Chapter 1 - The Significance of the Gallipoli Peninsula
The 1915 Allied campaign at Gallipoli remains one of the most significant in our history.
There has been a marked resurgence of interest in visiting Gallipoli by a growing number of Australians, in particular, many young people over the last decade. Indeed, for many young people it has become a rite of passage – an important milestone in their travels.
ANZAC Day causes Australians to reflect upon the enduring symbols of independence, nationhood and the quintessential ethos of mateship which remains so embedded in the psyche of the Australian nation.
The significance of Gallipoli to Australians is demonstrated by the strong and growing attendance at ANZAC Day ceremonies not only at ANZAC Cove, but all over Australia.
1.1 Sovereignty of the Turkish State
It is critical to any inquiry into the issues before this Committee that it is restated unequivocally that the Gallipoli Peninsula lies within the territory of the Turkey.
We refer specifically to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Submission which attests that:
On numerous occasions, the Australian Government has expressed its appreciation for the role of Turkish authorities in maintaining the ANZAC sites and in enabling organisation of an annual commemoration of ANZAC Day on the Gallipoli Peninsula.[2]
This is further underlined by the media statement by Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP of 26 April 2005 following his meeting with the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr Erdogan in Istanbul:
Prime Minister Erdogan and I reaffirmed our shared understanding of the profound mutual significance of Gallipoli to the national identities and historical experience of Turkey and Australia. The annual commemorations of those events which take place in each country each year attest to their continuing relevance to our peoples and to our nations today. On behalf of the Australian people, I expressed deep appreciation for Turkey’s stewardship of the ANZAC area and the warm welcome extended to the many thousands of Australian visitors there each year.
It is again reaffirmed in paragraph 2 of the correspondence from Minister Vale to Minister Pepe dated 2 August 2004 and set out below.
It is interesting to note that the Majority Report includes very few references to Turkish sovereignty. It is therefore gratifying to note that in paragraph 1.25 of the Majority Report, there is at least some acknowledgement, albeit in passing, that the Gallipoli Peninsula is part of Turkey.
The Committee and its witnesses acknowledge that construction on the Gallipoli Peninsula, and efforts to heritage list the area, are ultimately matters for the sovereign state of Turkey. The Gallipoli Peninsula is a part of the territory of Turkey.
The facts of Turkish sovereignty is an issue that lies at the core of this Committee’s deliberations and must be stated up-front and unequivocally.
The Gallipoli Peninsula is managed by a number of Turkish authorities. Ms Fisher (DFAT), gave the following evidence on this point:
Ms Fisher—A number of authorities. The three main areas involved are the department of national parks, the environment and forestry ministry and an environment adviser to the ministry of foreign affairs.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells—And we deal with all of them through our embassy?
Ms Fisher—Yes.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Who has responsibility for safety and security at the ANZAC Day commemorations on the Gallipoli peninsula?
Mr Newman—The Turkish Jandarma has overall responsibility for security.
1.2 The 1915 Campaign
On 2 August 1914, two days before Turkey went to war with the Allies, Turkey and Germany signed an alliance that pitted both nations against Russia.[3] Turkey's alliance with Germany was fairly pragmatic. The Ottomans had no grievance with either France or Britain, but saw the Russians as a traditional enemy. Many within the Turkish bureaucracy, including the Minister of War, Enver Pasha, had sympathies with the Germans. After a flurry of diplomatic activity, it was that linkage which prevailed.
The 1915 Dardanelles campaign was intended as a means for the Allies to make progress on a second front, linking with Russia to the north, given the prospect of prolonged trench warfare on the Western Front. In September 1914, Winston Churchill's plan was clear: "a good army of 50,000 men and sea power - that is the end of the Turkish menace".[4] The plan was for the Allies to claim the Dardanelles, and then Constantinople (Istanbul).
By February 1915, however, the British command believed a swift and effective naval attack would be adequate. On 19 February, Allied battleships entered the Dardanelles and attacked the fixed guns on the outer Turkish forts.
