THE RUMORED meeting between President Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat yesterday seemed banished to the realm of fiction, as it became increasingly difficult to fathom where the administration stood on the matter.
On Monday, the President felt compelled to call in to a radio station and put out the fires inside the government coalition about the intended meeting, which is being brokered by House Speaker Demetris Christofias. Papadopoulos’ extraordinary move came after Christofias, speaking on the same station, had complained some quarters were bent on nipping the meeting in the bud.
The proposed meeting is understood to be “social in nature”, and Christofias’ line of thought was that it would help break the ice and get the two communities’ leaders talking, even if on an informal level.
But the government’s line, expressed by a number of senior officials, has been that there is no point in resuming talks because Talat’s policies essentially reflect Ankara’s.
Christofias’ proposal therefore aimed at bypassing this deadlock, by hosting a dinner where the two leaders would not touch on the substance of the Cyprus problem.
This immediately raised the question: if Papadopoulos and Talat would not talk about the political problem, what would they discuss? Moreover, even if such a meeting could be arranged, would it make sense?
On Monday, Papadopoulos diplomatically said he was not “dogmatic” about such an arrangement, contradicting previous statements that he saw no point in meeting with Talat. The President’s move was seen as a tactical manoeuvre aimed at downplaying speculation that a rift had emerged with senior coalition partners AKEL.
Commentators yesterday said that, for all of Papadopoulos’ political legerdemain, the paradox in government policy remained.
Papadopoulos’ intervention was likely prompted by the strong reaction from the DIKO and EDEK parties to the prospect of any such meeting. The criticism continued yesterday, forcing AKEL to redefine the nature of the spat.
AKEL spokesman Andros Kyprianou was at pains to explain to state radio that “there is no disagreement inside the government… but there is a divergence in how each party conceptualises the specific issue.”
Asked whether the meeting, were it to happen, would be off limits to the media, Kyprianou said: “Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.”
For his part, DIKO deputy Nicos Pittokopitis also tried to downplay the issue, suggesting that “a lot of fuss is being made for nothing”.
He went on to say that his party might agree to the meeting under certain conditions; but asked what those conditions would be, Pittokopitis dodged the question:
“I cannot say right now, because we don’t even know whether the meeting is taking place.”
Meanwhile opposition DISY steered clear of the controversy, apparently content with sitting back and observing the ongoing strife inside the coalition.
DISY’s number two Averoff Neophytou said his party would not get in the middle of a “family squabble”, yet also urged the administration to make up its mind.
“Up until recently, the government spokesman was saying there was no point in negotiating with Mr Talat because he did not have the power to open a single checkpoint on his own and needed authorisation from Ankara to do this.
“So which is it? By that rationale, Papadopoulos and Talat could only meet informally. OK. But what would they talk about? How good the kleftiko is?”
The European Democrats’ Prodromos Prodromou put things in perspective. Calling yesterday’s exchanges on the airwaves “a fiasco”, he said the President chose the worst possible option in trying to strike a balance.
The government was wasting precious time with these trivial matters and should instead direct its efforts at arranging talks with Turkey, Prodromou told the Cyprus Mail.
“Now that France has said Ankara must recognise the Republic before acceding to the EU, we are presented with an opportunity to put pressure on Turkey. This is a great chance to highlight the true dimension of the Cyprus problem, namely, that it is a problem for the international community, not a bicommunal conflict.
“But what are we doing? We’re bickering about whether we should meet Talat,” lamented Prodromou.
