal obligation do the Turks have to look after ANZAC or any of the other battle fields? Can they be restricted or are they pretty much at liberty to do what they want?

Steve

[Eceabat]

Hi Steve,

yes, your query was covered quite a bit in the first few pages of this thread but to sum up, the present position of the Australian and Turkish governments is that the Battlefields are Turkish sovereign territory (no arguement there) and as such the Turkish government has a fairly free hand. However, (a big however for some) the Lausanne treaty of 1923 between Turkey and the Allied powers did set out a number of restrictions, including granting in perpituity all the lands on which the Allied cemeteries stand AND granting in perpituity the land of the ANZAC battlefields. This land is marked out clearly on maps and with datum posts on the battlefield area. Unfortunately, no officials can say clearly what "granted in perpituity" means.

Under the treaty, Turkey is obliged to ensure maintainance of the roads leading to the Allied cemeteries and monuments. There are also some restrictions on commercial activities, construction, etc.

Currently, there is a joint Turkish-Australian-NZ committee consulting to discuss developments in the ANZAC area, though some recent plans floated by the Turkish authorities didn't conform to this process of joint consultation and came as a nasty surprise to the Australians and New Zealanders.

If you want a long read and have the time, scan through some of the earlier entries for the full state of play.

What unit was your grandfather with?

Cheers

Bill

[Devils Own]

Hi Bill

Thanks for that.

GD was with the 5th Connaught Rangers.

Cheers

Steve

[Eceabat]

Stay tuned ladies and gentlemen, the Australian Senate inquiry is to hand down its findings on the developments on the Gallipoli Peninsula Wednesday afternoon. Apparently, there is to be a dissenting minority report from the government members of the committee. Could make for interesting reading.

Cheers

Bill

[Auimfo]

Something I've been waiting to read for quite some time now. Let's hope for a positive outcome.

Tim L.

[Geoff S]

Something I've been waiting to read for quite some time now.  Let's hope for a positive outcome.

Tim L.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ditto-I will Canberra tomorrow & order a copy.

Thanks for the heads-up!

cheers

Geoff S

[Eceabat]

Hi all,

the Senate report has been handed down and can be read at the website below:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fap...ipoli/index.htm

The majority report found that significant damage had been done to sites of historical importance, that human remains had been uncovered in the roadwork and that there had been a failure on the part of Australian officials to properly consult with Turkish authorities over the project.

Suffice it to say the dissenting minority report from the government members of the committee found the opposite.

The report is lengthy and makes for interesting reading.

Cheers

Bill

[michaeldr]

Bill,

Many thanks for putting up the above link

It makes an interesting read

I have no wish to get involved in the internal politics of another country, however it is to be hoped that, despite their embarrassment and defensiveness, nevertheless some actions along the lines of the recommendations will be taken and without delay.

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Auimfo]

Took some time to read through both the majority report and the minority report.

To tell you the truth, it was pretty much as I expected. The majority 'opposition' senators canned the gov't and respective authorities whilst the minority 'gov't' senators canned the majority report and it's sources.

Personally I am in agreement with the majority report but unfortunately I'm not convinced that it will make an iota of difference. I still maintain that it required an inquiry by a totally independant body with access to all documents and people involved to make a totally unbiased and creditable report. In this way there could not have been as many ways for others to try to discredit their findings.

What's more disconcerting is the fact that most of these outcomes will almost certainly change very little the way the Gov't handles the heritage of Anzac and hence the possibility of further desecration is very very real. And although we can kick up a stink each time, once the damage has been done there is no way of repairing it.

What really upsets me is the fact that Australian political parties can try point scoring over our national heritage. It should be a totally bi-partisan topic devoid of any political manouvering and the fact that they use it for 'vote getting' and 'mud-slinging' is despicable. I am more convinced than ever that polititians live in a fantasy world of their own and have lost all touch with the reality of life and the needs of those of us who live in it.

Bill, The minority gov't senators tried to take a big stick to your credibilty. But the more I read their constant barrage against you, the more I realised they were not providing an alternative position i.e. in the absence of factual proof, discredit those against you.

In addition to that, if I were you I would take them to task over their allegation that "Mr Sellars makes serial appearances around Anzac Day and tellingly, conceded in evidence that he has financially benefited from his sensationalised media assertions."