The naval attack came to a head on 18 March, when seventeen Allied battleships attacked Turkish forts at the Narrows. In the ensuing battle, the Allies lost three of these ships - Ocean, Irresistible and Bouvet- and another three - Gaulois, Suffren and Inflexible - ran aground or were shelled. On 18 March, 700 British and French sailors were killed; the Turks lost 40 soldiers. It was in response to the complete failure of the naval campaign that the Allies questioned the merit of a military landing on the Peninsula. In the event, the decision was made to proceed with an army of 75,000 men, including ANZAC troops on training exercises in Egypt. The ANZACs had been preparing for conflict on the Western Front.
The 1915 conflict on the Gallipoli Peninsula was part of an Allied plan for Australian and New Zealand troops to distract the Turkish army from British troops landing further down the peninsula. It was hoped that the British would then face little resistance in their push to capture the Dardanelles, and then Istanbul, assuming naval success.
The Australian Imperial Force's 9th and 10th battalions landed at what is now ANZAC Cove, shortly before dawn on 25 April 1915, and made initial progress up steep slopes. By day's end, however, they were ordered to dig trenches, as Turkish forces had secured the cliffs. After six months of trench warfare, the British commanders realised the campaign's failure and ordered a withdrawal.[5]
AVM Beck (OAWG) told the Committee that the nine-month conflict on the Peninsula cost the lives of something in the order of 87,000 Turkish, 22,000 British, 10,000 French, 8,700 Australian and 2,700 New Zealand soldiers, among others.[6]
In total, around 450,000 people were killed or wounded.[7] It is estimated that one-third of Allied soldiers who fell have no known grave. The figure is much higher for the Turkish army and 4,200 Australians were never recovered.
1.3 The National and Heritage Significance of the Peninsula
1.3.1 Significance to Australia
The national significance of the 1915 conflict, and the heritage value of the Gallipoli Peninsula, is undisputed.
Australia's greatest military defeat has been transformed, through time and remembrance, into iconic status.[8] The battle is widely regarded as the foundation legend of Australian military history and as a potent symbol of the birth of a nation. It was reported first-hand by the eminent military historian, Charles Bean; popularised in Peter Weir's 1981 film, Gallipoli; documented in Les Carlyon's 2001 book of the same name; and was recently revisited in Dr Peter Stanley's book, Quinn's Post.
Various departmental submissions indicate that ANZAC Day ceremonies had been held intermittently in the vicinity of ANZAC Cove at various times since the early 1920s with the Dawn Service being conducted more regularly by the Australian and New Zealand Embassies during the 1980s and was held at the Ari Burnu War Cemetery until 1999. The Australian Service is conducted at the Lone Pine War Cemetery.
In the 1980s, those attending the ANZAC commemorations at ANZAC Cove every year were limited to several hundreds of people.
In 2000, this figure had grown to about 10,000 attendees, being mostly Australians but also including some New Zealanders and Turks. AVM Beck (OAWG) indicated at the Committee that the numbers had increased to 17,000 in 2005.[9]
Furthermore, AVM Beck (OAWG) also referred to some work which had been done on forward projections in relation to young people travelling overseas. He indicated that the growth was occurring due to working visa arrangements and additionally, referred in evidence to the increase in tour operators out of Istanbul with the number up to 300 or 400, and a continuous growth anticipated.[10]
Since that time, ceremonies have been planned and conducted by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) in cooperation with the Australian Embassy in Ankara. The Director of War Graves has primary responsibility for this work supported by the Office of Australian War Graves. In relation to the Dawn Service, close liaison is maintained with the New Zealand Government.[11]
1.3.2 Significance to Turkey
The Turkish people similarly view the Canakkale naval and Gallipoli land battles as founding national events, albeit for different reasons. The conflict was Turkey's sole victory in five First World War campaigns.[12] It is seen as the last great victory of the Ottoman Empire. More particularly, it flagged the military capability and ambition of Mustafa Kemal, and the beginning of his role in Turkey's transition to a secular republic.
Kemal, who in 1923 became the first president of the newly-created Republic of Turkey, was commander of the 19th Division at Gallipoli. He was on hand to oppose the Allied landing in April 1915, and was feted for his military strategy.[13] In 1934, Kemal was awarded the title "Ataturk" - father of the Turks. The same year, he wrote of the ANZACs killed at Gallipoli, "you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country".
