Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Biased FT report on Cyprus

IN its latest special report on Cyprus, the Financial Times of London again finds fault with President Papadopoulos’s policies, blaming him for the continuing stalemate and claiming that he is now raising more objections to the Annan Plan.

"While insisting that he still supports re-unification, Mr Papadopoulos’s list of objections to the plan has grown longer. He has resisted UN pleas to ease the process of restarting talks by setting out the Greek Cypriots’ priorities for changes in the peace plan," the main artIcle in the report says.

The newspaper, which attacked Tassos Papadopoulos even before he became President and has a legal case pending against it in the Cyprus courts, is so biased that it fails to mention even once that he is the President of the Cyprus Republic, and merely refers to him as Mr Papadopoulos.

"Some observers believe that Mr Papadopoulos and his hard-line nationalist supporters favour reviving a unitary state in which Turkish Cypriots would be treated as a minority rather than having equal political rights with Greek Cypriots or, as a second choice, outright partition", the article claims.

Stalemate

It is written by Kerin Hope(based in Athens) and Vincent Boland (Ankara correspondent).

The UN-backed plan is still on hold, 15 months after it was rejected by the Greek Cypriots, it says. It refers to Sir Kieran Prendergast’s conclusions, after a trip to the region in June, that the gap between the two sides was still too wide to justify launching a fresh effort for a settlement.

"The situation is one of stalemate and it’s hard to see how it will be moved forward" a European diplomat was quoted as saying.

Always seems to be biased for GCs when a few home truths are brought into the open, what do GCs think of the above comments and how will Mr Papadop help the process move forward??? what do you think he will next to help address the Cyprus issue other than wait for 3rd October??

[ChomskyFan]

Ok Viewpoint, we have all heard about how evil we were to reject the Anan Plan, now tell me, what did we as GC's have to gain out of it? Did we have right of return to gain? Did we have removal of British Bases to gain? Did we have a unitary State to gain? Did we have a fair Proportional Representation System to gain? Did we have removal of Turkish Army to gain?

What exactly DID we have to gain out of it? Point out how great this plan would have been for us and then I will accept your point. But up until now you seem to dislike His Excellency President Papadopoulos because he scuttled your plans of a Turkish dominated Cyprus.

[Viewpoint]

Ok Viewpoint, we have all heard about how evil we were to reject the Anan Plan, now tell me, what did we as GC's have to gain out of it? Did we have right of return to gain? Did we have removal of British Bases to gain? Did we have a unitary State to gain? Did we have a fair Proportional Representation System to gain? Did we have removal of Turkish Army to gain?

What exactly DID we have to gain out of it? Point out how great this plan would have been for us and then I will accept your point. But up until now you seem to dislike His Excellency President Papadopoulos because he scuttled your plans of a Turkish dominated Cyprus.

Firstly welcome to the forum..

You should read the Annan to find answers to your questions believe me they are all there its only that they are not as you demanded because what you demanded was seen as unreasonable.

The only reason I posted this article was to show to GCs how your leader is viewed abroad, anything we TCs say about him on this forum is disregarded. The Gcs appear to be blinkered and unable to see past their noses, Mr Papadop is not the right man for the job and your administration are playing the game of staying in power rather than solving the Cyprus issue. As for the Annan plan over time GCs will erode every letter of the plan this is how it is done and sold to the people, it is was an opportunity and for the first time the Cypriots were asked for their opinion we said YES you said NO end of story... Now what happens from now on if we dont have the right will from your leadership then we will stay divided and the status quo will continue, if you are happy with this then you must also be happy with your leadership we were not we got rid of both Denktas and Eroglu, now its your turn and time will reveal the true intentions of your current leaders, their rehtoric and speeches are for votes, you can make excuses until your are red in the face results are the name of the game and in my opinion so far the GCs are viewed as being the negative side, my question was what do you think your leader Mr Unpopular should do next if anything or is his just waiting for 3rd October correct in GC eyes??

[ChomskyFan]

Ok Viewpoint, we have all heard about how evil we were to reject the Anan Plan, now tell me, what did we as GC's have to gain out of it? Did we have right of return to gain? Did we have removal of British Bases to gain? Did we have a unitary State to gain? Did we have a fair Proportional Representation System to gain? Did we have removal of Turkish Army to gain?

What exactly DID we have to gain out of it? Point out how great this plan would have been for us and then I will accept your point. But up until now you seem to dislike His Excellency President Papadopoulos because he scuttled your plans of a Turkish dominated Cyprus.

