Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tony-4497]

I believe that any kind of complex power sharing arrangement will ultimately fail.

Unfortunately, TCs are not prepared to accept that they are no more than an 18% minority and want to have pretty much an equal say in the running of a common state as the 82% GCs (note that when Kurds, a larger minority in Turkey, asked for some autonomy, Turkey burned 2,000 Kurdish villages - compare and contrast!).

On the other hand, GCs feel the above is fundamentally unfair and therefore any complex arrangements for the sharing of power will eventually fail, particularly considering the bloody history between the communities and significant proportion of nationalists amongst both sides. I believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive.

Accordingly, I think that all those interested in resolving the problem (particularly achieving a Yes vote from GCs) should focus on 2 key issues:

1. Fair land sharing: It is unthinkable that 18% of the population (with an even lower land ownership % in 1974) should be given 30% of the land per Annan (who behaved as if it was his grandfather's farm his was giving away). I am furious at GC politicians for not demanding that the GC state in any solution plan be at least 80% of Cyprus. They are extremely naive and short-sighted in my view.

2. Safety and security/ guarantees: Recognition of the "new state of affairs" should happen only AFTER Turkey has returned say 17% of land, removed all troops and EU army is put in place to protect all on the island AND the border between the 2 states.

Also, strong, permanent limitations on Turks moving into the GC state need to be implemented. GCs need to understand that we are a tiny island next to 70 million Turks. If those people are allowed to move into the GC state post Turkish EU accession we could become a minority in our country almost overnight.

Any thoughts?

[Piratis]

Any thoughts?

Tony-4497, while I very often think in a similar way there are 2 problems:

1) The human rights of a large group of people will still be violated (the people of Kerinia etc). Therefore if those people do not accept something like that we can not force it to them.

2) As soon as we start talking about partition, we run the risk of having the "TRNC" validated. The result will be instead of having 1/3rd of RoC occupied by Turkey, we would have RoC and TRNC that have some land disputes between them. We will still get nothing and they will be better off.

So while what you propose might in the end be logical, there is no way of getting there unless Turkey unilaterally removes her troops from half of the territories they illegally occupy.

[cypezokyli]

the tc got the power of the veto by the 1960s agreement.
whether that is right or worng it makes no difference.

there is going to be no solution proposed on which the tc veto will be removed. it will stay one way or another.

second. we lost a war. (it was unfair, unjust but still we lost it)
as a concequence it is more likely that the tcs will get more rights that they hat before 1974. BBF is just an example as piratis said. the kyrenia people will sadly pay the highest price

what do you mean

Recognition of the "new state of affairs"

and by states?

GCs need to understand that we are a tiny island next to 70 million Turks. If those people are allowed to move into the GC state post Turkish EU accession we could become a minority in our country almost overnight

then we will forget about democracy and demand, gc state- one vote, tc state - one vote

seriously now. one can easily put restrictions.
even within the EU
in the case of a solution ofcource.
because without it...
they dont need our permission and there is nothing we can do but complain


otherwise i agree with piratis

So while what you propose might in the end be logical, there is no way of getting there unless Turkey unilaterally removes her troops from half of the territories they illegally occupy.

and the chances of that happening are....?

[Piratis]

and the chances of that happening are....?

The chances of that are 0.0001%. That was totally theoretical

[Tony-4497]

Piratis - thanks for your comments.

2) As soon as we start talking about partition, we run the risk of having the "TRNC" validated. The result will be instead of having 1/3rd of RoC occupied by Turkey, we would have RoC and TRNC that have some land disputes between them. We will still get nothing and they will be better off.

I am not suggesting that we start asking for partition at this stage. I think it is worth pursuing the noble idea of some form of power sharing. At the same time, however, we need to be realistic and recognise that the chances of this being workable are minimal.

Accordingly, in negotiating ANY plan, Annan or otherwise, our focus should be on the things that will matter after the likely collapse of the power sharing arrangements. These things will be the land % of the GC state (and its status) and the safety/ security aspect. This is why I think the politicians are making a huge historical mistake by not demanding at least 80% of the land - this is bordering national treason through negligence.

1) The human rights of a large group of people will still be violated (the people of Kerinia etc). Therefore if those people do not accept something like that we can not force it to them.

First, if I remember correctly, polls show that very few GC (particularly under 50) would go back under TC administration, in any case. Second, If the TC state is reduced to 20% of Cyprus, the majority of refugees will return under GC rule, and I'm sure that all or almost all of those who will want to go to the 20% TC area will be able to do so, as there will be a large concentration of TC in that area and the GC population % will be very small.

