The Economist versus the Republic of Cyprus

The Economist, an English-language magazine is supposedly the authoritative source for international politics, economics, business and finance. One thing is for certain is that its editorial is unashamedly biased in favour of Turkey in regards to the Cyprus issue. This should really come as no surprise as it represents the business and political interests of the Anglo-American elite which has maliciously sought to undermine Republic of Cyprus for many years. This stance was clearly in evidence during the negotiations, and after the referendum, of the Annan Plan. The election of Dimitris Christofias as the President of the Republic of Cyprus , from the Marxist-Leninist inspired AKEL, has probably helped to sharpen their knives even further. However, not because he is apparently more intransigent on national issues than his predecessor, Tassos Papadopoulos but probably because of some deep seated hatred of anything resembling the Left.

The Economist never fails to interpret facts in favour of Turkey; and ultimately, the magazine's crude neoliberal globalisation agenda. Examples can be found here and here. The Economist seems to conveniently forget that ethnic cleansing and war crimes were committed by Turkey in 1974 and condemned in countless UN resolutions. Today, Greek refugees are disallowed from returning to their homes, settlers continue to arrive from Anatolia and 35,000 Turkish troops remain stationed on the island. However, because of the Cold War, and more recently Turkey's riches of cheap labour and geostrategic position, it has never been punished neither by world governing bodies such as the United Nations, hegemonic states such as the United States nor by the media.

Last week, The Economist was at it again, bashing the Greek Cypriots with this article. For example, they claim that the Greek-Cypriots have been subverting Turkey's EU membership. According to The Economist's logic, the Greek-Cypriots are to blame for Turkey's occupation of a significant part of Cyprus - not the Turks. Fortunately, this week they printed an excellent letter by the High Commissioner for Cyprus in London:

Cyprus and Turkey

SIR – Your article on the “elections” in the occupied part of Cyprus showed more concern for Turkey’s accession to the European Union than for negotiations over the reunification of Cyprus (“A hawkish problem”, April 25th). In 2005 Turkey undertook to fulfil a number of obligations. Its refusal to open to Cypriot ships and aircraft harms the normalisation of relations with Cyprus and is an obstacle to free trade and competition.

Moreover, your reference to “trade restrictions” imposed by the EU on the occupied north is unfounded when what is happening is the application of national, international and European law on trade, customs and sovereign rights of states. In 2004 Cyprus proposed measures aimed at promoting trade with the Turkish Cypriots. These were rejected outright by their leadership. The suggestion that Cyprus has tried to “subvert” Turkey’s EU membership is equally unfounded. In 2005, Cyprus decided to support the beginning of accession negotiations with Turkey, and on April 23rd, the president of Cyprus and the Greek prime minister reiterated their support for
Turkey’s membership bid, provided Turkey fulfils the obligations and requirements.

Alexandros Zenon
High commissioner for Cyprus
London

The Economist belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England, owns the rest.

Source: The Economist