Mr Sullivan gave evidence that the official toll of Turkish dead was 87,000 although it may have been higher.[14]
During the course of acknowledging the presence at the Inquiry of the First Secretary of the Turkish Embassy, Mr Metcalfe (PM&C) made the following important observation.[15]
The final point I would like to make is that I think it is appropriate at the outset for Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) to acknowledge, yet again, our deep appreciation of the importance of the ANZAC issue for both Australia and for Turkey to acknowledge the shared history that it has given both countries, and the generosity of Turkey in continuing to welcome tens of thousands of Australians to Gallipoli and to Turkey each year. In doing that I acknowledge the presence of the First Secretary of Turkey up here today. The fact that Turkey has provided protection to the Gallipoli area in the form of a national park and the extraordinary significance of the naming, as a place name in Turkey, ANZAC Cove for the 75th anniversary I think is evidence of the extraordinary tradition and legacy that has been left as a result of the Gallipoli campaign.
In short, not only has Turkey seen fit to protect Gallipoli as a national park, but to honour the memory of those killed by the naming of ANZAC Cove on Turkish soil.
1.3.3 Significance to other Nations
There were British, French, Indian, Newfoundland, Australian, New Zealand and Turkish soldiers involved in the Gallipoli campaign.[16]
Evidence given at the Inquiry was that about 22,000 British soldiers died, 8,700 Australians, 2,700 New Zealanders and 10,000 French.[17]
Hence, in addition to millions of Turkish visitors and thousands of Australian and New Zealand visitors, it is likely that the Gallipoli Peninsula is visited by many other visitors from different nationalities.
1.4 The Gallipoli Peninsula, the Peace Park and the ANZAC Commemorative Site
1.4.1 Changes to Gallipoli since 1915
The physical appearance of ANZAC Cove has changed significantly since 1915.[18] The ANZACs themselves made changes to the Peninsula including:
- Roads and tracks constructed from ANZAC Cove to the north and south along the coast and up to surrounding hills; and
- road built above the beach at ANZAC Cove, running generally along the line of the current road.[19]
The DVA Submission also refers to the changes following the evacuation in December 1915 and the re-occupation of the area by the Turkish forces. These include:
- extension of the road above the Beach at ANZAC Cove by Turkish forces;
- further extension of the road from Maidos (now Ecebat) through Gaba Tepe (Kabatepe) to ANZAC Cove and beyond to facilitate the building of cemeteries and the erection of memorials; and
- subsequent upgrading and repairing of the road above the Beach to cope with increased traffic, erosion and subsidence.
The main period of cemetery and memorial planning on the Peninsula took place in the 1920s under the direction of the Imperial (later Commonwealth) War Graves Commission (CWGC). There are currently 31 cemeteries and five Allied memorials on the Gallipoli Peninsula.[20]
In 1973, the Turkish Government announced that 33,000 hectares on the southern tip of the Gallipoli Peninsula would become a designated National Park. The site covers the Gallipoli battlefield and the area of the Battle of Canakkale in the Dardanelles. In the 1980s, it was designated as a heritage site by the Turkish Government. It is included in the United Nations' List of National Parks and Protected Areas.
In evidence to the Committee, Mr Young (DEH) described the nature of the heritage listing:[21]
Senator Fierravanti-Wells—In his press release of 26 April the Prime Minister referred to the declaration of the area as a national park in, I think, 1973 by the Turkish authorities. Can you tell me what we know about that declaration?
Mr Young—I am certainly no expert in Turkish law, but we understand that, by and large, as with most countries in the world, Turkey has legislation which allows it to declare as national parks places of particular importance. I believe that an area larger than the ANZAC area has been declared a national park under their national parks legislation.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells—I understand the area was declared a heritage site by the Turkish government in the early eighties. Can you tell us a bit about that?
Mr Young—That is similar to the way in which we can designate national parks in Australia and designate particular areas of cultural or heritage importance within those national parks. I believe that is what Turkey has done under its equivalent legislation.
In 1997, on the initiative of the President of the Republic of Turkey, an international competition was launched to transform the area into a 'Peace Park'. The objective was to "design a place devoted to peace and harmony", while respecting the site and the natural environment.[22] The winners, Norwegians Lasse Brogger and Anne-Stine Reine, were announced in 1998.
1.4.2 ANZAC Commemorative Site
In 1999, the Australian and New Zealand Governments proposed an ANZAC Commemorative site. The ANZAC Commemorative Site was constructed at North Beach during 1999-2000 and officially opened by the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers during the 2000 ANZAC Dawn service.
