In a move that has reignited discussions about the decades-long division of Cyprus, four U.S. lawmakers of Greek descent—Representatives Gus Bilirakis, Carolyn Maloney, John Sarbanes, and Dina Titus—recently introduced a resolution urging the U.S. incoming Trump administrations government to prioritize a "solution" to the Cyprus issue.

 

This resolution reveals a significant bias, as it mirrors the Greek Cypriot narrative that has long dominated international discourse on Cyprus. It calls for the immediate withdrawal of Turkish troops from Northern Cyprus and labels Türkiye’s actions as an "occupation." Such resolutions, shaped by lawmakers with deep cultural and ethnic ties to one side of the conflict, risk being inherently unfair. They often neglect the historical realities and the perspectives of Turkish Cypriots, whose rights and security remain at the heart of this enduring conflict.

 

The Strategic Power of Greek Lobbyists in the U.S.

The influence of Greek lobbyists in the U.S. has played a pivotal role in shaping narratives like those presented in this resolution. Greek-American advocacy groups have long been active in leveraging their political connections to champion Greek Cypriot causes, drawing parallels to the methods employed by powerful Jewish lobbyists. Just as some critics argue that the U.S. is used as a conduit to advance Israeli geopolitical objectives, the Greek lobby's efforts to frame the Cyprus issue exclusively through a Greek Cypriot lens reveal a similar strategy. These lobbying efforts have often drawn condemnation for creating policies perceived as inherently biased and exclusionary.

 

The comparison to Jewish lobbyists is particularly apt, as both groups have strategically influenced U.S. foreign policy to align with their nationalistic objectives. In recent years, however, the global community has become increasingly critical of such tactics, particularly when they are seen as perpetuating imbalances or sidelining broader international interests. Just as the world frowns upon the use of the U.S. as a proxy to settle Israel's geopolitical disputes, these Greek-led efforts risk alienating key stakeholders by promoting a one-sided narrative. Such lobbying disregards the legitimate grievances and aspirations of Turkish Cypriots, perpetuating an imbalanced and divisive approach to policymaking that echoes the criticisms often leveled at Jewish lobbying strategies. The controversy surrounding this tactic underscores the need for a more equitable and inclusive policy discourse that respects all sides of the Cyprus conflict.

 

Historical Context: Unpacking the 1974 Intervention

The resolution’s characterization of Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus as an "occupation" reveals a selective interpretation of history. To understand the presence of Turkish forces, one must revisit the events of July 1974. In that year, on July 15th 1974 the Greek military junta orchestrated an invasion of Cyprus, aiming to annex the island to Greece in a blatant violation of Cypriot independence. This act of aggression endangered Turkish Cypriots, who had already endured 11 years of systematic marginalization, ethnic cleansing and genocidal violence. Under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, which conferred upon Türkiye, Greece, and the United Kingdom the responsibility to ensure Cyprus’ independence and constitutional order, Türkiye intervened to protect Turkish Cypriots from ethnic cleansing and restore balance to the island.

 

Labeling this intervention as an "invasion" disregards the legal and moral context under which it occurred. For Turkish Cypriots, this action was a lifeline in the face of existential threats. To frame Türkiye’s presence solely as an occupation is to erase the suffering of Turkish Cypriots and to ignore the treaty obligations that justified Türkiye’s actions.

 

 

The Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation: A Path Forward?

The resolution advocates for a solution based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation (BBF), a concept that has been at the center of negotiations for decades. While this framework is often touted as the ideal compromise, it is essential to recognize the growing skepticism among Turkish Cypriots about its feasibility. In 2004, the Annan Plan, a comprehensive proposal for reunification, was overwhelmingly accepted by Turkish Cypriots in a referendum but was rejected by 76% of Greek Cypriot voters. This rejection underscored the asymmetry in political will and left Turkish Cypriots disillusioned about the prospects of a federal solution.

 

Recent developments as of January 2025 further illustrate this shift. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Türkiye has, on three occasions at the UN General Assembly, unequivocally stated that federal solutions are now dead, calling instead for the recognition of the TRNC.

 

In his recent address to the 78th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2023, Erdoğan declared, "The federal solution is no longer viable. We call on the international community to recognize the sovereign equality of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus." Türkiye’s Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, reiterated this stance during a visit to the TRNC in January 2025, emphasizing, "The issues in Cyprus cannot be resolved with a formula from 50 years ago. Sovereign equality is the only realistic path forward." President Ersin Tatar of the TRNC has consistently advocated since 2023 for these principles, stating, "The issue of a federal solution in Cyprus is now closed. The time has come for sovereign equality and equal international status." Furthermore, recent visits by the UN envoy to Cyprus have confirmed the absence of a shared vision between the parties. UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted in his 2024 report, "It is clear that there is currently no common ground for resuming negotiations under the existing framework." These statements underline the need for fresh approaches to the conflict.

