The Cyprus Mail’s recent announcement of the TV series Famagusta set to appear on Netflix raises significant concerns. Directed by Greek Cypriot filmmaker Panos Koutras, the series seems rooted in the Greek Cypriot narrative and appears to be yet another attempt to rewrite history by ignoring the complexities and tragedies of Cyprus's past.

 

Rather than promoting reconciliation and understanding, this show threatens to deepen divisions by propagating a one-sided view of historical events. For a genuine representation of history, it is crucial to address the Cyprus conflict beginning from its true origins in 1963, rather than merely from the events of 1974. Given the problematic nature of the production, there is a pressing need to call for a boycott of this biased film.

 

The Beginning of Conflict: 1963 and the Akritas Plan

To truly understand the Cyprus issue, one must look beyond the often-cited 1974 events and focus on the turbulence that began in 1963. Following independence in 1960, Cyprus was established as a bi-communal republic with power-sharing arrangements between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. However, the Greek Cypriot leadership, led by the Greek leader Archbishop Makarios, quickly demonstrated intentions to amend the constitution to benefit their side. This led to the infamous Akritas Plan in 1963, a secret strategy formulated by Greek Cypriots aiming for Enosis (union with Greece) by removing Turkish Cypriots from power. This plan ignited a wave of violence against Turkish Cypriots, forcing them into enclaves and sparking a humanitarian crisis that would endure for more than a decade.

 

Numerous historical accounts confirm these events. According to a 1964 report by The Times, "the Turkish Cypriot population found themselves under siege, isolated in enclaves with limited access to food, water, and medical supplies." These facts are often omitted from Greek Cypriot narratives, which tend to focus solely on the events of 1974. Such selective memory does a disservice to the truth and only serves to deepen divisions on the island.

 

The Reality of 1974: A Necessary Intervention

The portrayal of Türkiye's 1974 intervention as an "invasion" is a frequent talking point for Greek Cypriot publications and is likely to be a central theme in Netflix's Famagusta series. However, it is vital to recognize that Türkiye’s intervention came in response to a coup d'état orchestrated by the Greek junta and the Greek Cypriot National Guard, aiming for Enosis. This coup posed a direct threat not only to Turkish Cypriots but also to regional stability.

 

According to the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, to which Türkiye, the UK, and Greece are signatories, any move to alter the status of Cyprus unilaterally was prohibited. When the coup took place on July 15, 1974, Türkiye, as one of the guarantor powers, intervened to prevent the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriot community. Even former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger acknowledged, "Turkish military intervention was legal under the terms of the Treaty of Guarantee" (US Department of State Memorandum, 1974). This intervention, rather than being an "invasion," was a justified and necessary act to restore peace and prevent ethnic cleansing.

 

The Problematic Direction and Production of Famagusta

Greek Cypriot filmmaker Panos Koutras, known for his previous works that frequently echo anti-Turkish rhetoric, directs Famagusta. His previous films, such as Strella and Xenia, have been criticized for promoting nationalist undertones and demonizing narratives against Türkiye. Given Koutras's directorial history, it is reasonable to assume that Famagusta will follow a similar pattern of biased storytelling. As noted by film critic Dimitris Xenos in Cinema and Identity in the Greek Diaspora, “Koutras’ works often walk a fine line between artistic expression and the propagation of ethnocentric narratives that fail to account for the complexities of modern geopolitics.”

 

Furthermore, reports suggest that the screenplay of Famagusta is heavily inspired by Greek Cypriot sources, omitting any meaningful representation of Turkish Cypriots or their perspective. This has raised alarms among Turkish Cypriots who see this as another attempt to rewrite history and perpetuate anti-Turkish sentiment. A leaked draft of the screenplay revealed that Turkish Cypriots are depicted as mere "invaders" without context to the events leading up to 1974 or the suffering they endured from 1963 onwards.

 

Ignoring the Reality of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

The TRNC has existed as a de facto state since 1983 and represents the aspirations and rights of Turkish Cypriots, who have been marginalized and subjected to numerous embargoes for decades. However, any attempt to reflect the Turkish Cypriot perspective seems to be consistently undermined by Greek Cypriot media. This appears to be the case with the Famagusta series as well, which is already being criticized for its one-dimensional portrayal.

 

Dr. Michael Stephen, a former British MP and author on the Cyprus issue, aptly summarized the situation: "For decades, the Turkish Cypriots have been isolated and demonized, while the world seems to have forgotten the atrocities committed against them from 1963 to 1974." The Turkish Cypriot voice is too often sidelined in international discussions, and Famagusta risks perpetuating this biased narrative.

