WHAT’S in a chair? “The whole gamut of diplomatic relations,” is the answer, especially when the chair is conspicuous by its absence!
The missing chair was in Ankara, Turkey. The occasion was the visit of Charles Michael and Ursula von der Leyen, presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, respectively, and their mission was to improve ties between the European Union (EU) and Turkey.
But the opposite seemed to have occurred at the Ankara Presidential Palace where they were meeting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
No, not because there was any widening of the gap in the views of the EU and it’s recalcitrant member. The venue – an ornate hall – had only two chairs to accommodate the three dignitaries! Well, to perform ‘sitting’ as a process to rest the human body, there were opulent sofas too. But in diplomatic decorum, the participants of a meeting ostensibly occupying equal positions need to be settling down on identical looking seating apparatuses.
The available chairs, with flags of the EU and Turkey behind each to indicate the correct occupant, were taken up promptly by the male leaders, leaving Mrs Leyen stranded. She looked stumped, but settled on one of the sofas, not before letting out an audible expression of despair “Ahem”.
The ‘diplomatic gaffe’ gained prominence above whatever subjects the dignitaries discussed. To salvage the situation somewhat, at the dining session, all three were seated on chairs of “the same height”, we are told. A relief there!
A barrage of critical comments followed from EU countries blaming Turkey’s ‘micromachismo’, especially in the backdrop of the country walking out of the Istanbul Convention (supposed to protect women from violence) just in March. Turkey, in turn, blamed the EU claiming that arrangements were made according to EU protocol guys’ directions. Name-calling and ambassador reprimands followed. The European media christened the episode as ‘Sofagate’. Thus we have one more to the hallowed gallery of oops ending with ‘gate’.
The point bedevilling my mind is why ‘Sofagate’ and not ‘Chairgate’? Sofa is innocent in the whole affair and the absentee chair is the true villain. Still, is selection of ‘sofa’ as the ‘whipping boy’ yet another case of pillorying a by-definition soft target?
Vish
&uuid=(email))