Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
2005/14: Should the Australian Government have requested that roadworks be undertaken at Gallipoli?
Related issue outlines: 2004/15: Should items including sand from Gallipoli be sold as memorabilia?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
gallipoli
road
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
What they said ...
'When I saw the damage done to Anzac Cove I was reduced to tears'
Mr Bill Sellars, an Australian writer and historian, who lives at Gallipoli
'Inevitably, when so many people have died in such a small area, bones are going to turn up'
Mr John Howard, Australia's Prime Minister
The issue at a glance
In March 2005 reports began to appear in Australian newspapers of roadworks being undertaken at Anzac Cove to allow for tourists who would visit the area to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Anzacs landing at Gallipoli. It was claimed that damage was being inflicted on a delicate and historically significant area.
Questions were asked in Parliament and a variety of responses were given. Initially it was suggested that the road and accompanying car parks were entirely a Turkish initiative and were being well managed by the Turkish authorities.
Later it was revealed that Australia had requested at least some of the work, that Australian officials and ministers may have failed to adequately monitor the roadworks, and that human remains had been disturbed and irreversible changes made to the topography and historical features of the site.
Background
(The following information is a slightly edited version of the information on Anzac Day presented on the Australian Government's Culture and Recreation Internet site)
A brief history of the Gallipoli campaign
On 25 April every year Australians commemorate Anzac Day. It is Australia's sacred day. The day has the same significance in New Zealand, Australia's confederate in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (the ANZACs) at Gallipoli.
On 25 April 1915 Australia and New Zealand were at war. Along with the Allies (the major Allied Powers were the British Empire [Britain and her colonies and dominions], France and the Russian Empire), the ANZACs were fighting against the Central Powers (Germany, Turkey [then known as the Ottoman Empire], and Austria-Hungary).
In response to a request for help from Russia, which was fighting the Turks in the Caucasus, the Allies decided to begin a campaign they hoped would distract Turkey from its attack on Russia. The plan was for the Allies to take the Gallipoli Peninsula, on Turkey's Aegean coast. The Allies believed they could then take control of the Dardanelles - a 67 kilometre strait which connects the Aegean Sea with the Sea of Marmara - and lay siege to Turkey's main city, Istanbul (then Constantinople).
As part of the larger British Empire contingent the ANZACs were transported in after training in Egypt. The ANZACs comprised the 1st Australian Division and the composite New Zealand and Australian Division. On 25 April 1915, the ANZACs landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula.
Instead of finding the flat beach they expected, they found they had been landed at an incorrect position and faced steep cliffs and constant barrages of enemy fire and shelling. Around 20,000 soldiers landed on the beach over the next two days to face a well organised, well armed, large Turkish force determined to defend their country - and led by Mustafa Kemal, who later became Ataturk, the leader of modern Turkey. Thousands of Australian and New Zealand men died in the hours and days that followed the landing at that beach. The beach would eventually come to be known as Anzac Cove.
The ANZACs and the Turks dug in - literally - digging kilometres of trenches, and pinned down each other's forces with sniper fire and shelling. With their backs to the water the ANZACs were unable to make much headway against the Turkish force.
In Britain, the lack of success of the campaign created arguments about whether it should be continued. While political leaders argued, the Australian and New Zealand soldiers died in battle, from sniper fire and shelling, and those that lived suffered from a range of ailments due to their dreadful living conditions - typhus, lice, gangrene, lack of fresh water, poor quality food, and poor sanitary conditions all took their toll.
Eventually it was decided that the Allied troops would be withdrawn from the Peninsula; the attempt to control the Dardanelles had failed. The ANZACs were evacuated and returned to the Middle East and the Western Front where they were involved in other battles.
The Gallipoli campaign was a failure, a failure bought at the cost of an enormous number of lives, and the failure led to the resignation of senior politicians in London. Nearly 9,000 Australians died; 3,000 New Zealanders; 20,000 British; 30,000 French and 60,000 Turks.
