BBC’e şikayet / BBC Complaint re Chris Summers

İngiliz yayın kurulu BBC, daima olduğu gibi Kıbrıs konusunda Tek taraflı yorumlar yapıyor.  Gecen günkü yazısında BBC’nin muhabiri, Chris Summers,  yazısında, kibrisdaki halk 1974’de Türk askeri adaya geldinde bir birinden ayrılmıştı yazdı, bildiginiz gibi bu tür yazılar Rum poziyonu savunuyor.   BM’nin de kabul etdiyi gibi Kibris’daki Halk 1964’de bir birinden ayrılmıştır ve bu gercegi alt’deki yazıyla BBCi protesto ediyoruz.  Sizden bir ricada bulunacağız, şu yazıyı kulanip sizde şu email adresine gönderirseniz birlikde güçlü savunma yapabiliriz.

Direk:  Chris.summers@bbc.co.uk

BBC Online:

The URL for the article (which you need to reference) is:

Çok teşekkür ederiz

Selamlar ve saygılar
Cetin Ramadan
Britanya Kıbrıslı Türkler Derneği

Dear Chris Summers and the BBC,

We, as a disappointed Turkish Cypriot people, are writing to make clear to the BBC and its editors, that they all have a responsibility to the general public and the long suffering Turkish Cypriot people, to report accurately on current and past events regarding Cyprus and its history.

The article by Chris Summers, headed, “Cyprus Talks: Turkish Cypriots Deplore deadlock” on The BBC Website, despite being a welcome change to the usual Greek assisted propaganda filled reports, is still inaccurate in a way that is damaging to the Turkish Cypriot people and the peace process.

It is frustrating to see because; the article has all the elements of reality and truth within the text but has been put together in such a way, as to suggest the BBC, do not fully appreciate the history of Cyprus in order to put the events together in a responsible way.

The article makes reference to the UN being deployed since 1964 but is preceded by, “The Island has been divided since 1974”. This is not only a point missed and inaccurate, but comes from years of Greek Cypriot propaganda that the Island was at peace until the Turkish Intervention in 1974. Whereas the Turkish Cypriot view is one that is also in the British Archives, that the problems on the Island actually started some ten years previously, 21st December 1963 to be precise.

The UN then had to intervene in early 1964, to stop the slaughter of Turkish Cypriots by their compatriot Greek Cypriots, again an undisputable fact that is in the British Archives.

Facts:

1.   Although contentious, the often used words “ Self-imposed”, when referring to the first incidence of division in 1963, it is accepted on both sides of the divide that, Christmas of 1963, infamously known as “Bloody Noel”, was the first factual division of the two founding partners of the Cyprus Republic.

The buffer zone, otherwise known as the “Green Line”, refers to the cease fire line that de facto divides the island nation of Cyprus into two, cutting through the capital of Nicosia. It was first established in 1964, when Major-General Peter Young was the commander of a “peace force”, a predecessor of the present UNFICYP. After stationing his troops in different areas of Nicosia, the general drew a cease-fire line on a map with a dark green crayon, which was to become known as the “Green Line”. If the first division can be deemed “Self Imposed” then the action of the Major General had by then, realized the division to be a more permanent necessity.
1. Further to that action, in 1964 the UN peacekeeping force was deployed to keep the peace between the already divided people. They have been there ever since and indeed use the varying size of the Green Line, to patrol and ensure the peace between the two sides.
2.

4.   Then, and only then, can the 1974 Greek sponsored Coup and the subsequent intervention be reported responsibly and accurately. Even here the BBC must be responsible and find neutral ways of describing the events of that year. The two words of “Intervention” and “Invasion” have been used, by relative sides, in arguments across many mediums with no end. For the BBC to pick one or the other shows a lack of understanding as to what the Cyprus Problem is about and how the two peoples of Cyprus have interpreted the whole scenario. The use of one word over the other can only mean that the BBC is biased or incapable of preparing an accurate report.

We are now hoping that the BBC will take notice and realize that it must ask its reporters to THOUGHERLY research articles before publication. We must also ask that reporters fully understand what they are writing and that they do not contradict themselves through the intake of propaganda and lazy/irresponsible reporting.