Pavlos Xanthoulis
President Christodoulides recently disclosed at an anti-government event in Famagusta that the UN had "sounded out" a trilateral meeting with Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar under the auspices of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Christodoulides made this revelation on the evening of August 3. The following morning, August 4, the Turkish Cypriot newspaper 'Kipris' published a statement from Ersin Tatar, who claimed he had not received an invitation from the UN and refused to participate in a trilateral meeting unless Turkish conditions for sovereign equality were guaranteed.
It is important to note that those familiar with newspaper production timelines would understand that Tatar’s rejection, printed in the Sunday edition of 'Kipris', must have been made before Christodoulides’ announcement on Saturday night. If Tatar’s statement had been made after Christodoulides’ revelation, it would not have appeared in the Sunday issue due to timing constraints.
Substantively, it is naive to believe that President Christodoulides or any Cypriot leader could single-handedly influence Ankara’s policy on the Cyprus issue. Thus, it cannot be attributed to Christodoulides' statement that the Turkish side chose to reject the UN's invitation for a trilateral meeting scheduled for August 13. Equating the Turkish side's negative response to Christodoulides' disclosure is factually unfair, especially considering that Christodoulides had responded positively to the UN's proposal.
However, President Christodoulides is not without fault. His error lies not in the substance of his revelation but in the diplomatically clumsy manner in which he publicized the UN’s initiative. By acting as an unofficial spokesperson for the UN, he prematurely disclosed a sensitive matter still under review. Having previously served as Foreign Minister, Christodoulides should be more aware of the importance of diplomatic discretion. His actions have exposed both himself and the institution he represents to unnecessary criticism.
The reason behind Christodoulides’ decision to reveal the UN’s proposal remains unclear. One possible explanation is that he sought to offer a hopeful perspective fifty years after the Turkish invasion. Yet, this does not justify his diplomatic misstep. Anyone who believes that such a revelation could impact Ankara’s stance on Cyprus would be engaging in political naivety. Turkey’s policy is steadfast, driven by its demand for direct trade, direct flights, and international recognition of the “TRNC,” all in pursuit of sovereign equality. Tatar’s rejection of the trilateral meeting does not alter the broader context dictated by Ankara’s conditions, irrespective of the President of Cyprus’s disclosures or diplomatic blunders.
[This op-ed was translated from its Greek original]