An Anzac commemorative location has been built at Gallipoli in conjunction with the New Zealand government and with the approval of the Turkish government.
Internet information
On April 26 2005 the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, gave a press conference in Istanbul, Turkey. The purpose of the press conference was to announce that he had come to an agreement with the Turkish Prime Minister to set up two joint studies involving Turkish and Australian authorities. These studies would need to be completed before further works were completed at Anzac Cove. Mr Howard also indicated what some of his future intentions are for the area.
The full text of the press conference can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/Interviews/Interview1355.html
The Australian Government's visiting Gallipoli website gives detailed information on the area, the memorials and the facilities currently available. It can be accessed at http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/2visiting/views.html
A subsection of the above Australian Government website gives a detailed account of the commemorative site built in the area. It includes a detailed account of the terrain in the area. This information can be found at http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/3building/concept.html
The Australian Defence Report Internet site draws together news reports of military significance. It contains a transcript of a Ninemsn report on the extent of the damage done at Anzac Cove and the further damage that may be done if Australian Government requests for further roadwork are acquiesced to.
A full copy of the report can be found at http://newsaustralia.com/Australian-Army/more_road_damage_feared_at_galli.htm
On April 19 2005 The Sydney Morning Herald ran a report on the Australian Prime Minister's claim that it was 'inevitable' that the bones of dead soldiers would be disturbed at Anzac Cove
A copy of this report can be found at http://smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/04/18/1113676703401.html
On April 24 2005 Michelle Grattan wrote a comment, published in The Sydney Morning Herald, on the political implications for Mr Howard of the fracas surrounding the roadworks at Anzac Cove. A full copy of her comment can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Symbolism-sinks-at-Gallipoli/2005/04/24/1114281436075.html
On April 27 2005 Channel Nine Western Australia (WA) carried a report of the WA president of the RSL calling for limits to be imposed on the number of visitors who could go to Anzac Cove. This report can be found at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=48800
Arguments in favour of the roadworks at Gallipoli
1. The number of visitors who go to the site on Anzac Day could not have been accommodated by the original facilities
The major justification offered for the widening of the road and the construction of parking areas is that the existing facilities could not deal with the volume of tourists seeking to visit the area, especially on Anzac Day.
In 2004 some 10,000 Australian and New Zealanders visited the area on Anzac Day. It was anticipated that the number in 2005, the ninetieth anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign, would be about 20,000.
Australia's Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has stated, 'It is necessary to have wider, more effective roadworks because there are more and more people going to the place.'
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, stated in Parliament, 'The roadworks are essential for safety reasons, given the enormous number of people who are going there. Erosion over the years has rendered the road above Anzac Cove dangerous and in need of urgent repair.'
A English letter writer in a letter published in The Age on March 17 wrote, 'Last year, approximately 10,000 Aussies and Kiwis made the pilgrimage to the dawn service at the sacred site that both our countries hold so dear. This crowd was by far the largest number of antipodeans to visit the peninsula since the Gallipoli campaign itself and pushed the absolute physical boundaries of how many people can be accommodated in the relatively small space of Anzac Cove and its surrounding areas.'
Similarly, an experienced Turkish tour guide has been reported to have claimed, 'On Anzac Day the place is a nightmare - there are never enough toilets, thousands of people and hundreds of buses make a bad combination for all concerned ...'
2. The site had already been damaged by erosion and the roadworks should prevent further damage
It has been suggested that the Anzac Cove site was already damaged by erosion and that the roadworks may reduce further erosion.
The Australian prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has stated, 'Any suggestion that the site has remained exactly the same for the past 90 years and has suddenly been altered in the last ... couple of months is not correct.'
In 1999 the Australian and New Zealand Governments established an Anzac Commemorative site at Gallipoli, built three hundred metres north of Ari Burnu, the site of past Anzac Day dawn services at Gallipoli.