From what I read in the hearing transcript, you informed them that you had been paid in the past for two articles. At no time did you make this as a 'concession' and never did you refer to them as 'sensationalised media assertions'. I found this quote in the minority report to be very misleading and not at all reflecting the truth of what you had said.

Finally, the quote from the minority report that filled me with absolute despair about the future of Anzac:

"We reject the majority finding that significant sites of the Anzac campaign between April and December 1915 have been lost forever as a result of the roadworks."

They just don't get it!!

Tim L.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Eceabat]

Tim,

yeah, the minority report made it fairly clear I am not in line for the Order of Australia any time soon. Yes, as I have freely acknowledged, I was paid for a couple of aritcles I was commissioned to produce at the request of the Daily Telegraph in Australia (a Murdoch paper but a bastion of the cause). But then I suppose that as a journalist it was also my living. People can judge (and some have done so) the right or wrong of it. I would say that I lost far more than I gained in terms of money but that was not the point. Never was.

Reading the two final reports was rather a contrast, those who spoke out about what happened were either sinners or saints. I can't say that everything in the minority report was exactly right but it did reflect most of the deep concerns held by many people.

While my name (for better or worse) cropped up in the report far too often, the fact that there was an inquiry at all, and questions raised, was due to the large number of people, here in Turkey and around the world, who were concerned at what happened on the battlefields and what might happen in the future. Speaking for myself and my wife Serpil, it was wonderful to see so many cared.

This issue is not at an end, only today I was told that road work is scheduled to resume in the ANAC sector within two weeks (this is yet to be confirmed from other sources).

What is at stake is the shared heritage of all those nations whose soldiers served and so often died on the Peninsula. Never more than now do the word's "lest we forget" ring true.

Cheers

Bill

[Andrew P]

G'day Bill

After reading that minority report and other propoganda sent out by the gov't I'm not very happy with the way the Liberal senators portrayed you. I found it quite strange that a liberal senator who wasn't even at Gallipoli called you an 'unreliable witness'.

I won't mention what I think of those two liberal senators as I'm sure my post would be deleted by the moderators.

Regards

Andrew

[Ozzie]

Found this, it may be of some use.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=DK6

Cheers

Kim

[Andrew P]

In case some people didn't see these interesting articles by Ross McMullin which were in the Canberra Times and others Australian papers.

Feature article:]

This week¹s Senate report on the controversial Gallipoli roadworks called for a thorough historical survey of the peninsula. Yet not only does a little-known study already exist. So too does an admirable but forgotten plan to safeguard the site¹s precious heritage.

A PLAN TO SAVE ANZAC COVE

by ROSS MCMULLIN

The extensive roadworks at Anzac Cove in the lead-up to the 90th anniversary of Gallipoli earlier this year bewildered and angered thousands of Australians who regard the area as a sacred site.

But some had special cause for dismay. The fiasco reinforced their regret over a missed opportunity to protect the area where over 8,000 Australians died during World War I.

A Senate inquiry into the roadworks this week advocated a full audit of the area and proper management of the site. Senator Andrew Bartlett declared that a comprehensive survey ³must be done with absolute urgency, above all else², and expressed his ³amazement² that this had not already occurred.

What is practically unknown in Australia is that a detailed study has already been done‹by the Turks eight years ago‹as part of a design competition for the future management of Gallipoli. Moreover, this competition produced an impressive solution, also little known in Australia, to the heritage vulnerability highlighted by the roadworks fiasco and the Senate report.

Glenn Murcutt, one of the world¹s finest architects, is the only Australian to have won the Pritzker Prize, the most prestigious international architecture award. A professor at Yale and Seattle, he frequently adjudicates major international competitions. But for Murcutt one stands out‹the 1997-98 Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park International Ideas and Design Competition.

Proposals for the future management of Gallipoli were invited. Murcutt chaired the judging committee, which included architects from Turkey, Spain, France, and New Zealand together with an American landscape architect. Gallipoli's Australian associations and affecting ambience stirred Murcutt, but what he found really remarkable was the exceptional documentation assembled for competition entrants.

