Michael Tannousis Assembly member
11 Maplewood Place
Staten Island, NY 10306
July 20, 2025
Subject: Response to Your Remarks on Cyprus and the Republic of Türkiye
Dear Assemblyman Michael Tannousis
I write to express my deep disappointment and concern regarding your recent remarks during the 51st anniversary commemoration of Türkiye’s 1974 intervention in Cyprus, in which you referred to it as an “illegal occupation.” Your characterization of these events overlooks key historical facts, disregards international law, and marginalizes the lived experiences of Turkish Cypriots. As an elected representative of a diverse constituency that includes many Turkish Americans and Muslims across Staten Island and Brooklyn, I urge you to engage with this issue in a manner that reflects historical truth, legal accuracy, and diplomatic fairness.
Türkiye’s 1974 Intervention: A Legal and Necessary Action
Contrary to your statement, Türkiye’s intervention in Cyprus was not an “invasion” nor illegal. It was undertaken in accordance with the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, a binding international agreement signed by the Republic of Cyprus, Türkiye, Greece, and the United Kingdom. The Treaty clearly permits any of the Guarantor Powers to act unilaterally to restore the constitutional order in Cyprus should it be disrupted. In July 1974, the democratically elected President of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios III, was overthrown in a Greek-backed coup aimed at unifying the island with Greece. This act of aggression executed by the Greek military junta and the EOKA-B paramilitary group triggered Türkiye’s legal and justified intervention to prevent annexation and protect the Turkish Cypriot population, which had endured years of ethnic violence and political exclusion.
The Athens Court of Appeals (Decision No. 2658/79) concluded that it was indeed the coup—not Türkiye’s military response that was illegal.
Furthermore, Archbishop Makarios himself, in a statement to the United Nations Security Council on July 19, 1974, one day before Türkiye intervened, described the coup as an act of aggression:
“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.”
The acknowledgment by Archbishop Makarios then head of state of Cyprus that the 1974 coup was orchestrated by Greece provides significant legal and moral support to Türkiye’s position. His admission affirms that it was the Greek-backed coup, not Türkiye’s response, that constituted an act of aggression. Türkiye’s intervention, therefore, was a lawful and treaty based action taken in response to an imminent threat, not an invasion. This is a fact that could stand up in any impartial international court of law.
Michael, as a legal professional, if you genuinely believe that Türkiye’s intervention qualifies as an “invasion,” I respectfully encourage you to bring your case and any supporting evidence before the International Court of Justice.
If your claims are valid, it would be a landmark victory for the Greek and Greek Cypriot cause, and you may well be honored for your efforts with statues worldwide . In fact, I would be willing to personally underwrite all associated legal expenses for such a case to be presented at the international level. Let the law not selective political rhetoric be the judge.
Turkish Peace Forces: A Security Imperative, Not an Occupation
The continued presence of Turkish Peace Forces in Northern Cyprus is not a political occupation. It is a security necessity grounded in the tragic history of ethnic cleansing and violence against Turkish Cypriots. Their presence has served as a deterrent to further conflict and ensured the safety of an entire community that had once been pushed to the brink of annihilation.
British Military Presence: A Selective Argument , If the presence of foreign troops on Cyprus is a concern, then the longstanding presence of British military forces, including the sovereign bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, must also be addressed. The United Kingdom is, like Türkiye, a Guarantor Power. Yet no similar outrage is expressed over British forces. Why is the label “occupation” applied only to Türkiye’s presence and not to the UK’s? This selective rhetoric undermines objectivity and weakens the legitimacy of any call for fairness.
The 2004 Annan Plan: A Missed Opportunity by Greek Cypriots . The 2004 Annan Plan, supported by the United Nations and the international community, was overwhelmingly accepted by 65% of Turkish Cypriots while 85% of Greek Cypriots rejected it. Then President Tassos Papadopoulos publicly urged the Greek Cypriot population to vote “No.” Reunification was not rejected by Türkiye or Turkish Cypriots, but by the very leaders you now align with in rhetoric.
Recognition of “Türkiye” and Respect in Diplomacy
I also noted many times your continued use of the outdated term “Turkey” in official communication. The nation has formally adopted the name “Republic of Türkiye,” which has been recognized by the United Nations and numerous international bodies. Addressing countries by their chosen names is a basic element of diplomatic respect and cultural decency. As a Member of Congress, this should be reflected in both your speech and writing.
Efforts to mischaracterize Türkiye’s actions or alienate its role in Cyprus only serve to embolden adversaries and weaken American influence in the region.
A Call for Leadership Rooted in Truth, Not Division . Micheal, I respectfully urge you to rise above partisan rhetoric and historical revisionism. Your comments risk deepening wounds, empowering ethnic bias, and misinforming the public. As an elected leader, your responsibility is to all New Yorkers including Turkish Americans and Turkish Cypriots who have long contributed to the strength and diversity of this city and this nation. Your message only justifies and intensifies the hateful feelings as you are engaging in tactics favored by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.
Frankly, the sentiments expressed in your remarks echo the type of hostility and historical distortion often used by hate-based movements. Leadership should build bridges, not justify inherited animosity.
History will remember those who uphold truth over political convenience, diplomacy over hostility, and fairness over propaganda. I sincerely hope you will reflect on the facts presented and engage with this issue more responsibly moving forward.
Respectfully,
Ibrahim Kurtulus
