And finally, President Mehmet Ali Talat is briefing Parliament on the stage reached in the Cyprus negotiations. The issue has been widely debated in our country, with everyone expressing a different opinion.
But one of those voices—the officials at the Presidency—kept insisting: “Meeting minutes are available to MPs. Any member of Parliament who wishes can review them.”
Given that, I could not understand those who criticized him by saying, “The President isn’t informing us about the stage reached in the negotiation process.”
I suppose those making these criticisms also weren’t understanding the statements issued by the Presidency. Fortunately, that misunderstanding is being cleared up today, and the matter is finally coming to an end.
But what kind of “end” is this?
As you know, today’s session is being held behind closed doors.
In other words, the public is being prevented from finding out what is happening.
In other words, people are not meant to know what stage the negotiation process has reached.
For the MPs who say the President isn’t informing us, perhaps this briefing will be a happy ending!
But since it is closed to the press, the public won’t be able to learn what stage the process has reached!
So, who are “the people”?
They are the ones who make the President the President and MPs the MPs! We can define them, quite simply and in the context of this issue, as the people who brought them to where they are by casting their votes, as democracy requires.
Some people are discussing the future of this group, but the people whose future is being discussed know nothing about it!
President Talat’s response might be: “The people elected me to conduct these negotiations.”
But when people voted, was there perhaps a clause like this on the ballot or in the laws defining the President’s duties?
“The President may discuss your future however he wishes; he need not inform you. He will do what is necessary and may even reach an agreement with his counterpart to impose a press blackout.”
You might say, “A plan will emerge from these negotiations, and we’ll make the decision anyway.”
Yes, we will make the decision, but don’t you think it’s also important to know how the plan took shape and what it contains?
What if we end up facing a plan we cannot accept?
Wouldn’t the consequences of saying no to that plan be serious for you, too?
Shouldn’t we form opinions and discuss it before the plan is put before us?
At this stage, don’t we have the right to know what is happening in the negotiation process?
If we might be able to change it through our collective response, how are we supposed to say “yes” or “no” to a plan that seems to have come out of a lottery?
If there is to be a solution in early 2010, as planned, how much time will we have to discuss the plan?
Of course, what I’m saying doesn’t mean that our President will put an agreement before us that runs counter to our interests.
But an uninformed public is either quite unfamiliar with the issue—that is, it doesn’t believe there will be a solution—or it discusses the negotiation process, which continues like a blind man’s buff, based on rumors of all sorts.
Our President, Mr. Talat, says at every opportunity that there must be a solution. But by imposing this blackout, isn’t he distancing the people—the ones who will bring about a solution—from that solution?
Mr. President, don’t you think you should sincerely inform the public about the process in every detail, taking these realities into account?
Incidentally, someone might say, “Mr. Erçakıca already gives us an update every week. What’s the need for this?”
Then it falls to us to ask, “So what information is the President giving Parliament today in this closed session?”...
Hope to see you on Friday...
Pay attention to your surroundings, keep them clean, and please be courteous in traffic!