Cyprus-Forum.com

[joe]

Financial Times’ bias

By Gene Rossides

The Financial Times (FT) editorial of December 1, 2006 titled “Turkey and EU held hostage by Cyprus” is (1) a blatantly biased editorial against the government of Cyprus and (2) demonstrates that the Financial Times is basically an arm of and a mouthpiece for the British Foreign Office.

It has been my contention for years that the British press on foreign policy issues is basically an arm of the British Foreign Office, particularly on secondary issues such as the Cyprus problem. There are exceptions, of course, but not many.

With the end of the Cold War in 1990, the British Foreign Office’s key concern in foreign affairs, on a par with national security, is the economic interests of Britain. That is a prime reason for Britain supporting Turkey’s accession to the EU regardless of whether Turkey meets (1) the EU’s requirements for accession, (2) its legal obligations under the Ankara Protocol and (3) its obligations under the UN Charter and Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

The FT and the British press have consistently embraced the Foreign Office’s views. They basically disregard human rights and the rule of law in foreign affairs and particularly so regarding Cyprus. The British have always resented the Greek Cypriots anti-colonial actions in the 1950’s and deliberately courted Turkey to raise the 18% Turkish Cypriot minority as an obstacle to self-determination despite the fact that Turkey had renounced all rights to Cyprus in the Lausanne Treaty of 1923.

The FT’s December 1, 2006 editorial makes charges against Cyprus and assumptions with no backup. The EU’s report on Turkey was 78 pages of which Cyprus was only a few paragraphs. The Financial Times ignores the many reasons for the EU’s freezing 8 chapters of the 35 required.

Nonsense

The Financial Times in effect states that the prospect of EU membership is the only way to get Turkey to make progress towards democracy. That position is nonsense. There are a number of diplomatic and economic ways to apply pressure on Turkey to make reforms. Such pressure should be applied whether or not Turkey accedes to the EU.

The editorial’s statement that “The Cyprus issue can be resolved if member states are prepared to put the strategic interests of the Union above the narrow interests of the Nicosia government,” is obvious nonsense on its face. How can appeasing Turkey by removing the requirements for accession to the EU resolve the Cyprus issue?

The FT editorial is also a slap at the integrity of the EU. The FT is telling the 25 EU members, particularly France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, that the EU acquis requirements are meaningless because it is in Britain’s economic interest to placate Turkey.

What are the “strategic interests of the Union” that the FT refers to? The FT does not describe them because they are not there-- they are illusory.

The FT editorial states: “Irrespective of whether it is any longer realistic to believe Turkey will one day join the EU, that would be a geopolitically catastrophic train wreck.” I state that this assertion by the FT is also nonsense. What does “a geopolitical catastrophic train wreck” mean besides hyperbole? Where is Turkey going to go?

During the Cold War, the West foolishly appeased Turkey regarding its aggression and occupation in Cyprus and its lack of democracy at home because of Turkey’s alleged value as a NATO ally against the Soviet Union. It was wrong to do so because there was little to no chance that Turkey would take military action against the U.S.S. R. in event of a clash with the West in central Europe.

The FT supports the discredited United Nations plan which it refers as “United Nations plan for a confederal system to reunite the island.”

That plan drafted primarily by David Hannay, the British Special Representative for Cyprus from 1996 to May 2003, and the British Foreign Office, would have created a new entity with two separate states and would have made Cyprus a protectorate of Turkey and Great Britain. It was a political and economic scandal.

That plan referred to by the FT as “confederal” is also contrary to numerous UN Security Council resolutions on a federal solution to the Cyprus problem.

Blunt

The EU report is 78 pages. As it relates to Cyprus, the report is very blunt regarding Turkey’s failure to implement its commitments towards Cyprus which she is obligated to do when she signed an “Additional Protocol [the Ankara Protocol] extending the EC-Turkey Association Agreement to the ten Member States that acceded on May 1, 2004 which it [Turkey] had signed in July 2005 and which enabled the accession negotiations to start.” (Emphasis added.)

While I would have preferred a stronger report from the EU, its report is adequate to put Turkey on notice that it must meet the EU accession criteria as all other applicants have had to do.

The FT editorial is right out of the British Foreign Office and expresses Britain’s imperial and colonial attitudes.

Then there is the spectacle of Prime Minister Tony Blair rushing to Turkey to reassure Turkey after the EU Summit of December 14-15, 2006 ratified the EU Ministers decision of December 11, 2006 to freeze 8 of the 35 chapters on Turkey.

Does the FT believe in the rule of law in international relation?

