The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know®

The Cyprus Problem by James Ker-Lindsay is concise about the divided island’s history before and after 1960 independence. Before 1960, Britain was the island’s colonial master. The island wasn’t allowed to join the Greek nation. After independence, a small nation was created with two languages, Greek and Turkish, two religions, Greek Orthodox and Sunni Islam, two ethnic histories, Greek and Turkmen, and a long geographic enmity between islands and mainland going back at least to the Trojan Wars.Ker-Lindsay’s main theme is showing how these divides have kept Cyprus from achieving a workable self-government. While reading about Cyprus, he got me thinking about small European nations with problems in self-government, Belgium and Ireland. Belgium’s Flemish/French language problem in self-government seems bad, even without two ethnic histories, nor two religions, and Belgium isn’t an island physically outside its larger European community. Cyprus clearly has more problems than Belgium, and more than Ireland, which it resembles in being an island. Ireland’s religious division is only between denominations of the Christian religion, and both use the same Holy book. Ireland’s Gaelic language is mitigated by general use of English. Ireland’s history of geographic enmity goes back 500 years, not thousands of years. So I see Ker-Lindsay’s Cyprus as a more comprehensive study of problems in Mediterranean self-government.Ker-Lindsay describes problems from each side. There were personality clashes between party leaders who didn’t really represent the desires of their populations. Popular referendums were tried in attempts to bypass these leaders, but the populations were easily pushed and pulled by media campaigns. New confederations were proposed in attempts to bypass clashes over which group would lead a continuing nation of 1960 Cyprus, but they were seen as preludes to easy secession from confederation. Ideas for rotating or sharing power at the top didn’t satisfy either group’s fundamental desire to wield power over the opposing population. The border between the populations is physically vague, yet legislative attempts failed to set a firm border. Outsiders tried to mediate between the groups, but there was no trust. Trust in a combined national government is lacking in the partitions: the government isn’t trusted to prevent subversion of one partition by the other, and the government isn’t trusted to handle external relations with Greece and Turkey without favoring one partition over the other.Ker-Lindsay says he has no solution to offer. He feels the 2004 entry of Cyprus into the European Union may help lead out of the impasse, but he observes that Turkey’s delay entering the European Union has been delaying the effect. He got me thinking again. Maybe both Cypriot groups, now clashing over who will be on top of their island, might accept a third and better answer, neither of them. It wouldn’t be the first “partitions smaller, community larger” success. America’s states put political and religious differences under common defense, diplomacy, and treasury. In a large community, immigration can be shared, new religions accepted, and children educated in a shared language for interstate commerce. Europe is already years along a similar path.He got me thinking parts of the Mediterranean might enter onto similar paths. Until then, Ker-Lindsay’s Cyprus descriptions, written before the 2011 Arab Spring, seem able to predict and explain problems in small Mediterranean attempts at democratic self-government. All have minorities unable or unwilling to accept majority rule while living near the majority. Ker-Lindsay’s insights into the Cyprus problem might help others understand their small nation failures. They might seek, as Ker-Lindsay suggests, larger communities taking away from both minority and majority the divisive roles of defense and diplomacy. As small partitions in a larger community, their repeating Mediterranean clashes would lose weight, even while historic enmity continued.Bottom line: Ker-Lindsay earns 5 stars. He understands the Mediterranean better than diplomats who think talk ends tribalism. He thinks mutual benefit trumps tribalism.

Had to read this book for a class on international identity based conflicts. The book was easy to read and enjoyable. Read it in one day and thought is was informative and approaches a dense controversial subject in a relatively neutral manner. Asks the good questions and provides thought-provoking answers!

Very informative

As the subtitle says: What everyone needs to know.Good and unbiased intro on the subject (which otherwise is obscured by a lot of biased contributions, from both the conflict parties themselves and a bunch of other sources linked to them in one or the other way).

Giving an accurate account of what went on,

This book provides a clear outline of the events that led to the division of Cyprus, and the issues surrounding reunification. A good read for those who are unaware, yet wanting to understand the roots of the conflict.

Great overview of the issues that persist in Cyprus. For someone just beginning to study this situation, this book was perfect.

a "to the point" and neutral analysis that gives the reader all the relevant elements to understand the Cyprus issue.