 

Security Concerns: The Role of Turkish Troops

The resolution’s demand for the immediate withdrawal of Turkish troops ignores the security dynamics on the island. For Turkish Cypriots, these troops serve as a crucial safeguard against the possibility of renewed violence. The ethnic cleansing and violence labeled by propogandists as 'intercommunal strife of the 1960s and 1970s', marked by attacks and massacres targeting Turkish Cypriots, has left deep scars. The presence of Turkish forces provides a strong sense of security that has been pivotal in maintaining peace in the Cyprus since 1974.

 

A sudden and unilateral withdrawal of Turkish troops could destabilize the region and leave Turkish Cypriots vulnerable. Any reduction in military presence must be part of a phased process accompanied by robust security guarantees and confidence-building measures. Trust between the two communities must be cultivated before such a step can be taken.

 

Property Rights and Compensation: A Balanced Approach

The resolution also addresses property disputes, calling for the return of properties to Greek Cypriot refugees and compensation for U.S. citizens. While property rights are a critical aspect of the Cyprus issue, it is imperative to adopt a balanced approach that considers the rights and grievances of Turkish Cypriots. The establishment of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in Northern Cyprus has been a significant step towards addressing these disputes. The IPC provides a legal framework for resolving property claims through restitution, exchange, or compensation, demonstrating the TRNC’s commitment to addressing these complex issues.

 

It is worth noting that property disputes are not one-sided. Thousands of Turkish Cypriots were also displaced during the conflict, and their losses deserve equal recognition. Any comprehensive resolution must ensure that the rights of both communities are upheld, fostering a sense of justice and reconciliation.

 

Myth-Busting: Addressing Misconceptions

The resolution’s framing perpetuates several misconceptions that hinder a fair understanding of the Cyprus issue. One such myth is the portrayal of the Republic of Cyprus as a legitimate and inclusive government. In reality, the Greek Cypriot administration unilaterally assumed control in 1963, excluding Turkish Cypriots from governance. This move violated the 1960 constitution, which enshrined power-sharing between the two communities.

 

 Today, the so-called Republic of Cyprus operates as a de facto Greek Cypriot state, a reality that must be acknowledged in any honest discussion about the island’s future.

 

Another misconception is the notion that Turkish Cypriots are merely a minority seeking integration into a Greek Cypriot-led state. This narrative dismisses the Turkish Cypriot identity and their status as equal partners in the 1960 agreements. Turkish Cypriots are not a minority but a co-founder community with inherent rights to political equality and self-determination.

 

TCE Conclusion: Advocating for Justice and Balance

The Cyprus issue remains one of the most intractable conflicts of our time, but any resolution must be rooted in justice, equality, and mutual respect. The resolution introduced by U.S. lawmakers, while ostensibly aimed at fostering peace, falls short by promoting a one-sided narrative that undermines the Turkish Cypriot experience and aspirations. To achieve a lasting solution, the international community must adopt a balanced approach that recognizes the rights and security concerns of both communities.

 

The TRNC has demonstrated a willingness to engage in dialogue and to seek creative solutions to longstanding disputes. However, this commitment must be met with an acknowledgment of Turkish Cypriots’ political equality and a genuine effort to address their legitimate grievances. By fostering mutual trust and addressing historical injustices, we can move closer to a future where both Turkish and Greek Cypriots can coexist peacefully as equals.

 

A copy of the proposed resolution can be read by clicking this link

 

References

1. The Treaty of Guarantee (1960): Legal framework defining the guarantor powers of Türkiye, Greece, and the United Kingdom over Cyprus.
2. Reports on the Annan Plan Referendum (2004): Documentation of the proposed reunification plan, which Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly supported but Greek Cypriots rejected.
3. Historical accounts of intercommunal violence in Cyprus: Sources detailing the systematic ethnic cleansing and violence against Turkish Cypriots from 1963 to 1974.
4. Information on the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) in the TRNC: Details of the legal mechanisms established to address property disputes.
5. Statements from Turkish Cypriot leaders on the two-state solution: Notably, remarks by President Ersin Tatar (2023-present) and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan (2025).
6. U.N. resolutions and reports on the Cyprus conflict: Including the 2024 report by UN Secretary-General António Guterres on the lack of common ground in negotiations.
7. Address by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to the UN General Assembly (2023): "The federal solution is no longer viable. We call on the international community to recognize the sovereign equality of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus."
8. Remarks by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan (2025): "The issues in Cyprus cannot be resolved with a formula from 50 years ago. Sovereign equality is the only realistic path forward."