 

The Complexities of Famagusta

The city of Gazi Mağusa (Famagusta) is a sensitive topic for both sides. Still, it is essential to recognize that the issue is not as black and white as Greek Cypriot narratives often suggest. The Greek Cypriot leadership’s refusal to engage in good faith negotiations over the Varosha region and their insistence on punitive measures against the TRNC have contributed to the current stalemate. In 2004, the Turkish Cypriot side overwhelmingly supported the Annan Plan, a United Nations proposal for the reunification of Cyprus, while the Greek side rejected it by 76%. This shows that the Turkish Cypriots have always been more open to peace and reconciliation.

 

As highlighted by Professor Christopher Brewin from Keele University, "The Greek Cypriot side's continuous rejection of reunification plans illustrates a preference for maintaining the status quo, despite its implications for regional stability and reconciliation." Instead of acknowledging this, Greek Cypriot narratives often paint themselves as the perpetual victims, ignoring their consistent resistance to peaceful solutions.

 

The Call for a Boycott and Fair Representation

What is particularly concerning is that Netflix, a global platform, might inadvertently endorse this skewed narrative by allowing Greek Cypriot perspectives to dominate through Famagusta. This not only provides a biased account of historical events but also risks fostering more resentment and misunderstanding. It is for this reason that a call for a boycott of the film is both necessary and urgent. If reconciliation is truly the goal, as many claim, why not present a balanced account that includes Turkish Cypriot voices, testimonies, and substantial evidence of their suffering?

 

The international community, especially platforms like Netflix that have far-reaching influence, have a responsibility to ensure that their content is fair, balanced, and promotes peace rather than division. Allowing a one-sided narrative to dominate only serves to heighten tensions and spread misinformation.

 

TCE Conclusion: An Appeal for Historical Accuracy and Boycott

The Cyprus conflict is a story of pain, suffering, and division, but it is also one of resilience and hope for a peaceful future. Any media portrayal, especially one reaching millions globally like Netflix's Famagusta, must make every effort to be balanced and fair. To reduce the Cyprus problem to a single narrative is not only a historical inaccuracy but also a significant blow to the ongoing peace process.

 

If Famagusta genuinely seeks to represent the history of Cyprus, it should start in 1963, not 1974. It should acknowledge the plight of Turkish Cypriots and the necessity of Türkiye’s 1974 intervention. It should recognize the legitimacy of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and reflect the voices that have long been silenced. Anything less would be an injustice, not just to the Turkish Cypriots, but to anyone who seeks a true understanding of the island’s complicated history. Therefore, a boycott of Famagusta is a stand against historical revisionism and a call for genuine dialogue based on facts, not propaganda.

Below is a link to sample letter you can copy / paste or edit as you see fit to send to Netflix (the email address is in the letter) - simply copy and paste it into your browser & it will download onto your device. 

https://www.tcexist.com/files/19/Social-Media-Sharing/361/Netflix-Complaint.pdf

alternatively, here is a copy of the letter below to copy paste: 

 

Netflix, Inc.
100 Winchester Circle
Los Gatos, CA 95032
United States

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subject: Urgent Request for Removal of the TV Series "Famagusta" from Netflix Platform

Dear Netflix Corporate Communications Team,

I am writing as a deeply concerned member of the Turkish Cypriots Exist (TCE) platform, an organization dedicated to advocating for the rights, recognition, and accurate representation of Turkish Cypriots. Our community, represented through our social media platforms and our website www.tcexist.com, stands in solidarity with Turkish speaking and Turkic communities worldwide. We are alarmed and offended by Netflix's decision to feature the TV series Famagusta, directed by Panos Koutras, on its platform. 

This series is not only a dangerously biased narrative that misrepresents the Cyprus conflict, but it is also a blatant affront to Turkish, Turkish Cypriot, and broader Turkic communities. We strongly urge Netflix to reconsider hosting such a divisive series, which risks significant backlash and a substantial loss of subscribers globally.

It is essential for Netflix to recognize that Turkish, Turkish Cypriot, and Turkic people are not confined to Türkiye or Northern Cyprus. Millions of us reside across Europe, North America, Central Asia, and beyond. We are a diverse, global community that shares a deep historical, cultural, and emotional connection to our shared heritage and the experiences of our people. Famagusta, with its skewed portrayal of the Cyprus issue, has already caused considerable offense among our communities, who see it as a deliberate attempt to rewrite history and demonize Turkish Cypriots and Türkiye.