The report accompanying this proposal described the Gallipoli terrain in the following manner, 'The area is of a rugged character with a coastal plain that varies from minimal to 100-200 metres in width. It forms the base of the mountain range, which rises between 50 and 100 metres above the coastal strip and features a number of distinctive ridges including the 'Sphinx', so named by the Anzac forces as having a similarity to the Sphinx in Egypt, where their basic training was undertaken prior to the engagement of 1915.
The slopes vary from around 1 in 7 through to 1 in 13 in the North Beach area of the Coastal Plain to 1 in 1 or steeper to the ridgeline behind.
The soils are a coarse granular type reflecting the underlying geology primarily of sandstone, shale and thin limestone. They are sensitive to frequency of usage and are erodible with the vegetation cover removed.
... Areas of concentrated drainage have led to erosion and surface runoff with the result that culverts under the road are blocked with remedial works required to stabilise sections of the area.'
3. The pressure of visitors to the site would have caused further damage
Mr Alexander Downer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated in Federal Parliament, 'Let me make it clear to the House that about two million visitors a year go to the Gallipoli Peninsula, of whom 50,000 or so are Australians.' Last year it was estimated that some 10,000 Australians visited Anzac Cove on Anzac Day alone. Prior to the roadworks being undertaken it was estimated that approximately twice that number of Australians alone would visit the site to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli.
A number of commentators and others have suggested that without the roadworks and other facilities being built the pressure of these numbers on unsealed roads and parking areas would cause greater harm to the area.
In a letter published in The Age on March 17 2005, Mr Ben Melbourne described the impact those who visited Anzac Cove on Anzac Day 2004 had on the area. He stated, 'Although every attempt was made to avoid doing it, unfortunately people were forced to trample over the sacred ground of the many graves, trenches and other memorials that dot Gallipoli simply to be able to move around between services. I'm sure that the damage done over this one day by 10,000 pairs of feet took its toll and was potentially as destructive as any road-building machinery.
The issue with the roads ... is a problem of accommodating the growing crowds during Anzac Day within the peninsula itself.'
4. Australian representatives monitored the progress of the roadworks
A number of Australian officials have been responsible for monitoring the progress of the construction work at Gallipoli. One of these is Gary John Beck, a former air vice-marshal and commandant of the Australian Defence Force Academy, Duntroon. After his retirement in 1997, the Howard Government appointed Beck director of the Office of Australian War Graves.
In relation to the Gallipoli roadworks the Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, stated in federal Parliament on March 7, 2005, 'The director of the Office of Australian War Graves returned recently from Gallipoli and reported some delay to roadworks due to weather. He will be visiting Turkey later this month in connection with Anzac Day services and will report further on his return ...'
Later in March 2005 the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, stated that he believed attacks on the Turkish Government over supposed mismanagement of the construction work were unfair.
Mr Downer further stated, 'I sent the ambassador there, she's been there for two days and she can't find any evidence that it's being bungled.'
5. The discovery of bones from soldiers bodies is unavoidable and those that are found will be respectfully treated
Initially the Australian Government apparently believed that no soldiers' bones had been found, however, were any to be so then the construction work would stop until they had been appropriately dealt with.
The Prime Minister later seemed to recognise that the discovery of such bones was unavoidable. He stated, 'Inevitably, when so many people have died in such a small area, bones are going to turn up.'
The Prime Minister went on to add, 'That is a completely different thing from allowing any work to be carried out which disturbed existing war cemeteries.'
The Prime Minister also stated that there was an understanding between governments that when human remains were found they would be treated with due care. Mr Howard has claimed, 'If bones are discovered, then there are arrangements made for a respectful treatment of those bones.'
The building of a crypt to house bones unearthed by workers widening the road has been discussed. Known as an ossuary, or bone house, the crypt, if it goes ahead, is likely to be built on a vacant area beside the 7th Field Ambulance cemetery. This is north of North Beach where the dawn service is held.
6. The Australian Government did not request the scale of roadworks undertaken at Anzac Cove
On April 24, 2005, the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, released documents to show that though former Veterans Affairs Minister, Dana Vale, had asked the roadworks be considered the work that she had sought was between Chunuk Bair (where the New Zealand National Memorial stands) and the Kemalyeri Memorial, not at Anzac Cove.
