The 1960 Treaty of Establishment, signed by Türkiye, Greece, and the United Kingdom, was intended to create an independent Republic of Cyprus, ostensibly for the benefit of both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. However, from the moment of its inception, this treaty has been fraught with contention, particularly among Turkish Cypriots.

With minimal local Turkish or Greek Cypriot involvement in the drafting process, the treaty has been widely criticized for imposing a framework that favored external powers over the island's own communities. Today, the treaty remains a deeply divisive document, and for Turkish Cypriots, it has come to symbolize the fragility of their political agency.

While the flaws of the 1960 Treaty of Establishment are clear, its misuse as a political weapon by left-wing groups like the Republican Turkish Party (CTP) has only further complicated the path to a stable future for Turkish Cypriots. Many argue that the CTP has manipulated the shortcomings of the treaty to push its argument for a federal solution to the Cyprus problem, one that overlooks the existential threats Turkish Cypriots face from the Greek Cypriot leadership. In doing so, the CTP undermines the vital role of Türkiye as a guarantor of Turkish Cypriot sovereignty.

The Treaty: A Flawed Document from the Start

The 1960 Treaty of Establishment was not born from a process of open dialogue or mutual agreement between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. Instead, it was crafted in the corridors of power in Zurich and London, with Türkiye, Greece, and the United Kingdom primarily dictating its terms. The leaders of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities—Dr. Fazıl Küçük and Archbishop Makarios, respectively—were brought in only to sign off on a document that had already been written.

"The Turkish Cypriots were not even at the negotiating table," said Dr. Fazıl Küçük, the then Vice President of the Republic of Cyprus, shortly after the treaty was signed. "We were handed a document and expected to accept it as our future, but we knew this was a future fraught with danger" (Küçük, 1960).

The treaty's lack of clarity and insufficient mechanisms for enforcement created a precarious situation for Turkish Cypriots. They were promised equal representation and autonomy in theory but found themselves increasingly marginalized and threatened by the Greek Cypriot majority's ambitions for enosis (union with Greece).

CTP's Manipulation: A Political Agenda Detached from Reality

Enter the Republican Turkish Party (CTP), a left-wing faction that has seized upon the contentious nature of the treaty to advance its political agenda. The CTP has repeatedly criticized the Treaty of Establishment as a colonial relic that perpetuates division and foreign control. However, while their rhetoric focuses on sovereignty and independence, their ultimate objective remains the push for a federal solution—a stance that many Turkish Cypriots see as dangerously naive.

The CTP has built much of its platform on the argument that the treaty was flawed from the start and that the island's reunification under a federal system is the only solution. "The treaty was a compromise forced upon us," argues Mehmet Ali Talat, a former leader of the CTP, "and we must now move beyond it to a truly Cypriot solution—one that unites both communities under a federal umbrella" (Talat, 2008).

But this perspective ignores the stark realities facing Turkish Cypriots. The CTP's rhetoric may resonate with some, but it fails to consider that a federal solution would likely diminish Turkish Cypriot sovereignty, leaving them vulnerable to Greek Cypriot majority rule. The Greek Cypriot leadership has shown time and again that it has little interest in genuine power-sharing. As President Rauf Denktaş pointed out, "The Greek Cypriot side has never hidden its intention to turn Cyprus into a Greek state. Any federal solution under these conditions would mean the end of Turkish Cypriots" (Denktaş, 1990).

Türkiye's Role: The Essential Guarantor of Turkish Cypriot Rights

Despite the flaws in the Treaty of Establishment, one element remains crucial: Türkiye's role as a guarantor power. The treaty granted Türkiye the right to intervene if the constitutional order was threatened—a right Türkiye exercised in 1974 when a Greek junta-backed coup attempted to annex the island to Greece. Türkiye's intervention prevented what many Turkish Cypriots feared would be their ethnic cleansing or forced assimilation into a Greek state.

Türkiye's role as a guarantor is not merely a relic of a bygone era; it is a vital safeguard against ongoing threats from the Greek Cypriot side. "Without Türkiye's guarantee," remarked President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Ersin Tatar, "Turkish Cypriots would have no security and no future. We have seen what happens when the Greek side is left unchecked. We must remain vigilant" (Tatar, 2020).

The CTP's Failure to Acknowledge Turkish Cypriot Realities

The CTP's refusal to acknowledge the necessity of Türkiye's involvement is not just a matter of political naivety; it represents a dangerous detachment from the historical and current realities of Cyprus. By pushing for a federal solution, the CTP undermines the achievements of the TRNC and Türkiye's protective role. This position disregards the deep-seated mistrust Turkish Cypriots have toward the Greek Cypriot leadership, a leadership that has persistently refused to recognize the political equality of Turkish Cypriots.

As President Tatar recently stated, "The CTP's position risks everything we have worked for—the safety, security, and sovereignty of our people. A federal solution under current circumstances is a non-starter. We must instead focus on strengthening our state and our ties with Türkiye" (Tatar, 2023).

A Two-State Solution: The Only Path Forward

In this context, the idea of a two-state solution has gained traction among Turkish Cypriots as the most realistic and viable way forward. This approach recognizes the de facto realities on the ground: two distinct communities, two different national aspirations, and a history of failed negotiations that have proven that a unified Cyprus is an unattainable fantasy. A two-state solution would ensure that Turkish Cypriots maintain their sovereignty, backed by Türkiye's unwavering support.

"Türkiye's presence is essential," argues President Tatar. "We cannot afford to return to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s when Turkish Cypriots were left at the mercy of an aggressive Greek Cypriot regime. Our future lies with Türkiye, and it is time we move decisively toward a two-state solution that recognizes this reality" (Tatar, 2023).

TCE Conclusion: Moving Forward with Confidence

While the 1960 Treaty of Establishment remains a contentious historical document, it is crucial to remember that Türkiye's role as a guarantor power has been and continues to be vital for Turkish Cypriots. The CTP's efforts to use the treaty as a political tool to push for a federal solution are not only out of touch with the realities on the ground but also jeopardize the hard-earned rights and security of Turkish Cypriots.

As we look to the future, Turkish Cypriots must stand firm in their demand for sovereignty and recognition, backed by Türkiye's steadfast commitment. It is time to embrace a two-state solution, moving forward with confidence and clarity toward a future where Turkish Cypriots can live in peace, security, and dignity in their homeland.

If you enjoyed this article, please share it with your friends and invite them to join us on Facebook and TikTok.

References:

1. Küçük, F. (1960). Personal interview.  
2. Talat, M. A. (2008). Public statement, Nicosia.  
3. Denktaş, R. (1990). Press conference, Lefkoşa.  
4. Tatar, E. (2020, 2023). Official statements, TRNC Presidential Office.  

For further reading, consult historical records, treaties, and political analyses from the TCE resources section.