Firstly welcome to the forum..

You should read the Annan to find answers to your questions believe me they are all there its only that they are not as you demanded because what you demanded was seen as unreasonable.

The only reason I posted this article was to show to GCs how your leader is viewed abroad, anything we TCs say about him on this forum is disregarded. The Gcs appear to be blinkered and unable to see past their noses, Mr Papadop is not the right man for the job and your administration are playing the game of staying in power rather than solving the Cyprus issue. As for the Annan plan over time GCs will erode every letter of the plan this is how it is done and sold to the people, it is was an opportunity and for the first time the Cypriots were asked for their opinion we said YES you said NO end of story... Now what happens from now on if we dont have the right will from your leadership then we will stay divided and the status quo will continue, if you are happy with this then you must also be happy with your leadership we were not we got rid of both Denktas and Eroglu, now its your turn and time will reveal the true intentions of your current leaders, their rehtoric and speeches are for votes, you can make excuses until your are red in the face results are the name of the game and in my opinion so far the GCs are viewed as being the negative side, my question was what do you think your leader Mr Unpopular should do next if anything or is his just waiting for 3rd October correct in GC eyes??

Firstly, The Financial Times is not the voice of the masses, even in the United Kingdom, as I am sure you are aware. The Financial Times' main qualms with those it chooses to character assasinate are usually economic, such as African Socialist Leaders who refuse to kow-tow to The Capitalist 'Structural Readjustment' pre-conditions of aid, and the rest usually follows in what amounts to a pretty standard formulation of lying and misinformation. I do not know what qualms the FT itself has with His Excellency, President Papadopoulos, but what I do know is that in Britain there has been widespread anger among the Elites about the Greek Cypriot rejection, due to the fact it a) damages investment opportunities for the rich, and b) raises the issue of the SBAs to a higher status. In the standard pattern Herman laid out in 'Manufacturing Consent', the elite shape the agenda and the Press Corp follow. East Timor versus Cambodia is a prime example of this, though, being Muslim, I doubt you care much that Indonesia massacred 250,000 Timorees, while being extremely keen to vent your frustration over The Foreign Policy of The Russian Federation and others, such double standards though, are natural among anyone and to be expected, but that is besides the point.

In this shaping of the the agenda that has followed, the Elite consensus among those in Britain has been that the Greek Cypriot side rejected a 'Good' plan, while The Turkish Cypriots bent over backwards like never expected to accomodate Greek Cypriot demands (a belief echoed by a 'Lord' in a recent Chamber debate on the subject), as such, the media will follow this agenda, in short, they will print articles about it because it is the prevailing consensus and issue among Bankers, Businessmen, CEOs, Politicians et al surrounding that issue for the reasons just mentioned, namely a chance of easy FDI catered for by Mr. Talat in a Federal State, a chance of a new market and a 'cheap buck' if you will.

In regards to how His Excellency is viewed in other Western Countries, I have neither the time nor the energy to waste on such an investigation, though I believe it will probably follow the same pattern it does in the UK, as the prevailing interests of Western Elites are nearly always the same. Profit and Power.

[Viewpoint]

ChomskyFan

Firstly, The Financial Times is not the voice of the masses, even in the United Kingdom, as I am sure you are aware. The Financial Times' main qualms with those it chooses to character assasinate are usually economic, such as African Socialist Leaders who refuse to kow-tow to The Capitalist 'Structural Readjustment' pre-conditions of aid, and the rest usually follows in what amounts to a pretty standard formulation of lying and misinformation

In your opinion not mine Ill let other members make their own decisions on your negative evaluation of the FT a well respected newspaper read worldwide...excuses are easy.

You still avoid my main question which I will only repeat for the third and last time, what do you think Mr Papadopoulos should do now to create a positive move towards resolving the Cyprus issue?? is his obvious tactic of waiting for the 3rd October in Cypriots best interests?? are you happy with the current situation, the status quo and risk of partition?

[ChomskyFan]

ChomskyFan

Firstly, The Financial Times is not the voice of the masses, even in the United Kingdom, as I am sure you are aware. The Financial Times' main qualms with those it chooses to character assasinate are usually economic, such as African Socialist Leaders who refuse to kow-tow to The Capitalist 'Structural Readjustment' pre-conditions of aid, and the rest usually follows in what amounts to a pretty standard formulation of lying and misinformation

In your opinion not mine Ill let other members make their own decisions on your negative evaluation of the FT a well respected newspaper read worldwide...excuses are easy.

