Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alasya]

Europe US Pledges Aid Offer to Turkish Cypriots David Gollust

State Department


26 Apr 2004 19:18 UTC


At a news briefing, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher hailed the courage of the nearly 65 percent majority of Turkish Cypriot voters who supported the Annan plan in Saturday's voting as well as the 25 percent of Greek Cypriots who backed it despite what he called campaign manipulation by Greek Cypriot authorities.

He also said Greek-Cypriot schoolchildren were encouraged to vote "no" and given anti-settlement campaign materials and said that not one Greek Cypriot official spoke out against what he said were "numerous shameful incidents" of threats and intimidation against supporters of the Annan plan on the Greek side.

US decries Greek Cypriot 'manipulation' in UN plan vote, to reward Turkish Cypriots
AFP ^ | 4/26/2004 | n/a


Posted on 04/26/2004 1:25:13 PM PDT by a_Turk


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States accused Greek Cypriot leaders of manipulating the weekend rejection of a UN plan to reunify the divided island of Cyprus and said it would reward Turkish Cypriots for voting to accept the proposal.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) reiterated US disappointment that the reunification plan failed on the overhwelming "no" vote by the Greek Cypriot community and said Washington would coordinate assistance to the economically isolated Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) with the European Union (news - web sites).

"Obviously, we were very disappointed," Powell told reporters after meeting with Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller at the State Department. "We believe that an important opportunity, a historic opportunity, was lost."

He said the United States would be "reviewing our position and ... reviewing the actions of the European Union to make sure that we are operating in a way that is consistent with our European colleagues."

The European Union earlier Monday pledged a multi-million euro aid package for the Turkish Cypriot community but neither Powell nor State Department spokesman Richard Boucher could say what the nature or the US assistance would be.

"We would expect to be consistent (with the Europeans) and to act in a way that's appropriate given the outcome of this vote," Boucher said.

A senior State Department official said the use measures would stop short of diplomatic recognition for the TRNC. Certain trade and economic restrictions could be eased, however, the official said.

In Saturday referenda in both parts of the island, more than 75 percent of Greek Cypriots voted against UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites)'s peace plan, while nearly 65 percent of Turkish Cypriots approved it. The rejection of the plan means that only the internationally-recognized Greek-Cypriot south will enter the European Union on May 1.

Boucher declined to comment on whether the United States might penalize the Greek-Cypriot community for their no vote but offered a highly critical appraisal of the role played by Greek Cypriot leaders in the days leading up to the referenda.

"We do think that there was a lot of manipulation by the Greek-Cypriot leaders in the run-up to the election," he said. "The outcome was regrettable but not surprising given those actions."

Boucher decried limitations on media coverage of the plan's proponents by the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation and other Greek-Cypriot news outlets, a statistical analysis of which he said showed that referendum opponents had been given nearly twice as much airtime.

He also cited the use of Greek Cypriot public schools to disseminate anti-settlements campaign literature and reports of "shameful physical threats and intimidation against pro-settlement Greek Cypriots.

"We especially regret that not one Greek-Cypriot official spoke out at the time against the numerous shameful incidents that took place before the referenda," Boucher said.

Cyprus has been divided since 1974, when Turkish troops invaded the north following a coup in Nicosia and an attempt by Greek nationalists to attach the island to Greece.

The rejection of the UN plan means the island will stay divided for the foreseeable future.

[Piratis]

The allies of Turkey will support them. Anything new?
Whats the aim of digging up a year old "news"?

[Saint Jimmy]

Alasya,
I can't say that I disagree with what has been written in those articles. However, the word "manipulation" may not be accurate in describing what happened during the Yes/No campaigns. The fact of the matter is that the number of people voicing "Yes" through the media were ridiculously fewer than those who supported "No". It might be argued that, because they were so few, they got less air time as a result.
But I am not aware of practices such as those implied in what you pasted above. People went to "Yes" rallies, or to "No" rallies, politicians and people argued in favor or against the plan openly. There was a discussion. I think what has been perceived as unfavorable (as in disproportionate) media coverage of "Yes" politicians is not but a result of the disproportionate numbers on that side. The only political party that was clearly in favor of the plan was E.DI. (a 3% party), whereas DI.SY., the other political party that officially supported the plan (and the main carrier of the "Yes" argumentation in the media), is a 35% party, but its decisions were reached after voting processes that were far from unanimous.

[MicAtCyp]

The fact of the matter is that the number of people voicing "Yes" through the media were ridiculously fewer than those who supported "No".

