THE MEDIA of authoritarian regimes misinform and lie to the public less crudely than our plantation’s TV stations and newspapers, which this week were set another propaganda task of national importance by the palazzo’s undercover chief of staff for myths and propaganda – to report that all was sweetness and light for the plantation during Erdogan’s official visit to Moscow.
The TV stations in their evening news gave the government-approved reports of what was said by President Putin after his meeting with Erdogan and suppressed anything that could have been deemed unfavourable for our plantation and our Ethnarch. This was then followed up by crude misinformation in the next day’s newspapers and some imaginative spin-doctoring on the radio shows by government politicians.
None of the Ethnarch’s propaganda organs mentioned Putin’s comment, at a joint news conference with Erdogan, that, “we do not think that the economic isolation of the north is fair”. His comment supporting an end to the north’s isolation – “We believe that ending the isolation is in the interests of a settlement” – was either completely distorted or not mentioned at all.
The only problem for the misinformation campaign was that the government could not stop the reports of the foreign news agencies coming here, and some newspapers not in the palazzo propaganda club were bound to reproduce them. Then again, it was quite a successful misinformation exercise as the mugs who take what the TV news shows say seriously are unlikely to read a newspaper.
WHY WAS the government so eager to suppress the news about Moscow’s blossoming love affair with Turkey and Putin’s expressions of support for the Turkish Bananiots as well as the A-plan? Because with Russia strengthening its ties with Turkey, the Ethnarch can no longer rely on Moscow’s support when he stands up to the rest of the world’s attempts to impose a settlement.
Russia had been our proxy at the UN Security Council – in April it vetoed a resolution that would have guaranteed implementation of the A-plan, at the request of Nicosia – and had been used as bulwark against the evil designs of the US and UK which always sided with the Turks. Who would be doing this now that Putin has joined the rest of the international community in supporting the end of the north’s isolation and the return of Rosemary’s Baby?
Having isolated himself by antagonising the US, the UN and the EU, the Ethnarch could always argue that his government enjoyed the support of the Russian government. Once he has lost Moscow, which has strong financial interests in strengthening relations with Ankara (the volume of trade between the two countries last year was in the region of $10 billion), his government’s isolation on the international stage will be complete.
Who will be fighting for our interests at the UN Security Council now that Moscow has sided with the enemy? Don’t be surprised if you hear that our foreign minister is on his way to Beijing in the next few weeks. When it comes to respect for human rights, Beijing always takes a principled stand, and I am certain we can rely on its support at the UN, as long as Turkey doesn’t start putting big orders for cheap electrical toys and flip-flops to China.
THE PROPAGANDA machinery worked at full throttle after the news from Russia. The TV stations simply did not report Putin’s comments that were deemed unfavourable – they just carried comments by our politicians, saying that nothing had changed and that Moscow remained by our side.
Top marks for misinformation went to the commie mouthpiece Haravghi, which splashed the headline, “Putin ‘no’ to Erdogan”. This ‘no’, according to the paper, was given “indirectly but clearly”, as Putin refused to change his position as regards Kofi Annan’s proposed measures for the ending of the north’s isolation!
Putin’s comment – “we believe the ending of the isolation would be in the interests of a settlement” – and expression of full support to Annan’s efforts (presumably including the ending of the isolation) did not appear in the report.
Meanwhile, CyBC radio insisted that Moscow’s position had not changed, citing comments by the government spokesman and a report by Cyprus News Agency (CNA), as if the latter were some authoritative, independent agency and not a crude propaganda tool of the palazzo. Putin’s comments were not reported by the authoritative CyBC.
On the same day that this misinformation was taking place, it was reported that the average cost of the 200 staff at the CyBC was just under £34,000. We, as taxpayers, are paying £6.8 million in CyBC wages every year, so its staff can deceive us, keep us in the dark and tell us only what the government wants us to hear.
AT LEAST the CNA is misinforming us at a much cheaper rate. The average cost to us of each employee is £23,563. CNA carried a report, quoting an unnamed “Russian diplomatic source”, who said: “I assure you that our position has not changed. We are in favour of a just settlement of the Cyprus problem.”
Why had the source been afraid to mention his or her name, when he or she was supposedly stating his government’s official line? Perhaps this “diplomatic source” was a filing clerk at the Russian embassy in Nicosia or the chauffeur of the ambassador.
This also shows the stupidity of the propagandists, who would have us believe that the views of an unnamed Russian diplomatic source reflect Moscow’s position more accurately than comments by Russia’s president. Then again, the nameless chauffeur’s comments were the cornerstone of the propaganda campaign.
THE BEST comments regarding this Russian reversal were from our illustrious politicians. Our enlightened Ethnarch said: “I think the support that Russia gives us is based on principles.” This would make Russia the only country in the world which follows policies based on principles rather than its interests.
His foreign minister and part-time radio correspondent George Iacovou, who appears much more relaxed since his boss announced there would be no cabinet reshuffle, went a step further. “It is insulting to Russia to say that it would change its position on the Cyprus problem because it took a few billion dollars from Turkey.”
We would change our position on the Cyprus problem if we took a few billions from Turkey, so why wouldn’t Russia? For the record, Erdogan was accompanied on his visit by five ministers and 500 businessmen. Russia is Turkey’s second largest trading partner and Russian investments in Turkey are in the region of $2 billion. The volume of trade between them last year was $10 billion. The two countries are now discussing the possible extension of the Blue Stream natural gas pipeline, which ends in Turkey, to Israel.