You still avoid my main question which I will only repeat for the third and last time, what do you think Mr Papadopoulos should do now to create a positive move towards resolving the Cyprus issue?? is his obvious tactic of waiting for the 3rd October in Cypriots best interests?? are you happy with the current situation, the status quo and risk of partition?

Firstly, 'Well respected' is a subjective term, The FT for example has an extremely limited field of discussion, The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. The FT exhibits this perfectly, for example, you are not going to have a reporter in the FT arguing the case for impoverished Latin Americans who wish to Nationalize their Oil and Water Industries. That's just unacceptable from an Economic perspective, it's not that the Journalists in the FT are self-censoring, it's just that if they believed anything different, they wouldn't be working for the FT. And that's another process, the 'Filter' system of Education, which I can go into detail with if you wish. I mean, sometimes the FT will be honest about Foreign Policy issues, but that's because it's readership isn't the General Public, it's Business Elites, and therefore it doesn't really matter on certain issues what they print (so long as it's in the acceptable framework of discussion) because it doesn't really matter to Business Elites whether Union Leaders in Columbia are being massacred by the US backed Government, because the end result is if there is a profit to be made.

As for your second point None of the current parties are happy with the current situation. I myself am prepared to offer the TC's this in regards to Political rights, a 25% share in a Unicameral Parliament - Based on a unitary state but incorporating that quota within, however, there should be a Constitutional Amendment to have a 'Sunset Clause' that would cause the 25% share to be made null and void in 25 years, and a new agreement sought if it is believed Unification between the two peoples has been successful enough.

In regards to other issues, removal of ALL foreign troops and FULL right of return for ALL refugees is not even up for debate, these issues should simply be set in stone. Illegal occupation of property on both sides of the island is simply unacceptable in any political settlement.

[Viewpoint]

ChomskyFan

Firstly, 'Well respected' is a subjective term, The FT for example has an extremely limited field of discussion, The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. The FT exhibits this perfectly, for example, you are not going to have a reporter in the FT arguing the case for impoverished Latin Americans who wish to Nationalize their Oil and Water Industries. That's just unacceptable from an Economic perspective, it's not that the Journalists in the FT are self-censoring, it's just that if they believed anything different, they wouldn't be working for the FT. And that's another process, the 'Filter' system of Education, which I can go into detail with if you wish. I mean, sometimes the FT will be honest about Foreign Policy issues, but that's because it's readership isn't the General Public, it's Business Elites, and therefore it doesn't really matter on certain issues what they print (so long as it's in the acceptable framework of discussion) because it doesn't really matter to Business Elites whether Union Leaders in Columbia are being massacred by the US backed Government, because the end result is if there is a profit to be made

The majority of educated people do not limit themselves to one source of information when assessing an issue. Although I appreciate your indepth and highly crictical analysis of the FT please allow me the privilidge of doubting your intentions and reasons as being slightly biased.

As for your second point None of the current parties are happy with the current situation. I myself am prepared to offer the TC's this in regards to Political rights, a 25% share in a Unicameral Parliament - Based on a unitary state but incorporating that quota within, however, there should be a Constitutional Amendment to have a 'Sunset Clause' that would cause the 25% share to be made null and void in 25 years, and a new agreement sought if it is believed Unification between the two peoples has been successful enough.

In regards to other issues, removal of ALL foreign troops and FULL right of return for ALL refugees is not even up for debate, these issues should simply be set in stone. Illegal occupation of property on both sides of the island is simply unacceptable in any political settlement.

Are you aware that a Unitary state is not on the table and that all negotiaitons and your even your current leadership keep quoting that a solution should be based on BBF basis?? I am impressed by your being prepared to allow us 25% political representation, would this allow you to pass any laws you wished that would effect both communities differently??? do you see any dangers in this balance??

Troops I can agree with you, and even go further to say that all trrops should be totally removed from both sides, I am a firm believer that we do not need and army in a United Cyprus.
As for refugees right to return, this is a very sensative issue for many TCs as is for GCs but the psychological effect of being swamped by GCs is far to great for TCs to comprehend, this fear can only be eleviated over time, so the quotas on the numbers that return could be reviewed over a transitional period, when it is established that both communites can live together in peace these quotas may be removed. The rights of these people also have to determined, under a BBF arrangement.
The property issue is the big one and could be resolved by determining the current usage and availability of disputed land/homes and the demand for by GC/TC preference for either returning property where physically possible and compensation.