Mr Howard claimed that the stretch where the Minister had wanted work completed had since been resealed.
Mr Howard further stated, 'While it is common ground between Australia and Turkey, that some reinforcement and improvement of the Anzac Cove road was needed, I feel I should put it on record that works of the scale that have actually taken place were not sought by the Australian Government.'
7. The Australian Government has requested that further roadworks not proceed and will review the project together with Turkish authorities
The Turkish Prime Minister has agreed that work on a retaining wall at Anzac Cove be halted until two joint studies involving Turkish and Australian experts have been completed.
One study will consider the geological and engineering aspects of the current project. The focus of the study will be on the need for the retaining wall which has been planned.
The other joint study will consider the area from an historical and archaeological perspective.
Arguments against the roadworks at Gallipoli
1. The site was previously largely unaltered
It has repeatedly been claimed that prior to the recent roadworks at Anzac Cove the area had remained remarkably unaltered since the landing of the Anzacs in 1915.
Ross McMullin, the biographer of World War I general, Pompey Elliott, has stated, 'The Gallipoli battlefields are, in effect, one of the finest outdoor museums in the world.'
Ross McMullin had previously written, after an earlier visit to Gallipoli, 'The most striking feature of the Anzac area is how little it has altered ... There has been no agriculture, no buildings, no development.'
Anzac Cove, it is claimed, is a link with a key moment in Australia's past, remarkable because until very recently it was substantially unchanged from what it was like when the Anzacs landed and fought there.
In the Australian Government website devoted to Gallipoli it states, 'Most visitors who walk on the shores and climb the ridges of the battlefields of Gallipoli still feel the powerful pull of history. It is like stepping back in time ... historic photographs reveal how little the landscape has changed ... This is one of the few areas in the world where major battlefields have been preserved in this manner, so it is of international value and significance ...'
With reference to the road that has now been significantly altered, Ross McMullin has stated, 'Until this year, a narrow road meandered around the coast above the beach. It did not interfere with perceptions of what it was like to be there in 1915. In fact, the road originated in 1915. It was the Anzacs who created the track that was the basis of that road as it has existed for decades.'
2. The site has been irreversibly changed
It has been claimed that the completed road along Anzac Cove and nearby car parks have left the Ari Burnu area where the Australians first charged ashore almost unrecognisable from the photos of 1915.
A report by Russell Skelton and Phillip Hudson published in The Age on April 10 2005 details the alterations as follows:
'Gone are the slopes of the Ari Burnu knoll at the northern end of the cove that Australian troops rushed up and fought a small force of Turks with bayonets.
Gone also is a large part of MacLagan's Ridge where Colonel Sinclair MacLagan led a force of covering troops to establish the first foothold for the invading force.
Where once a single-lane road ran along the foreshore, visitors will find a three-lane road carved from the historic landscape, leaving a large, raw escarpment. Such a wide road was not requested but it was built this way to reduce erosion.
At either end of the cove - at North Beach where the dawn service will be held and at Hell Spit near the memorial to Simpson and his donkey - parking spaces for buses have been built. Underneath are little gullies, the tracks troops once walked and the shallow remains of foxholes they crouched in.
A large piece of Anzac Gully, from the road up to MacLagan's Ridge and Plugges Plateau, has been carved out during the roadworks. General William Birdwood had his headquarters in the gully and many key decisions of the war were made here.
In addition the dumping of earth dug out to widen the road has narrowed the southern end of the beach on which the Anzacs landed.
Michael Bowers, a photographer who has co-authored a book on Gallipoli has claimed, 'There are places now on Anzac Cove that are less than a metre or two metres wide from the high tide mark.
Now what that means is that the beach is completely narrowed ... it's dramatically changed what that area is.'
