Nicole Malliotakis
United States House of Representatives
266 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: Response to Your Remarks on Cyprus and the Republic of Türkiye
Dear Congresswoman Malliotakis,
I am writing to express my deep concern and disappointment regarding your recent remarks made during the 51st anniversary commemoration of Türkiye’s 1974 intervention in Cyprus, during which you referred to it as an “illegal occupation.” Your characterization of this complex historical event, along with your continued advocacy for the removal of Turkish troops, reflects a pattern of selective historical narrative that disregards international law, factual accuracy, and the lived experiences of Turkish Cypriots.
As an elected official representing a diverse constituency including a large Turkish American,, and Muslims from across Staten Island and Brooklyn. I urge you to approach such sensitive matters with greater care, integrity, and an appreciation for the full historical context.
Türkiye’s 1974 Intervention: A Legal Action Under the Treaty of Guarantee
Türkiye’s intervention in Cyprus was not an invasion, nor was it illegal. It was carried out under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee an internationally binding agreement signed by Türkiye, Greece, and the United Kingdom. The treaty grants each guarantor nation the right to intervene unilaterally in Cyprus if the constitutional order or security of either community is under threat.
In July 1974, a Greek-orchestrated coup in Cyprus aimed to annex the island to Greece, violently deposing the legitimate government. Türkiye, in accordance with its treaty rights, intervened to prevent this annexation and to protect the Turkish Cypriot population, which had already endured years of discrimination, political marginalization, and ethnic violence. This intervention was not only lawful but necessary. The Athens Court of Appeals (Decision No. 2658/79, dated March 21, 1979) itself confirmed that it was the coup—not Türkiye’s response—that constituted the illegal action. Also, Archbishop Makarios III, the first President of the Republic of Cyprus, made several significant statements following the events of July 1974. After surviving the coup d’état orchestrated by the Greek military junta and EOKA-B, he fled to London and later addressed the United Nations. he also acknowledged that the coup in Cyprus was a Greek invasion not a Turkish invasion: Here is a key excerpt from Archbishop Makarios’ statement to the United Nations Security Council on July 19, 1974 one day before Türkiye’s intervention:
“It is a paradox, indeed, that the President of Cyprus is addressing the Security Council in his capacity as the head of a state which is a victim of aggression not by a foreign power, but by a country which claims to be a brother nation…”
“What is happening in Cyprus is a clear invasion, through military force, by Greece… The coup was an invasion, and from its first moment it was an act of aggression and occupation.”
This statement is important because Makarios labeled the Greek-led coup as an “invasion,” thereby creating an argument though indirect that Türkiye’s response was not the initial act of aggression, but rather a reaction to Greek Invasion of the Island. The fact of the matter is In terms of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, while Makarios did not publicly recognize the Turkish intervention as “legal,” the treaty itself is key to understanding Türkiye’s justification. The Treaty of Guarantee (signed by the United Kingdom, Greece, Türkiye, and Cyprus) gave the guarantor powers the right to intervene unilaterally to restore the constitutional order if it were disrupted.
Archbishop Makarios did explicitly endorse the Turkish intervention, his recognition of the coup as an invasion by Greece lends credence to Türkiye’s legal justification under the Treaty of Guarantee. Thus, the 1974 Turkish operation cannot accurately be labeled as an “invasion”
The Turkish Peace Forces in Northern Cyprus continue to serve a vital function in deterring future violence and safeguarding the security of Turkish Cypriots. Their presence is not a political occupation it is a security imperative based on tragic historical realities.
British Troops in Cyprus: Also a Guarantor Presence, If the presence of Turkish forces is a concern, I would respectfully ask why there is no similar objection to the continued presence of British troops on the island. The United Kingdom, like Türkiye, is a Guarantor Power and maintains sovereign military bases in Cyprus. Are these forces also to be labeled an “occupation,” or is this designation applied selectively for political convenience?
The 2004 Annan Plan: A Missed Opportunity for Peace
In your remarks, you called for reunification. However, in the 2004 United Nations–backed Annan Plan referendum, 65% of Turkish Cypriots voted in favor of reunification, while 85% of Greek Cypriots rejected it. Then–President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, openly urged Greek Cypriots to vote “No.” Reunification was not blocked by Türkiye or Turkish Cypriots, but by the Greek Cypriot leadership. If peace and unity are the goals, this crucial fact must be part of the conversation.
Recognition of the Republic of Türkiye
It is also concerning that you continue to use the outdated term “Turkey,” rather than the official name “Türkiye,” which has been recognized by the United Nations and many international bodies. Respecting a country’s chosen name is a basic tenet of diplomacy and decency. As a Member of Congress, you have a duty to model such respect in both speech and writing.
The Strategic Importance of U.S.–Türkiye Relations
Türkiye remains one of the United States’ most critical allies in NATO. It possesses the alliance’s second-largest military and serves as a geopolitical bridge to Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Black Sea, and the Middle East. As former U.S. Ambassador Jeff Flake recently reaffirmed the vital role that Türkiye plays in American defense strategy, economic cooperation, and diplomatic outreach. Efforts to weaken U.S.–Türkiye relations do not serve the national interest. Rather, they empower adversaries and compromise regional stability.
A Call for Leadership, Not Division
Congresswoman, it is my hope that you will choose to lead with fairness and inclusivity, rather than division and partisanship. As a representative of all New Yorkers, you have a responsibility to serve your full constituency, including Turkish Americans, Turkish Cypriots, and other minority communities who contribute daily to the richness of our city and our nation.
Your message only justifies and intensifies the hateful feelings that have been instilled in them through childhood; frankly, you are engaging in tactics favored by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.
You were elected to uphold the principles of truth, justice, and equality—not to amplify the narratives of foreign nationalisms at the expense of American unity and international diplomacy.
History remembers those who choose wisdom over prejudice, truth over propaganda, and peace over provocation. I sincerely hope you will reflect on these matters and approach them in a more balanced, factual, and constructive manner moving forward.
Respectfully,
Ibrahim Kurtulus
Dongan Hills
Leave a Reply