Netflix should be aware that Famagusta's divisive content could lead to a broad, organized boycott of its platform by Turkish-speaking and Turkic communities around the world. The potential loss is not negligible; it involves millions of subscribers who are passionate about fair representation and who are increasingly unwilling to support a platform that promotes biased and inflammatory content. If Netflix is committed to upholding its values of diversity, equity, and inclusion, then it must reconsider the airing of a series that so blatantly contradicts these principles. 

The Famagusta series misrepresents the Cyprus conflict by beginning its narrative in 1974 and framing Türkiye’s intervention as an "invasion," neglecting the decade of violence and persecution against Turkish Cypriots that began in 1963. This selective storytelling ignores the atrocities committed against Turkish Cypriots during this period, including the implementation of the Akritas Plan, a strategy by Greek Cypriots aimed at Enosis (union with Greece) and the systematic marginalization of Turkish Cypriots.

As reported by many publications and news outlets The Times in 1964, “the Turkish Cypriot population found themselves under siege, isolated in enclaves with limited access to food, water, and medical supplies.” By failing to present this context, the series provides a distorted view that risks misleading viewers into adopting a biased understanding of a complex issue. This approach not only offends Turkish Cypriots but also undermines Netflix’s credibility as a platform that fosters meaningful and truthful storytelling.

The choice of Panos Koutras as the director for Famagusta only exacerbates concerns about bias. Koutras is known for his films that have been criticized for promoting ethnocentric and anti-Turkish narratives. His previous works, such as Strella and Xenia, have been accused of reinforcing divisive themes that do not account for the complexities of the region’s geopolitics. Dimitris Xenos, in Cinema and Identity in the Greek Diaspora, asserts that “Koutras’ works often walk a fine line between artistic expression and the propagation of ethnocentric narratives.” Allowing a series under 
such direction to air on Netflix is not only irresponsible but also deeply offensive to the global Turkish and Turkic communities.

Netflix, as a leading global content provider, has a responsibility to present narratives that are fair, balanced, and inclusive. Allowing Famagusta to air in its current form sends a clear message that the platform is willing to compromise historical truth and equity for sensationalism. This is a direct contradiction of the values Netflix claims to uphold.

 

Turkish Cypriots, alongside Turkish and Turkic communities worldwide, have been ardent supporters of balanced and fair media representation. To air a series that aligns so clearly with one-sided propaganda not only alienates this demographic but also discredits Netflix's reputation as a responsible platform.

It is important to highlight that Turkish Cypriots have always supported peace and reunification efforts. In 2004, Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Annan Plan for reunification, while 76% of Greek Cypriots rejected it. Ignoring these historical realities, as Famagusta does, reinforces a misleading narrative that promotes 
further division.

Professor Christopher Brewin from Keele University succinctly noted, "The Greek Cypriot side's continuous rejection of reunification plans illustrates a preference for maintaining the status quo, despite its implications for regional stability and reconciliation." The choice Netflix now faces is clear: uphold the values of fairness, equity, and inclusion by removing the Famagusta series, or face a substantial backlash from millions of Turkish, Turkish Cypriot, and Turkic subscribers globally. 

This series has already begun to galvanize communities into organizing a global boycott against Netflix for its complicity in promoting a biased narrative that perpetuates historical inaccuracies and ethnic tensions. By choosing to remove the series, Netflix can prevent the alienation of a significant portion of its subscriber base and reaffirm its commitment to fair and balanced storytelling.

As a member of Turkish Cypriots Exist (TCE), I strongly urge Netflix to take immediate and decisive action to remove the Famagusta series from its platform. Failure to do so would not only demonstrate a disregard for historical accuracy and inclusivity but also risk losing millions of subscribers who value and demand fair representation. We are prepared to continue advocating for the removal of this series through all available channels, including media outreach, social media campaigns, and broader advocacy efforts.

The stakes are high, and we hope Netflix will choose to stand on the right side of history.

Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter. We look forward to a prompt response and appropriate action to ensure that Netflix remains a platform that values integrity, diversity, and respect.

Sincerely,

Member, Turkish Cypriots Exist (TCE)
www.tcexist.com 

 

References:

- The Times (1964). "Cyprus Under Siege: Turkish Cypriots in Enclaves."
- US Department of State (1974). Memorandum on Cyprus Crisis.
- Brewin, C. (2000). "The European Union and Cyprus." Keele University Press.
- Stephen, M. (1997). "The Cyprus Question: A British Perspective."
- Xenos, D. (2019). "Cinema and Identity in the Greek Diaspora." University of Athens Press.