Ross McMullin, the biographer of World War I general, Pompey Elliott, has stated 'The ability to get a sense of what it was like to be there in 1915, what it was like to scramble ashore at Anzac Cove and clamber up Plugge's, has been inevitably and irretrievably damaged. The whole fiasco is cultural vandalism at its blinkered worst.'
3. The remains of dead soldiers have been disturbed
There have been repeated reports that the roadworks and the building of car parks have dug up the bones of soldiers who died at Gallipoli.
Only about 30 per cent of the 8709 Australians who died at Gallipoli are buried in individual graves. Because of the nature of the fighting, many were left where they died. Others were blown apart by shelling.
Mr Bill Sellars, a journalist and historian who lives in Gallipoli has calimed, 'It's not about construction work interfering with existing grave sites. The remains of the dead are scattered everywhere and it's criminal to start digging the place up.'
4. There was no need for the roadworks and car parks to have been built
It has been claimed that there is no need for the roadworks and car parks that have now been constructed across Ari Burnu, Gallipoli.
Critics suggest that those who visit the area neither need nor expect that their comfort and convenience will be allowed for. Rather, it is claimed, they go to honour those who died there and to see the terrain on which they fought and died.
Australian historian, Les Carlyon, who has written about and frequently visited Gallipoli, claims, 'I've spoken to hundreds of people at the Anzac Day service there and I've never heard anyone say, "This is terrible, we've got to walk all this way to get here' ... You see 70-year-olds and 75-year-olds walking up there because they've obviously made the decision they want to go and if that involves a little bit of hardship then so be it.'
It has also been suggested that another way to protect the area, without the need for road construction, would be to limit the number of people who visit the site.
After the 2005 dawn service and associated activities at Gallipoli, the Western Australian RSL president, Bill Gaynor, suggested, 'If it is to be kept in its pristine state there needs to be some careful planning, and perhaps limitations to so many people.'
Finally, it has been argued that the work that has been done is beyond what would have been needed to stabilise the road and ignores other vulnerable areas.
Mr Jeff Cleverly, a British Army officer just returned from Gallipoli, has said the extent of the work ran counter to the original report commissioned by the Turkish Government in 1997, which recommended that it was essential to keep the integrity of the Anzac area.
Mr Cleverly has claimed that photographs he took and a map he prepared showed how the widening of the road inside Anzac Cove seemed more than was required to cope with heavy demand once a year.
'...it has not addressed the real problem, which is the erosion on the beach side of the road,' Mr Cleverly said.
5. There was no effective Australian monitoring of the construction work
It has been claimed that Australian Government interest in the monitoring of the site has been cursory and belated.
Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese has stated, 'If John Howard was serious about protecting our heritage, he would have made sure that there was a heritage management plan and that heritage experts and archaeologists monitored all the roadworks.'
Veterans Affairs Minister De-Anne Kelly has admitted that the 'current construction work on the road alongside Anzac Cove is far more extensive than we were originally advised.' She has explained that this occurred because roadworks had made the cliffs unsafe.
Critics complain that Australian authorities seemed either unaware or unconcerned when plans were altered.
Anthony Albanese, the Opposition spokesman on heritage and environment, has queried what former Air Vice-Marshall Beck, the director of the Office of Australian War Graves, was doing and what decisions he made.
Age reporter Russell Skelton has claimed, 'Nobody in the Government appeared to be thinking about potential destruction of Australian heritage by construction work.
No heritage audit was ordered, Australian War Memorial historians were never consulted, and it remains unclear whether any minister or official bothered to examine the extensive archaeological study conducted by the Turks in 1997 listing sites of historical interest.'
6. The Australian Government has attempted to deny its responsibility for the construction works
It has been claimed that the Australian Government has been less than honest and has not readily accepted its responsibility in the matter.
The Australian Government has been condemned for initially suggesting that the entire responsibility in the matter rested with the Turkish Government and only belatedly acknowledging that Australia had made a request for roadworks, though apparently in a different area.
The leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, has stated, 'Howard's out there trying to blame the Turks for it. The Turks are not to blame. All the pressure for this came from us.'
