Cyprus-Forum.com

[magikthrill]

Alright, I'm quite confused about this whole issue. I mean I should be embarassed since half my blood comes from Aphrodite's island (the other form the Greek mainland).

Why is it that Turkish Cypriots, which consists of less than a third of the population, demand the same rights as the rest 2/3 of the population. I mean, isn't a democracy, the voice of all the people, equally?

Because if this is not the case, then why aren't the MExicans in California, for example, demanding an equal representation without necessarily deserving it? I know these situations are not completely alike seeing as Mexicans consist of a majority, and the land originally belongs to them, two things that do not coincide with Turkish Cypriots.

Can anyone help me understand this?

[Piratis]

This is issue have been discussed in the "Cyprus problem" forum.
The simple answer is: balance of power.

Why is it that Turkish Cypriots, which consists of less than a third of the population

less than a fifth actually.

[iskismet]

In the normal course of events I would agree with you but the answer lies in the history of the Island.

However much it is argued it mainly goes back to 1960 when an agreement (no matter how reluctantly!) was reached between the TCs & GCs, Turkey, Greece and the UK.

This agreement broke down between the GCs & TCs in 1963 resulting in the deaths of GCs but of many more TCs and finally culminated in an invasion or a peace operation depending on the GC or TC point of view.

Any future agreement has to overcome the problems of that earlier agreement and provide security for the TCs that it will not happen again.

Unfortunately as you have realised it is not a truly democratic state if 18% of the population insists on 50% of the power.

If you can come up with an answer to this that suits both sides you would be destined for greatness!!

Piratis - I've precised this a little (a lot actually) otherwise it would go on for ever. Please don't jump on me!!

[Chrisswirl]

The best solution, for now, would be a gradual one. As much as I am against taksim, it seems that 2 states is the only option for now, with a very weak 50/50 (like US states are) link between them. After this we can try to establish a more powerful central government with time, perhaps with representatives from each province (both EK and TK). Either way it has to satisfy both parties, and this is the problem.

[Piratis]

The best solution, for now, would be a gradual one. As much as I am against taksim, it seems that 2 states is the only option for now, with a very weak 50/50 (like US states are) link between them. After this we can try to establish a more powerful central government with time, perhaps with representatives from each province (both EK and TK). Either way it has to satisfy both parties, and this is the problem.

Chrisswirl, the only reason we are still discussing the Cyprus problem is that "TRNC" is not recognized. If it was, everything would be over.

What makes you believe that after we agree and sign an agreement that later on Turkish Cypriots will voluntarily give up some of the power that will now legally have?

In the usa they do not have 50/50. First of all the states there are 52 (= 1/52 for each state), so no state by itself has the power to block a decision. Second, this kind of power sharing is only in certain occasions and not in everything.

A transitional period is acceptable (and required) but this it should be part of the solution. So to say that in 5 years this will happen, and in 10 that. (and not just say it, but be written in the constitution about it)

[brother]

In true E.U style we should stop worrying about that as now the family includes more than 25 different peoples and various religions, why in gods name do we find it so difficult to share one island is beyond most of us.