You are wrong! The Air time was exactly equal.Each Radio and each TV discussion (both public and private) had an equal number of yes and No supporters in each and every discussion. Nobody really expected such a high NO in the end....

PS.Is there such an Ayios?

[Saint Jimmy]

Oooooooooooooh I highly doubt that, but OK, you must have something in mind to say it... My first reaction to that was "the best way to lie is stats", but then I realised I might be wrong in terms of the actual numbers. My bad if I was!
Anyway, I think the argument still stands, cuz the "Yes" people (that is, on the "Party Leaders" level)were... well, Anastasiadis, Kliridis, Papapetrou, Vasiliou versus Papadopoulos, Koutsou, Kleanthous, Perdikis, Omirou, Christofias, Lyssaridis, Chrysostomidis (not really a party leader, but government spokesperson...). So, even on such a simplistic counting method, it's sort of 4 against 8. And my view is someone who watched Anastasiadis on one TV channel one day would not watch him again the next day. They would prefer to see someone they haven't seen yet.

The argument is not that there was a conspiracy to shut anyone up. It's just that most of our leaders were against the Plan, and that's why "No" was louder in the campaign. More people=more cash=louder voice!

[Saint Jimmy]

Oh yeah!

No such saint. St. Jimmy is a song by Green Day.

[brother]

WITH TASSOS GOING ON t.v AND CRYING PROBABLY SWAYED THE VOTE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

[KELEBEK]

voter intimidation in the South.

It doesn`t surprise me. I wonder what other EU members make of this?

[MicAtCyp]

Jimmy the airing time was counted to the last minute and I can assure you there are statistics that the yes supporters got a little more than half the time. The reason for the NO outcome was that for the NO there were serious and strong arguments, whereas for the yes the arguments were always very weak. I don't know for how long you ‘ve been watching this forum, but anyone with just about 2-3 weeks presense here can still hear very strong arguments supporting the NO, and very week ones supporting the yes. As for example the post immediately after yours in this very thread.

Anyway regarding your point about the names of the party leaders supporting yes.It is not only the party leaders who participated in discussions but their whole crew and supporting team too, including present and Ex- MPs, Ministers, Politicians, bussiness people, economists, and a lot of independent people. The stronger supporter of yes for your information was not Anastasiades, but Markides the Ex-attorney General.Although an Ex he was on air every 1-2 days at one of the 4 channels.
On the total I would say within one month more than 500 people paraded in the media. Any GC who claim he was not informed, is simply lying. From the discussions i had in this forum and elsewhere, I can assure you the TCs seem to know much less compared to the GCs concerning the Anan Plan.

[Saint Jimmy]

MicAtCyp,
OK I accept the air-time counting argument. I have no reason to discredit what you are saying.

My disagreement lies in your statement that the 'No' argumentation was more solid than the opposing one. Consider the view that the 'No' camp used arguments that appealed to all the hollow promises that have been flying all over the RoP for the last 30+ years. It would make perfect sense for people to make up their minds based on what sounded in line with what they have known as being the ultimate goal (that is, what they were being told all this time!). And, by the way, the responsibility for most of these hollow promises lies not only with the 'No' camp, but also with some of the proponents of the Plan (former Presidents Clerides and Vasiliou, etc.).

Also, I got the point on 'weak arguments' concerning Tassos's crying speech. Can I ask you to look beyond the irony of the matter? I think that, at the time of the speech, some (if not a lot of) people had not really decided on their position towards the Plan, beyond their initial predisposition, shown in the early polls. That speech, I think, represented the tombstone of the Plan. If I were to give an analogy, I would say that these people were on the tip of a more-or-less balanced scale, and the Crying Speech tilted it. Do you not think it had a decisive impact on the outcome of the referendum? Had Tassos made a comparably emotional speech in favour of 'Yes', do you think the outcome would have been more or less the same?

Plus, weak argumentation is inherent in arguing for 'Yes'. By definition (granted that no other country exists in the world under such a government structure, as proposed in the Annan Plan), the 'Yes' camp had to base its argumentation on the future, on hope, on belief, on good will. In contrast, the 'No' camp had a lethal weapon in its arsenal: history. They could (and did) argue against the viability of the proposed solution, on the basis of historical behaviors and attitudes, mostly of Turkey and her allies ('we can't trust Turkey to carry out her obligations under the Plan'). I think that historical paradigms are unmatched means of persuasion. Do you not agree that the 'No' people had an easier task?

Hey, I'm sorry if I busted your balls, I'm just really interested on the issue:)