Tassos and Iacovou are not so naïve to think that such big financial interests would not affect Moscow’s principled position. They just think the rest of us are naïve enough to believe the nonsense about positions based on principles.
COMMISSAR Christofias, also threw his considerable weight behind the propaganda effort, informing Astra Radio that talk about a change of Moscow’s position was a “press fabrication”. He cited the report quoting “Russian diplomatic sources” by the authoritative CNA as conclusive proof that the position had not changed. What Putin was quoted as saying by Reuters and Itar-Tass were fabrications (I wouldn’t be surprised if the Turk-loving Brits were behind them) and the only reliable information on matter are the comments of lowly Russian diplomats carried by CNA.
LAST WEEK, we had written about the fiery speech made by the Commissar to party members at the cutting of the vasilopitta ceremony. What we forgot to mention were his hysterical references to party discipline and unity. His passionate sermon was along the following lines: “Without unity we will not solve the Cyprus problem; without discipline we will not win the elections, without discipline we will not improve the welfare state.” And then he thundered: “discipline and only discipline,” like a deranged Duce. Had he abandoned Stalinism and embraced the fascist virtues of unity and discipline?
The commissar was simply making clear his intentions. According to one of his closest allies, the authoritarian Christofias, who does not accept any questioning of his decisions, plans a major purge of AKEL. All members who supported the A-plan will be sidelined and deputies who did not toe the party line in the referendum would not be re-elected. They may be allowed to stand but their chances of entering parliament are non-existent, said the Commissar’s lieutenant. This is what I call democratic Stalinism.
THE EUROPEAN Parliament approved the European constitution by a very big majority on Wednesday. Among the 137 who voted against the constitution were the two AKEL MEPs. Adamos Adamou said he disagreed with the neo-liberal provisions of constitution and the support it provided to multi-national companies, which AKEL hates more than ‘yes’ voters.
Speaking on a morning radio show, AKEL deputy, Doros Christodoulides, an unrepentant Stalinist, claimed his party was against the European Constitution because it was not democratic enough! We’ve heard it all now.
Not quite – in voting against the constitution, AKEL’s boys had sided with British MEPs. Surely, if the Brits were against the constitution it must be good for the plantation and Akelites should have supported it.
I AM SAD to report a second admission of fallibility by our otherwise infallible Ethnarch. Speaking at a book launch last Wednesday, Tassos admitted that he was wrong to have opposed the 1959 London-Zurich agreements which gave rise to the Cyprus Republic.
He said that man “is a mixture of rationality and sentiment and needs education and training to find the golden mean between sentiment and rationality”. At the time of the agreements, Greek Bananiots, himself included, were reacting sentimentally and could not see the benefits of the agreements.
He then made the admission of fallibility, the second in just three weeks. “If you ask me now that I have found a balance between sentiment and rationality, I say yes, the London-Zurich agreements were a blessing compared to what followed.” The guy needed 40 years to realise that he was wrong, but that did not stop him from making the same mistake last year.
He had lost the balance between sentiment and rationality when he made his tear-stained speech against the A-plan last April. When he re-discovers it in 40 years’ time, it may prove a bit too late.
BRITONS are arguably the world’s greatest animal lovers, but do not ask me to explain why most of them are reduced to sentimental mush as soon as they encounter a dog, which they feel compelled to stroke and whisper sweet nothings to.
We natives of the plantation, who could never be accused of being great animal-lovers, are always perplexed when we see normally reserved and cold Brits heaping affection and love to cats and dogs they’ve just come across. Shouldn’t they wait until the second date, before making their feelings known?
Let me make it clear, this is not why we Bananiots, who would happily do it on a first date (before it, if we could) find this behaviour so bizarre. We just cannot understand how Brits, whom we consider to be the root cause of all our woes as a country, can be so good to animals, while showing complete indifference to our suffering.
They regularly accuse us of treating animals badly, but they exhibit none of this sensitivity for people, whose human rights were being violated by Turkey – this is the tiresome line peddled by our holier than thou columnists and politicians whenever the opportunity arises.
So when commie mouthpiece, Haravghi, 10 days ago, carried the headline, “We are left speechless by British… sensitivity,” it had to be an animal-related story. And it was. According to British government papers released on January 1, Haravghi reported, as far back as 1929 the Foreign Office budget included an item of expenditure for “the upkeep of a capable office cat”. This fund for the ‘office cat’ was apparently cut in 1976.
And the paper, quite predictably, concluded: “How different the face of the world would have been, had they shown the same sensitivity for humans?” I can only guess that the paper was referring to the type of sensitivity for humans shown by AKEL’s all-time heroes – Stalin, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung and Pol Pot.
A RELATED anecdote appeared in the January 8 edition of The Spectator, which adds substance to our perceptions of Brits’ love affair with animals. It said: “The Soviet Union had sent a dog into space before they sent Yuri Gagarin. When the astronaut Gagarin, after his feat, came to London he was mobbed by admiring crowds, an adulation which, at the height of the Cold War, alarmed some of (Prime Minister) Harold Macmillan’s ministers. It took the old maestro himself to put things in perspective. “Just be thankful,” he told his cabinet, “that they didn’t send the dog.”