Two massive bilingual volumes were produced in 1997. The Catalogue, a detailed inventory, analyses every cemetery or memorial (55 Turkish, 35 British and their allies), every settlement and every historical site (ramparts, forts, trenches, guns, even shipwrecks) on the peninsula. Each item is described and illustrated with a drawing or photograph or several of both. There are numerous maps. Even the local flora and fauna are represented with colour photographs of flowers, trees, birds and butterflies together with drawings of eleven varieties of fish.

The second volume, The Book, covers terms, conditions, issues, requirements and the background history. It also contains a series of maps, which illuminate the peninsula's history, geology, vegetation, forestry and waterways.

These volumes, according to Murcutt, are ³remarkably extensive, as much as you could ever envisage². Considering Australia¹s enduring preoccupation with Gallipoli, it is extraordinary that they are practically unknown in Australia. Copies are scarce. This unfamiliarity is even more striking in the context of the roadworks controversy and calls for a comprehensive survey of Gallipoli.

The Gallipoli Peace Park Competition was an initiative of the Turkish government. The then Turkish president, Suleyman Demirel, provided a foreword for The Book: ³The Republic of Turkey, wishing to keep these legendary battles fresh in the memory of the future generations and to show that no war is cause for permanent hostilities, but can serve as a basis for friendships as well, has made the decision to turn the Battlefield of Gallipoli into a Memorial for World Peace.''

It was a ³great honour and excitement² for him to inaugurate the competition, Demirel added. Murcutt felt these were genuine sentiments. In conversation with the president, Murcutt was impressed by his remark that he wanted to focus not so much on the ferocious fighting at and after the landings on 25 April but on the successful withdrawal by Turkey's opponents that ended the campaign.

Even more influential than the president was Dr Raci Bademli. A Turkish professor of planning who was well connected politically, Bademli was the project director and its professional and technical adviser. He was the driving force behind the rapid production of the volumes, participated in the jury¹s deliberations, and was prominent in the implementation phase.

An engaging personality, Bademli got on famously with Murcutt and Tony Watkins, the New Zealand architect on the competition jury. Bademli relished their enthusiasm for the project; they appreciated his empathy for the 1915 Anzac experience. Watkins sometimes felt Bademli was ³more an Aussie than a Turk².

Bademli wanted a design for the Peace Park that maximised sensitivity to the area's rich military heritage. This applied particularly to the Anzac sector where the Australians fought. In The Book he specified what the judges wanted to see in the designs that competition entrants submitted for Anzac Cove and the surroundings:

³The area should be delimited and its entrances well defined, and controlled. The integrity of existing graves and monuments (both Turkish and Commonwealth) should be secured and through-traffic of visitors and the local population eliminated from the area. Also, visitors should not be allowed into the battlefields in buses, automobiles or motor-cycles.''

Tourists could be delivered in buses to the edge of heritage-sensitive areas such as Anzac, but no further. How visitors proceeded from there as they explored the area and experienced the ambience was the essential problem that competition entrants had to solve. Murcutt and Watkins endorsed this approach.

The jury decided that the entry that most effectively incorporated this philosophy was from Norwegian architects Lasse Broegger and Anne-Stine Reine, who were awarded first prize.

Their design provided for small non-intrusive shuttle vehicles and a number of pathways. Australian and New Zealand visitors tend to gravitate to Anzac Cove and to proceed up and inland from there, whereas Turkish visitors typically start at the heights to the east that their ancestors were defending.

Broegger and Reine envisaged that Australian visitors could walk or catch a shuttle from their bus drop-off to Anzac Cove, and could walk from there along a pathway via Shell Green (the site of the famous 1915 cricket match and photograph recreated by Steve Waugh¹s team in 2001) up to Lone Pine on the second ridge. Another pathway, located with New Zealanders in mind, could take in other notable positions including Monash Valley and Walker¹s Ridge. Yet another could be created for Turks starting on the eastern heights.

The idea was to impinge as little as possible on Gallipoli's unique and fragile heritage. Taking tourist pressure off the park was a priority. Ever-longer streams of ever-bigger buses clogging traffic on ever-weaker roads while affording limited glimpses for inactive tourists was to be a thing of the past.

Instead, visitors unable or unwilling to walk or cycle could scrutinise video and other material at an interpretation centre located near the bus drop-off point on the edge of the heritage area, and could travel further afield on the shuttles if they wished.