The sharp increase in visitations for the April ANZAC Day Service - from 4,500 in 1995 to 8,500 in 1999 - required a move from the Ari Burnu War Cemetery.[23] In particular, there were concerns that the volume of visitors to the Cemetery was causing permanent damage to graves and plantings. In 1999, there were around 5,000 people attending the last of the services at the Ari Burnu War Cemetery.[24]
In 2000, the Office of Australian War Graves (OAWG) constructed the ANZAC Commemorative Site within the Battlefield Heritage Zone of the Peace Park. It is situated 300 metres north of the Ari Burnu Cemetery on North Beach, and accessed from the coastal road. The Australian Government committed $1.2 million to the project.[25]
In April 2000, the first ANZAC Day ceremony at the new Commemorative site, between 9,000 and 10,000 people attended services on the Peninsula. Of these people, only 2,000 attended the ceremony at Ari Burnu.[26]
However, given the increase in numbers visiting the area, facilities are not adequate and access roads are difficult with low traffic and parking capacity.
In his evidence, AVM Beck (OAWG) stated that Australia has not been able to make any improvements to the ANZAC Commemorative Site since it was constructed:[27]
In terms of what I might claim that we were responsible for, we have not been able to make any improvements to the ANZAC commemorative site since we constructed it. We have made some attempts to raise the levels at the rear above the road to try to improve sightlines. That was unsuccessful. Certainly all of last year we were trying to get the site enlarged. That has been unsuccessful.
However, AVM Beck (OAWG) did refer to certain improvements:[28]
But, in terms of the improvements, they are all mobile activities—things that we can install and take away, like the toilet trailers. We have had great difficulty getting access to mains water. We have had to cart it a few kilometres by tractor every day for the irrigation of the site by hose. But, as to other areas of improvement—and I am talking of both the ANZAC commemorative site and Lone Pine—we have installed improved seating over the last few years. This year, for the first time, we installed seating at the ANZAC commemoratives site. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of other changes that we have been able to make. We certainly keep building more and more toilet trailers, but there never seem to be enough.
This is an important piece of testimony by AVM Beck (OAWG) in that it graphically highlights the restrictions on the Australian authorities in terms of ameliorating facilities at the ANZAC Commemorative Site. Hence, the criticism levelled at the Australian Government for an alleged failure to take action on the territorial soil of another country is not justified.
The accompanying map shows the main features of historic significance on the Gallipoli Peninsula, the remit of the Peace Park, and the two roads of interest to the Committee.
1.5 The Treaty of Lausanne 1923
The Treaty of Lausanne 1923 defines the boundaries of the ANZAC battlefield. As stated by DVA the Treaty:[29]
grants rights to the (now) Commonwealth War Graves Commission to safeguard the cemeteries and memorials on Gallipoli.
The DVA Submission states that the Turkish Government’s approval of the ANZAC Commemorative Site was the first time a place had been approved outside of the Treaty obligations concerning cemeteries and memorials. The ANZAC Memorial Site and associated plant and equipment are maintained by DVA.
However, various submissions also cited the Treaty of Lausanne 1923. The DVA Submission explains that the Treaty: [30]
defines the boundaries of the ANZAC battlefield and grants rights to the (now) CWGC to safeguard the cemeteries and memorials on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Turkey retains overall sovereignty.
Part V, section 128 of the Treaty states:
The Turkish Government undertakes to grant to the Governments of the British Empire ... and in perpetuity the land within the Turkish territory in which are situated the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries or memorials of their soldiers and sailors who fell in action...The Turkish Government undertakes further to give free access to these graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials, and if need be to authorise the construction of the necessary roads and pathways.
In evidence, Mr Sullivan stated that:[31]
In the Treaty, the ANZAC battlefields are granted to the Government of Britain, the 'British Empire'. It is very vague about what that means, although it certainly very explicitly states that Turkish sovereignty is retained.
In this context, Article 129 makes specific mention to "the region known as ANZAC, Ari Burnu". Article 135 states that the Turkish Government undertakes "to maintain in perpetuity the roads leading to this land".[32]
Various interpretations were sought to be given to the Treaty of Lausanne. Notwithstanding his lack of expertise in this area, the Majority Report appears to make much of the novice interpretation by Mr Sellars. This is contrary to the bulk of the opinion proffered by various qualified officials with requisite expertise in the area of international treaties.
