Papandreou and Erdoğan, parleying or campaigning? - by Ariana Ferentinou

Since last Friday, a score of analysts on both sides of the Aegean has been trying to decipher the impact of George Papandreou’s speech in Erzurum and the tough reaction of his Turkish counterpart. Did the two leaders “trade barbs,” or did they confirm their policy of friendship?

The Greek Prime Minister traveled to the ancient Eastern Anatolian city at the invitation of its municipality to open the facilities for the 2011 World University Winter Games, which are set to begin Jan. 27.

But he was also the speaker before the entire diplomatic corps of Turkey during the third annual Ambassadors’ Conference which took place in Erzurum at the same time. In the two speeches he delivered he spoke of partnership and brotherly friendship with Turkey. But, sitting side by side with the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, he also spoke of Turkey as an “invasion force” in Cyprus, and complained about the flight paths of Turkish fighter planes over the Aegean. “You cannot resolve problems with threats,” he told the Turkish side.

These statements gave Mr. Erdoğan an opportunity to voice his own frustration and criticism. He complained that “his country has long been subjected to treatment no other country was subjected to within the European Union,” and blamed Brussels for “teasing” Turkey for half a century. In the end Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu found a middle way to assess this “hot and cold” meeting of the two prime ministers. “The messages of the Greek prime minister were mostly about friendship and cooperation and the rest were Greece’s known positions,” he said.

Was the Erzurum meeting a show of friendship or political maneuvering? The Greek side insists that a true friend is the one who talks to you straight to your face with open cards. The Greek opposition is weaving fascinating, conspiratorial theories over the “secret agreements between Greece and Turkey under the auspices of NATO’s management of the Aegean.” Mr. Erdoğan, too, received harsh criticism from the opposition for not responding appropriately to Papandreou. The leader of the main opposition party, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, spoke of a “helpless” prime minister who does not respond when a foreign leader “calls our army an invader.”

There is no doubt that George Papandreou is the leader of a country in serious economic and social trouble, hence a sensitized, vulnerable society whose strong democratic traditions allow for powerful public debate. Even before the onslaught of the year-old economic crisis, the voting trends in Greece showed that the electorate was moving away from the traditional pools of the once powerful political parties.

The impressive abstention from the ballot, as well as the election of many independent candidates not affiliated to any party during recent municipal and local votes, shows the depth of disillusionment over the political system. For most citizens in Greece a malfunctioning political system was the primary source of their present calamity. A dramatic drop in recent opinion polls – nearly 50 percent – regarding the popularity of the government and the main opposition party is further proof of this.

The next few months are expected to be a make or break period for the Papandreou government. If the tough austerity package which has been squeezing low and middle income earners brings the results their EU and IMF partners wish and if the people see a fairer and less corrupt administration then the Greek government may survive. If not, the option of an early election is not unlikely.

I think it is with the view of a touchy domestic scene that one should understand the tough undertones of Papandreou’s speech in Erzurum. The classic “friendship” rhetoric of the kind we heard during his tenure as foreign minister would have sounded sour to Greek public opinion. Currently, the most popular public figure in Greece is the composer Mikis Theodorakis, with 47 percent approval ratings (his recently founded Movement of Independent Citizens effectively calls for civil disobedience) while the prime minister’s own popularity does not exceed 30 percent.

What about the Turkish prime minister? He is also facing a crucial year. An election year. His last year as a candidate for the prime ministership – as he has declared. Although, in fact, the tribulations inside the EU do not seem to affect the domestic political scene in Turkey, the EU as a prime goal in Justice and Development Party, or AKP, doctrine is expected to figure highly in this year’s campaign, which has already started to simmer.

So, Erdoğan’s tough talk in Erzurum, especially over Cyprus, should perhaps be seen as directed against Brussels rather than Athens or Nicosia, while aiming at being heard more loudly at home.

So, it seems both prime ministers had their own particular reasons for publicly “crossing their swords” but not necessarily while aiming at each other.

Hurriyet Daily News