THE HUNT for those “bought” by American money to promote the Annan plan continued yesterday, despite explanations on Thursday by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the US embassy on where the funding had actually gone.
European Party vice chairman Nicos Koutsou yesterday called on anyone who had received American funding through UN agencies to come clean before the House Institutions Committee.
His comments came as Rikkos Erotokritou, another member of the European Party and the chairman of the House Institutions Committee, which is discussing the matter, entered a spat with DISY deputy Christos Pourgourdides.
At a news conference in Nicosia, Koutsou said they were determined to continue their investigation “to find the truth”.
“We are certain that with this way we will find supporters and assistants and political forces in America and the responsible Committees of Congress, from whom we will ask for a meeting and collaboration,” he said.
Detractors say over $60 million was spent in Cyprus between 1998 and 2004 to promote a ‘yes’ vote for the Annan plan under the guise of the Bi-Communal Development Programme (BDP), funding for which was allocated by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The figure is refuted by the UNDP and the US, which says only $188,000 was spent on dissemination of unbiased information about the plan, while the spent was spent on various infrastructure and public interest projects.
But Greek Cypriot politicians, led by President Tassos Papadopoulos, have said the government was bypassed on a number of projects.
Papadopoulos also pointed the finger at a Greek Cypriot journalist, who he said had taken money and even issued receipts.
Erotokritou and Pourgourides clashed over the President’s statement yesterday on the state broadcaster’s morning radio show ‘Proino Dromologio’.
Pourgourides accused Papadopoulos of “unprincipled behaviour” for casting a shadow over all members of the media, while Erotokritou said it was obvious who the President was referring to, although he too declined to name the person allegedly involved.
“All those who received money without any observation, especially as we approached 2004, received it with the invocation of the bicommunal programmes,” said Erotokritou. “This money was given outside the state’s observation mechanism and is therefore unknown to the Cyprus Republic.”
He then referred to “some non-governmental organisations”, which had said they would create a bicommunal programme. “Some made statements, others even signed contracts, which have been submitted to the House Institutions Committee, and received funding.”
The programme never happened, he said. “Is this is not suspicious? If the people who took the money don’t give explanations, then the only logical conclusion anyone can reach is that yes, it was blatant bribery.”
Erotokritou also claimed that at some point in 2004, the UNOPS branch in America had conveyed more money, which the Watchdog Committee was not informed about.
“When the President of the Republic says that a media representative received money and gave a receipt, who is this media representative? Was he the media spokesman of some political party? We know who this media representative is.”
This prompted Pourgourides to urge Erotokritou to reveal the identity of the reporter the President was referring to.
“Name him Mr Erotokritou. And the President of the Republic had the obligation to name him. Not to slander media representatives collectively.”
He added: “UNOPS has given us data in which it is apparent where the millions went and this evidence is also on the internet, where it was apparent where the $60million went.”
The Chief of the Planning Bureau, Andreas Moleskis, who testified at the Committee last week and claimed that millions were dished out without the government’s knowledge, yesterday issued a statement. He claimed the American Embassy had admitted itself to channelling funds for political reasons during the April 2004 referendum period on the Annan plan.
Moleskis based his allegations on the fact that the report on the funding by Nathan Associates had referred to the Plan as “a political programme largely financed by the United States”.