[Viewpoint]

ChomskyFan I take it you are a GC, as your avoiding the question was done with frightening and expected GC mindset.

[ChomskyFan]

The majority of educated people do not limit themselves to one source of information when assessing an issue. Although I appreciate your indepth and highly crictical analysis of the FT please allow me the privilidge of doubting your intentions and reasons as being slightly biased.

Well, generally, like most Big Businesses - Media Groups operate in Conglomerate Cartels. Generally, in a Capitalist System, all of these have the same interests, even State run ones, you would be surprised to where I had to turn to learn about, for example The absolutely disgusting behavior of the US in Latin America from the 1920's to the 1980's. A consistent programme of overthrowing democratically elected regimes under the pretense any form of Economic Nationalism was 'Communism' deemed to be threatening the rights of United Fruit or other Corporations that practically ran Latin America. The mainstream is all the same to me, and I tend to bring it upon myself to read 3 newspapers a day, even The Guardian is absolutely sickening at times in it's servility to State power.

Are you aware that a Unitary state is not on the table and that all negotiaitons and your even your current leadership keep quoting that a solution should be based on BBF basis??

Neither side is prepared to talk, the basis should not be The Annan Plan, which is our main qualm.

I am impressed by your being prepared to allow us 25% political representation, would this allow you to pass any laws you wished that would effect both communities differently??? do you see any dangers in this balance??

I think the balance is fair, but my own belief is that before we can begin discussing a Settlement there needs to be an exchange of ideas, not from the Politicians, but from the people, I just think in a more General tone that lots of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots should get together and talk about these topics for years so there begins to emerge a framework of consensus.

Troops I can agree with you, and even go further to say that all trrops should be totally removed from both sides, I am a firm believer that we do not need and army in a United Cyprus.

As am I. Armies are a waste of money.

As for refugees right to return, this is a very sensative issue for many TCs as is for GCs but the psychological effect of being swamped by GCs is far to great for TCs to comprehend, this fear can only be eleviated over time, so the quotas on the numbers that return could be reviewed over a transitional period, when it is established that both communites can live together in peace these quotas may be removed. The rights of these people also have to determined, under a BBF arrangement.

I do not believe in a BBF settlement, but in regards to your issue about both sides concern about being 'swamped', as I explained above, my General Point is just that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots should talk to each other, and discuss these things for a long length of time before unification can begin.

The property issue is the big one and could be resolved by determining the current usage and availability of disputed land/homes and the demand for by GC/TC preference for either returning property where physically possible and compensation.

I think it's more simple than that, there needs to be some agreement over the settlers, as this is a big obstacle in the way of any property settlement. But as I have stated before, I consider full right of return as simple as that, just allowing both sides to go back to their homes, it solves so many woes in one fell swoop, and will also help both communities understand each other, as the feeling of aggrievement is lessened.

[Viewpoint]

ChomskyFan

Neither side is prepared to talk, the basis should not be The Annan Plan, which is our main qualm

Talat has on many occassions offered to talk, he has extended his hand but unfortunately for all Cypriots it has not been grasped by your leader.

Annan plan or whatever plan can only be based on BBF, a unitary state will only inflame the TCs allergy of being reduced to a minority status in their own homeland, so I suggest you start to contemplate a solution based on BBF as the support for an alterantive would be very low amongst TCs.

think the balance is fair, but my own belief is that before we can begin discussing a Settlement there needs to be an exchange of ideas, not from the Politicians, but from the people, I just think in a more General tone that lots of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots should get together and talk about these topics for years so there begins to emerge a framework of consensus.

I was joking about the 25% issue but I agree that discussion might help towards establishing a consensus but my only concern is that it could backfire and increase the evident divide between the 2 comunities we are all very stubborn and still view each other with the other side mentality, trying to get the upper hand.

think it's more simple than that, there needs to be some agreement over the settlers, as this is a big obstacle in the way of any property settlement. But as I have stated before, I consider full right of return as simple as that, just allowing both sides to go back to their homes, it solves so many woes in one fell swoop, and will also help both communities understand each other, as the feeling of aggrievement is lessened

The settlers issue can be resolved in my opinion and is lower down on the list of my priorities, property and right to return are the big to and unfortunately I cannot agree with you on full right to return as this it is not as simple and straight forward as you seem to think it is.