The following example highlights the Majority's reliance on Mr Sellars' erroneous view of the Treaty of Lausanne details.
Senator Bishop—Can we now turn to this issue of the treaty raised by Mr Sellars. I take it you have seen his submission this morning?
Mr Newman—I was listening on the television.
Senator Bishop—What veracity is there to the claim made by Mr Sellars in his submission that the treaty of Lausanne gave Australia authority over ANZAC Cove, as described by the survey reference points? Can you outline the law on that? Article 129 of the treaty says:
The land to be granted by the Turkish Government will include in particular, as regards the British Empire, the area in the region known as ANZAC (Ari Burnu), which is shown on Map 3.
There is a whole range of conditions attached of what you can and cannot do. Could you give us the legals on that?
Mr Newman—The legal advice I have on that is that article 128 of the treaty of Lausanne makes it quite clear that the treaty does not in any way affect Turkish sovereignty over any of the lands mentioned. While article 129 purports to grant the land to the British Empire, that grant of land was made subject to conditions that limited the rights of governments of the British Empire, including in the way the land could be used. The Turkish government has undertaken and is obliged to maintain in perpetuity the roads leading to the land and, if necessary, to authorise the construction of any roads and pathways.
Senator Bishop—You are obviously aware of this issue. Have you received legal advice on the effect of the treaty and its application to the British Empire and countries like Australia?
Mr Newman—That was the legal advice of this morning.
Senator Bishop—Could you table that advice to the committee?
Mr Newman—I believe I could, yes.
Senator Bishop—Prior to getting that legal advice this morning, has the department taken legal advice on the issue?
Mr Newman—Yes, we have.
Senator Bishop—What was the legal advice then?
Mr Newman—The same.
Senator Bishop—Exactly the same. So why did you get new advice?
Mr Newman—Because the senator here had been raising it and I thought it was wise to check, given the issue had come up in that form.
Senator Bishop—So the current advice is the same as the previous advice?
Mr Newman—Yes.
Senator Bishop—I ask you to take on notice tabling both sets of advice.
Mr Newman—We will take it on notice. I will take advice on that.
In short, despite a clear legal interpretation that the treaty does not in any way impinge on Turkish sovereignty, much was sought to be made at the hearing of Mr Sellars' view, a view which he later conceded were only "personal comments".[33]
Mr Sellars also made certain allegations, again through media reports and in his Submission, that the Turkish authorities were about to impose a fee for access to the Gallipoli Peninsula.
It is surprising that Mr Sellars made this allegation given his insistence on having read the Treaty of Lausanne. As Mr Sullivan stated, the Treaty: [34]
requires the Turkish government to provide access to those cemeteries and graves free of charge. There could never be a question of a fee to go to the cemeteries.
Indeed, the wording of the Treaty and the evidence of Mr Sullivan also cast doubt on the assertion that a fee could be charged into the National Park, given that the ANZAC battlefields are part of the National Park.[35]
We also note that Mr Newman (DFAT) was asked to proffer a view on the meaning of "free access". He replied: [36]
I think it is a commonsense reading. It says ‘representatives of the British, French or Italian governments as well as persons desirous of visiting the graves, cemeteries, ossuaries and memorials shall at all times have free access thereto
...
Certainly, from our perspective, we would see ‘free access’ as meaning uninhibited in any way in terms of a fee.
1.6 Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC)
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was established by Royal Charter on 21 May 1917, the provisions of which are now amended and extended by a Supplemental Charter of June 1964. Its duties are to mark and maintain the graves of the members of the forces of the Commonwealth who died in the two World Wars, to build memorials to those who have no known grave or who perished at sea and to keep records and registers. The cost of the work is shared by the member governments - Australia, Britain, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa - in proportions based on the numbers of their graves. Other Commonwealth countries contribute by carrying out the routine care and maintenance of graves and memorials in their own lands.