The Norwegian design impressed Glenn Murcutt profoundly. It had ³very beautiful propositions², he says. Tony Watkins also remains full of admiration: "It recovered the history of the site, restored the overwhelming presence and sacred peacefulness of Gallipoli, and enabled young Anzacs to experience the landscape as their forebears had done."

With the design decided, the focus switched to implementation. Initial progress augured well. President Demirel was onside. Raci Bademli was dynamic, determined and decisive. A proposed bridge was stopped, a planned motorway diverted. This involved ³heady politics², affirmed Watkins, who was especially impressed when Bademli insisted on the demolition of posh houses illegally erected by well-to-do Turks near Suvla Bay.

But this auspicious progress slowed. The political and funding environment changed. Bademli found himself diverted into other spheres, notably the preparation of national codes in response to earthquakes. And Broegger and Reine were struggling. According to Reine, they had disagreements with Bademli and found the Turkish bureaucracy ³very difficult².

The Norwegians were young (early thirties) and inexperienced. During implementation they felt they were denied both appropriate support and adequate clarity in what was expected of them. On the other hand, some insiders concluded that the Norwegians' design skills exceeded their political nous and resourcefulness.

This is a familiar story for Australians aware of the difficulties endured by Walter Burley Griffin in Canberra and Joern Utzon at the Sydney Opera House. Winning a design competition is only the start. Implementation can be a fraught process.

Another problem, admirers of the Norwegian design felt, was that too many official representatives from Australia and New Zealand were unsympathetic. Too often they ignored the Norwegian design, frustrated by what they saw as its impractical restrictions, and pursued priorities of their own that contravened it.

This was influential. Bademli, like Watkins, sensed that united international will was essential. The design would not be implemented if left to Turkey alone. Bademli battled on, but was overworked as usual and had bureaucratic difficulties of his own to contend with.

The most devastating blow for the Gallipoli Peace Park came in 2003. Raci Bademli was diagnosed with cancer and died a few months later.

Events in 2005 reinforced the impression that the superb vision of Bademli, Broegger and Reine seems further away from implementation at Anzac Cove than ever. There could hardly be a more incompatible development than the roadworks shambles. It was, Murcutt lamented, ³a landscape tragedy².

The situation now is not promising. Demirel is no longer president. The current Turkish government has a pro-development ethos. Negotiations are in train between the Turkish and Australian governments to avert another potential heritage catastrophe, this time on the second ridge inland from Anzac Cove. Broegger and Reine have had no role at Gallipoli since 2001. The vacuum Bademli left has not been filled.

Meanwhile more and more buses bring in more and more tourists. The number of visitors has increased exponentially, and the unique heritage of the Anzac sector is increasingly vulnerable.

Still, Tony Watkins, for one, has not lost hope. The fundamentals have not changed, he maintains: ³The need now is the same as ever‹to implement the award-winning design². New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, whose great uncle died near Hill 60, is keen to do what she can to make it happen. Australia, too, should surely be striving to ensure that the Norwegians' design is implemented.

[article ends]

[opinion article:]

WE SHOULD LOOK AFTER THE REAL GALLIPOLI

by ROSS MCMULLIN

Former Veterans Affairs minister Danna Vale¹s stillborn proposal to recreate Gallipoli in Victoria is yet another symptom of the Howard government¹s reprehensible attitude to the place many Australians regard as sacred.

Attempting to reproduce Gallipoli as some kind of wacky theme park is no substitute for failure to look after the real thing.

The proposal came less than a week after another reminder of the government¹s Gallipoli shortcomings, the tabling of a Senate inquiry¹s findings on the roadworks fiasco that scarred Anzac Cove earlier this year.

A majority of the Senate committee‹its Labor senators and Andrew Bartlett of the Democrats‹concluded that the Howard government had contributed to the shambles in a number of ways. The ALP senators made nine recommendations to prevent a repetition, and Senator Bartlett agreed with all but two of them.

Two government senators, Liberals John Watson and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, submitted a lengthy minority report contending that at no stage had the Howard government done anything wrong and there was no merit in any of the nine recommendations either. They also went out of their way to savage Bill Sellars, the Gallipoli-based journalist who first alerted his fellow Australians back in February that something grave was going on at Anzac Cove.