Ross McMullin, an historian and biographer wrote an article published in The Age in which he claimed, 'When the desecration was raised in the House of Representatives, the Government resorted to the Christopher Skase manual of furtive evasiveness to avoid scrutiny before Parliament went into recess.'
7. These roads and parking areas will encourage further damage to the site
It has been suggested that the recent alterations made to the area may in fact encourage further damage.
Firstly there is concern that without additional structures such as retaining walls the roadworks and car parks will ultimately precipitate further erosion and land slips.
There are also those who are concerned that the character of Anzac Cove is being irreversibly altered - that it is becoming a tourist attraction rather than an historical site of high conservation significance.
The Prime Minister is obviously aware of the tension between these two positions. He stated while in Turkey, 'Some people would want to treat the site just as a tourist attraction and others would like to see it treated in a way that made it difficult for people to visit it ... A balance has got to be struck between the two.'
Critics have noted that the current Australian Government seems to have a preference for the site becoming a tourist attraction. They note with alarm the Prime Minister's view that more work would have to be done to prepare the area for the even bigger crowds expected at the centenary commemoration in 2015. He has stated, 'I'd certainly want to make sure necessary work was done so the 100th anniversary of the landings could be marked in the appropriate way.'
Further implications
It seems unlikely that further work will be done at Anzac Cove and the Gallipoli Peninsula without consultation between Australian and Turkish authorities. However, Turkey has indicated that it has plans to significantly extend roadworks in the area.
The site is one of great historical significance in Turkey and is frequently visited by Turkish nationals, including educational tours by Turkish school children. The area is one where 60 thousand Turks died during the Gallipoli campaign. The fighting and the emergence of Mustafa Kemal, who later became Ataturk, the leader of modern Turkey, mean that the area is seen as important in Turkey's path to nationhood.
There appears to be some division of opinion in Turkey as to how the area should be developed. A Turkish archaeological survey was completed in 1997 which appears to have recommended significantly more cautious and respectful treatment of the area than the current roadworks represent. Even while these works were going ahead there were a number of protests in Turkey about the nature of the work.
So far as Australia is concerned it would appear that Australian authorities have either been insensitive or surprisingly indifferent to the work currently being completed. It appears beyond dispute that Australia did request that some work be done in the area in advance of April 25th, 2005, the 90th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing. If, as also appears likely, this work was more extensive than the Australian government intended, this would appear to indicate either that the work was inadequately monitored or that those responsible for the monitoring did not properly appreciate, or care about, the damage being done.
Even now, it would appear that the Australian Government places primacy on the site being accessible to Australian tourists, even if the price of such accessibility is that what they have come to view has been degraded.
Newspaper sources
The Age
15/03/05, editorial, 'Anzac Cove: the second invasion'.
20/04/05, page 31, comment by Ross McMullin, 'Covering his tracks: John Howard and the Anzac desecration'.
20/04/05, page 3, news item, 'Howard blamed for war site damage'.
17/04/05, page 3, news item by R Skelton, 'Howard moves to halt Gallipoli roadworks'.
10/04/05, page 1, news item by Skelton and Hudson, 'Revealed: Anzac Cove trail of destruction'.
10/04/05, page 2, news item by Philip Hudson, 'Turkey thwarts Howard's Gallipoli heritage plan'.
16,03/03, page 21, comment by Ross McMullin, 'Trampling on sacred ground'
07/03/05, news item, '"No evidence" Gallipoli bones disturbed'
The Australian
14/03/05, page 5, news item by Patricia Karvelas, 'Anzac bodies at rest: PM'.
19/04/05, page 3, news item (with photo of new road and car park) 'Anzac spirit lingers beside smooth new road'.
19/04/05, page 3, news item by J Riley, 'Turkey asked to stop work on Gallipoli wall'.
Herald-Sun
14/03/05, page 17, cartoon.
14/03/05, page 18, editorial, 'Saving our sacred site'.
19/04/05, page 19, comment by Neil Mitchell, 'Missing in action'.