I am surprised and disturbed that the BBC chooses to present what seems to be a revisionist account of historical events in Cyprus. Your own BBC news reports of 1974 clearly describe a Turkish invasion of Cyprus yet today this is merely presented as "Turkey deployed troops".
The Turkish invasion, which attacked Cyprus by land, sea and air was condemned by the European Commission of Human Rights which found Turkey guilty of mass killings, rape, torture and looting amongst many other human rights vioations. It seems the BBC is deliberately underplaying these facts with the result that it is compromising the accuracy of its own news reports.
How Turkey attempts to justify its operation (which it code named 'Atilla') does not alter the fact that it invaded an independent country and continues to illegally occupy 37 percent of it. There are countless UN resolutions that condemn Turkey's occupation yet the BBC fails to mention this. Why is that the case? Is it because such reporting would add credence to Greek Cypriot wishes to return to their lands and to see Cyprus truly reunified and free of occupying troops?
What has changed since the original BBC reports of 1974 other than successive increasingly pro-Turkish UK governments and UK media that has become increasingly hostile to Greek Cypriots and their arguments?
Are current BBC reports on Cyprus written with the intention of sparing Turkey the embarrassment of coming to terms with its war crimes in Cyprus by whitewashing the past and thus paving the way for Turkey's eventual membership of the EU?
The BBCs own charter and agreement states that the BBC should treat all subjects with "due accuracy and impartiality". Is the exception to this news reports regarding Cyprus?
I look forward to a response.
|
| HOME | back to top ^ |
|
|