Does the FT believe in democratic government based on majority rule, the rule of law and protection of minority rights?

Or does the FT believe in Britain’s divide and rule colonial policy?

The reality is that the Cyprus problem was caused by British colonialism in the 1950’s and that a fair and workable settlement is being held hostage by Britain’s colonial attitude. But that is the theme of another article.

The US in its own best interests should not continue to follow British policy on the Cyprus problem.

**********

Gene Rossides is President of the American Hellenic Institute and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

[pantheman]

Nice piece joe,

Now tell us something we don't know.

Britain was always the problem in cyprus.

The question is, what can we do about it ?

Answer, jack shit sadly. They are just bullies, they have the power and keep us down. Anyone who says different is a liar.

[MR-from-NG]

Britain was always the problem in cyprus.

How silly of me, I always thought it was us TC's.

[Piratis]

I agree 100% with this article. Here is what I posted a few days ago:

TWO OUT of ten Greek Cypriots favour Turkey's EU accession, according to the Eurobarometer report.

Although Greek Cypriots favour a further EU enlargement, only 19 per cent sees Turkey's accession to the EU as positive.

Greek Cypriots rank fourth in Europe with a negative stance on Turkey's EU accession.
Top of the list were the Austrians with 87 per cent , followed by Germany with 78 per cent Luxembourg with 77 per cent and Cyprus with 74 per cent. On average only 28 per cent of Europeans favoured Turkey’s accession.
Of those surveyed Turkish Cypriots most favoured Turkey's accession with at 78 per cent, followed by Turks themselves with 68 per cent.

What is strange is that the UK/USA media would have us believing the opposite.

This is the answer to all those that say things like: "EU regretted that Cyprus joined because it is an obstacle to the Turkish accession" and all the other crap.

When some UK/USA newspapers write some pro-Turk anti-Cypriot things you should remember that media do not represent neither the whole world nor the Europeans.

I also encourage you to watch the following part of film by BBC, especially after 9 minute and 15 seconds. That is in 1957 when Britain decided that it doesn't need the whole Cyprus but military bases will do. It shows how the British brought the Turks into the game, promising to them partition (yes, since 1957), and then blackmailing Greece with this.

http://media3.filewind.com/g.php?filepath=1624

The British attitude on Cyprus has not changed since then. What changed is that after the fall of the Soviet Union the Americans and their dogs are left alone to do what they want without any control.

[Pyrpolizer]

It’s been a long time I noticed there is something wrong with the Financial times. I mean it was too biased on external (to the British) issues to be considered an independent newspaper. Moreover while in the past it was dealing only with pure financial/economic matter, its been about a decade or two that it deals with politics as well.

Where did you find this article joe? It would be interesting to know. If it is just hidden inside some web site I doubt it would have any effect at all against the distortion of FT.

[reportfromcyprus]

And the president of the american hellenic institute isn't biased?

If you're human, you're biased - if you're a reporter, the only thing you can do is get your facts right. Any publication, including the financial times has to get its facts right, its readers will trust them if they do this consistently.

As to the assertion that it is a mouthpiece of the foreign office, well, where are the facts, ie, the proof?

[Kikapu]

And the president of the american hellenic institute isn't biased?

If you're human, you're biased - if you're a reporter, the only thing you can do is get your facts right. Any publication, including the financial times has to get its facts right, its readers will trust them if they do this consistently.

As to the assertion that it is a mouthpiece of the foreign office, well, where are the facts, ie, the proof?

You must know by now RFC, that it is easier to attack the messenger, than the message it self, if one does not like what the message reads.!!!

[Pyrpolizer]

A respected newspaper reportfromcyprus would never take a few paragraphs out of a 75 page report to conclude that the EU and Turkey is held hostage of Cyprus.
On the contrary a respected newspaper should have analysed all the report.
Do you see anything like that? I don't....

[reportfromcyprus]

A respected newspaper reportfromcyprus would never take a few paragraphs out of a 75 page report to conclude that the EU and Turkey is held hostage of Cyprus.
On the contrary a respected newspaper should have analysed all the report.
Do you see anything like that? I don't....

My remarks are more general, just that we have to take more or less everything with a pinch of salt and look at the facts. One of the hardest things to do is get a balanced article, strictly speaking, unless it's an opinion piece, there should be facts and quotes from both sides of the story.

[joe]

Pyrpolizer wrote:

Where did you find this article joe?

This particular article was published in Hellenicnews.com and the Cyprus Weekly. It may also have been picked up by other news sources.

Happy holidays!
I currently hear church bells ringing.......Merry Christmas everyone!