We could have responded to the President of the Republic by referring to his own words when he was the leader of the main opposition party. Namely, that the President must always be tolerant of criticism. However, Mr. Anastasiades is not only not tolerant, but even blames criticism. He behaves in a way that, instead of forging unity, undermines it. Anyone who criticizes him is considered an enemy of Cyprus.
He says he wants dialogue about reforms. We wonder though: what dialogue can he conduct with a party which, in his view, represents Turkey? Is there, in truth, a logical person who can believe the President that he means dialogue when he is accusing the main opposition party in this way?
What did AKEL say that is offensive to him? Are our warnings offensive that the prolonged absence of negotiations – coupled with Turkey being relieved of responsibilities by the international community – is the most opportune time for the creation of new serious fait accompli? We can see these fait accompli developing before our very eyes.
Are our warnings offensive on the one hand that its inexplicable for the President not to declare that he accepts the convergences recorded so far and the Framework of the UN Secretary General as well and on the other hand for him to submit ideas that are in conflict with them?
Do AKEL’s aforementioned warnings serve Turkey or the prospect of a solution of the Cyprus problem that liberates and reunites our country and people?
Furthermore, we would like to give one piece of advice to Government Spokesman Mr. Prodromou. Every time he makes a reference to meetings with foreign officials it would be good or him to recall his own admission that the President of the Republic was talking with foreign officials also about other frameworks for a solution apart from bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. And he certainly wasn’t talking about a unitary state…