[Tony-4497]

Thanks, cybezokyli

the tc got the power of the veto by the 1960s agreement.
whether that is right or worng it makes no difference. there is going to be no solution proposed on which the tc veto will be removed. it will stay one way or another.

I did not suggest otherwise. I said, however, that complex power sharing arrangements (of which the veto, in one form or another, is only a part) are unlikely to work out for the reasons I mentioned.

second. we lost a war. (it was unfair, unjust but still we lost it)
as a concequence it is more likely that the tcs will get more rights that they hat before 1974....

Yes, we lost a war, in which we were attacked, invaded and occupied. And Turkey for 30 years completely ignored international law, UN resolutions, ECHR decisions etc etc ordering her to reverse the effects of this occupation. The only reason Turkey is NOW negotiating is because SHE needs a solution. Accordingly, there is a huge shift in bargaining power which we need to utilise to achieve a fair and reasonable solution and not one based on the "facts" of Turkish aggression.

So while what you propose might in the end be logical, there is no way of getting there unless Turkey unilaterally removes her troops from half of the territories they illegally occupy.

and the chances of that happening are....?[/quote]

I believe what I propose is realistic and achievable. In practical terms, I would propose that Cyprus states to Turkey and the EU that it will accept the Annan plan, provided certain key changes are made, namely:

1. Land sharing becomes 80:20 versus 70:30 in the plan, on the basis of population and land ownership pre-74 (to accept 70:30 is to accept and legalise the effect of Turkish violence).

2. The new state of affairs (i.e. recognition of component states etc per Annan) happens only AFTER Turkey has returned the land and EU army is in place to ensure everyone's safety and internal "borders" of statelets.

3. A provision is introduced stating that, if the power sharing agreements collapse, both states will be recognised as independent, sovereign members of the EU and EU army will stay in place to protect their integrity and borders.

Cyprus should also state that unless Turkey accepts the above, which are fair and reasonable changes, Cyprus will veto its EU accession process due to the illegal occupation of 37% of its territory. This will stop Europeans and Americans from saying that GC are blocking a Cyprus solution and I believe it will eventually lead to the fairest possible solution in Cyprus.

[Piratis]

This is what I had proposed some time ago:

We make a written agreement that will pass from the UN security council, as follows:

Step 1:
The TCs alone will vote in a referendum if they want to return to RoC under 1960 agreements.
If they vote "yes", then problem solved. If they vote "no" we move to step 2.

Step 2:

The TCs keep 18% of land, and return the rest. The TCs will be free to decide where to live, in that 18% or in RoC.

The TCs that return take all their rights according to the 1960 agreements, except those that call for 30% in governmental positions, and 40% in police/army. Those percentages will instead be the percentage of TCs that will choose to live in RoC.

Then after 5 years, referenda will be held for both communities.
The choice will be:
1) RoC
2) 18% - 82% partition.

If both communities vote option 1, then the remaining 18% of the island returns to RoC according to the 1960 agreements (maybe with some minor changes)
If any site votes for option 2, then all TCs are relocated in that 18% of north Cyprus (loosing their RoC citizenship), and this 18% is declared independent. (call it "TRNC" or whatever you want).

This proposal gives union a chance. It will allow TCs and GCs to work together for some time based on the power sharing agreed for RoC.

Of course this proposal has some negative points:
1) Partition becomes an option
2) Some people might intentially try to make RoC unworkable in order to achieve their aim (partition)
3) It is not something that Turkey would accept. At this point they will reject everything that has even the slightest chance to lead to a true unification of Cyprus.

[Piratis]

Here is the link to that thread:
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus1501.html

[Vassos1]

Power sharing will always fail in Cyprus. How can we even think about a power-sharing deal when one side consist of 82% of the population of the island. The Turkish Cypriots are only 18% of the entire population. Anything other than a two-republic formula would be absurd.

[Piratis]

Power sharing will always fail in Cyprus. How can we even think about a power-sharing deal when one side consist of 82% of the population of the island. The Turkish Cypriots are only 18% of the entire population. Anything other than a two-republic formula would be absurd.

So what? Most countries today are multi ethnic. Majority-minority sharing power in a country is not a problem. All is needed are the democratic principles, along with human and minority rights for the protection of the minority.
Power sharing in the case of Cyprus doesn't mean 50%-50%. It doesn't have to be 82%-18% either. TCs can have a boosted representation (e.g. 25%) that will be a good compromise I think .