The High Commissioners from each of the member governments are represented on the governing body of the Commission along with other Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. To enable the Commission to carry out its world-wide task efficiently and effectively, in addition to the work carried out at Head Office, it has also established offices where there are major concentrations of Commonwealth war graves.[37]
1.6.1 CWGC on Gallipoli Peninsula
AVM Beck (OAWG) highlights the responsibility of the CWGC for gravestones and cemeteries on the Gallipoli Peninsula: [38]
I am not responsible for gravestones, but the commission takes a great interest in Australian headstones there. I suppose we can claim some credit for three matters. Firstly, we have got the re-engraving of the headstones started—they first started at Lone Pine. Secondly, we have also managed to rearrange the maintenance schedule for the commission so that they do not dig up all the turf at Lone Pine during the ANZAC Day ceremonies. Thirdly, we have managed to get irrigation of the Beach cemetery and Ari Burnu, and they are both looking much better. They are the only two cemeteries of the 31 on the peninsula that are irrigated.
The CWGC have an office on the Gallipoli Peninsula.[39] There is a senior person in Canakkale responsible to the CWGC for Turkey, and in particular, for the Gallipoli Peninsula.[40]
Mr Sullivan advised the Committee of Australia's connection with the CWGC:[41]
We are a board member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission but that does not involve us in their everyday work. We contribute to it, we pay money and we are a board member.
Whilst Gallipoli is recognised as an international cemetery, the Treaty of Lausanne sets out the responsibilities for maintenance of the area. Whilst Australia is a board member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Commission is the properly designated international body responsible for the management of the Gallipoli Peninsula on behalf of all participant countries under the overall control and sovereignty of the Turkish Government.
We recommend that Australia base a full time representative at the CWGC at Canakkle. This appointment will be a formal recognition of the place that the Gallipoli Peninsula holds in the Australian national psyche and assist in the planning of upcoming ANZAC Day ceremonies ahead of the centenary commemorations in 2015.
1.6.2 Procedure for dealing with uncovered bones
AVM Beck (OAWG) gave evidence as to the proper process once bones were uncovered with respect to identification and burial. Given that the ANZAC area is considered by the CWGC to be one large cemetery, it is unique in the fact that the Commission management rebury the bones where they are found. The current plan is for individuals to report findings and for the commission to attend, investigate and bury any unearthed remains.[42]
Accordingly to AVM Beck (OAWG), relocation of bones may occur if they are likely to be eroded by water, in which case they may be moved and interned somewhere protected and nearby. Otherwise, fragments are reburied where they are found - in situ.[43]
Mr Sullivan was emphatic in stating that notification of the discovery of remains to the CWGC was important in the procedure, particularly in respect of bones where they do not have a natural resting place. He stated: [44]
The first advice is that you leave bone fragments where they are. Do not touch them; leave them. If it is anything significant, please report it. The commission probably does not want to go and see every small fragment; it will probably say: ‘Please tell us if the bone is somewhere where it is in danger. Please notify us or, if necessary, bring it to us.’ That is certainly the current advice.
1.7 The Turkish Government's Financial Commitment to New Roads
In his evidence, Mr Sullivan, in reference to responsibilities under the Treaty of Lausanne, stated that Turkey is responsible for roads on the Gallipoli Peninsula.[45]
The Turkish Government has committed $A100 million to various activities on the peninsula, including the upgrade of roads and construction of new car parks. In May 2005, Mr Bulent Arinc, the President of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, announced that $A25 million has already been spent upgrading the coastal road.[46] The roadworks cover 6.3 kilometres, from Brighton Beach in the south, past ANZAC Cove, Ari Burnu, the ANZAC Commemorative site, and up to Embarkation Pier (see map).
AVM Beck (OAWG) also gave evidence about his understanding of Turkish government spending on roads in Gallipoli during his meetings in October 2004. He states:[47]
Senator Bishop—I accept that. My question to you, Air Vice Marshal, is: when was that work drawn to your attention by the Turkish authorities during your various meetings?
AVM Beck—They did not draw it to my attention. I did not gather that from looking at this master plan, because that was not really discussed with us. He was just showing us that there were a number of projects on the peninsula that they were going to spend the $US64 million on. I never gained any information from Yalinkilic about the roadworks. I think I first heard about it from the embassy when I was told that the road was going to be widened from 5.5 metres to seven metres.
Plate (1)
1.8 Map of the Gallipoli Peninsula
Source: Geoscience Australia
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page