Watson and Fierravanti-Wells grounded their valiant defence of the government on the helpful observation that Gallipoli is part of Turkey. Accordingly, they reiterated, ³Australia¹s inability to intervene in the Turkish management of the Gallipoli Peninsula² was obvious.

But this misses the point. Australia (and New Zealand) can exert influence. When the Howard government belatedly stirred itself to pursue reconsideration of the heritage-damaging roadworks, the Turks were responsive. They may not comply with everything we want all the time, but we do have influence.

Now that the Senate report and its political argy-bargy are out of the way, hard thinking needs to be done about how we exert that influence. With continuing discussions established at prime ministerial level in the wake of the roadworks mess, this is a timely opportunity to reconsider how we should go about safeguarding Gallipoli¹s unique and precious heritage.

Our priorities have been askew for years. During the Howard government the emphasis has been on monumentalism. Ever-bigger crowds are encouraged to visit Gallipoli on Anzac Day, and there is official satisfaction with ever-rising ³record attendances², which are then used to justify the creation of bigger ceremonial spaces, improved ³facilities² and ³special events². With hundreds and hundreds of buses delivering tourists to the front line, the roads cannot cope so they have to be strengthened and widened, which further imperils the fragile heritage.

If this exponential growth in visitor and vehicular traffic continues, as it well might in the lead-up to the 2015 centenary of the landing, there is a real risk that the site will be placed under unsustainable pressure. We could be loving the place to death.

However, there is another way. What is needed is not monumentalism but minimalism. This is best embodied in the design by Norwegian architects Lasse Broegger and Anne-Stine Reine that won the 1997-98 Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park International Ideas and Design Competition.

A Turkish initiative, this competition and the winning design are little known in Australia, even though the jury judging the award was chaired by world-renowned Australian architect Glenn Murcutt.

Under the minimalist Norwegian design, buses would be permitted to deliver tourists to the edge of heritage-sensitive areas such as the Anzac sector, but no further. Visitors could then either walk, cycle or catch one of a number of small unobtrusive vehicles providing a regular shuttle service along the roads. The Norwegians envisaged the creation of a number of pathways that would enable visitors to follow the 1915 soldiers¹ footsteps in an environmentally sensitive way.

According to Murcutt, this design has ³very beautiful propositions². Implementation began auspiciously, but lost impetus when the political and funding environment changed in Turkey.

The Norwegian design should be better known in Australia and should be properly implemented in the Anzac sector. This is what Australia should be using its influence to achieve. New Zealand, an important ally on this issue as in 1915, will be supportive. Prime Minister Helen Clark is a keen advocate of the Norwegian design.

It is true that the current Turkish government seems imbued with a more pro-development ethos than the previous administration headed by President Suleyman Demirel, who set up the Peace Park competition and was a wholehearted supporter of it. This might make revival of the Norwegian design more of a challenge; nevertheless it is what we should be pursuing.

Furthermore, although John Howard is unlikely to say so, it would also be helpful if there was official confirmation that Anzac Day is not necessarily the best time to visit Gallipoli.

While it is admirable that so many rite-of-passage backpackers feel inspired to visit, they tend to be unaware of what those most familiar with Gallipoli know: if you want a reflective, meaningful experience that will stay long in the memory, it¹s best to avoid the crowded days around 25 April.

We should protect Anzac as we continue to appreciate it.

[article ends]

*******************************************

[Auimfo]

If this exponential growth in visitor and vehicular traffic continues, as it well might in the lead-up to the 2015 centenary of the landing, there is a real risk that the site will be placed under unsustainable pressure. We could be loving the place to death.

However, there is another way. What is needed is not monumentalism but minimalism.

We should protect Anzac as we continue to appreciate it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many sentiments that reflect my exact thoughts. Thanks for posting the articles Andrew.

The two volumes McMullin refers to as 'The Catalogue' and 'The Book', prepared in 1997 would be wonderful references to have. I wonder how I could get my hands on a copy??

I'd like to know more about the Norwegian's plan before endorsing it completely but it sounds along the same lines to what I would have envisaged as being a solution to the dilemma.

Now, how do we get the Gov't to seriously look into this?

Tim L.