Michael Tannousis
Assemblyman
11 Maplewood Place
Staten Island, NY 10306
Dear Michael,
I write as a concerned member of the American Turkish community and as someone who has long been engaged in public advocacy on matters of national dignity, historical accuracy, and justice. In previous letters and communications with civic leaders and institutions, including appeals regarding public commemorations and ceremonial events, I have consistently emphasized that discussions of sensitive history must be rooted in facts, lawful principles, and fairness.
Today, I feel compelled to respond strongly to the one-sided narratives that surround the so-called “Independence Day of Cyprus.” Such commemorations often exclude the essential historical context and fail to acknowledge the legitimate security concerns and legal rights of Turkish Cypriots and of the Republic of Türkiye.
The historical record is clear. The constitutional settlement of 1960, together with the Treaty of Guarantee, was designed to protect the bi-communal structure of the Republic of Cyprus and the sovereign equality of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, by ensuring the rights of Turkish Cypriots as a co-founding partner. Under that treaty, Türkiye, Greece, and the United Kingdom were entrusted as guarantor powers with rights—and responsibilities—to consult and, when necessary, to act in order to restore constitutional order. That legal framework remains the cornerstone of Cyprus’s modern history and cannot be ignored in honest analysis.
Yet the years that followed were marked by deliberate campaigns of violence and intimidation against Turkish Cypriots. Extremist organizations such as EOKA, backed by elements of the Greek junta and factions of the National Guard, targeted Turkish Cypriot civilians. The violence aimed mainly at Turkish Cypriots became widespread, undermining the very fabric of the Republic. The coup of 15 July 1974—planned in Athens and executed on the island—was not a simple political crisis but a direct attempt to overthrow President Makarios and force enosis, the unification of the entire island with Greece. That coup left Turkish Cypriots facing grave and immediate danger.
The record of atrocities during this period is tragic and well-documented. Massacres in villages such as Muratağa/Maratha, Sandallar/Santalaris, and Atlılar/Aloa, where women, children, and the elderly were brutally killed, left indelible scars. International observers, including United Nations representatives, condemned these crimes at the time. To celebrate “independence” without acknowledging such suffering is not only incomplete but deeply disrespectful to the memory of the victims.
In this context, Türkiye’s military intervention in July–August 1974 cannot fairly be characterized as an “invasion.” Rather, it was a lawful and necessary exercise of guarantor rights under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. Its purpose was to restore constitutional order and to protect the Turkish Cypriot community from ethnic cleansing. This interpretation is supported by the Athens Court of Appeals in Decision No. 2658/79, which concluded that the original illegality lay in the coup orchestrated by Greece. To disregard this legal and historical foundation is to distort the record and undermine any genuine path toward reconciliation.
Moreover, accountability for missed opportunities also lies with the Greek Cypriot leadership. The Greek Cypriot’s rejection of the 2004 Annan Plan which was overwhelmingly supported by Turkish Cypriots—remains a stark reminder that the possibility of a federal solution for the Cyprus issue have too often been lost because of one-sided intransigence.
Recent developments deepen these concerns. Reports of Greek F-16 fighter jets flying over or near the territory of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, especially during commemorative ceremonies, cannot be interpreted as benign. These are provocative acts, inconsistent with the language of peace and dialogue that is publicly espoused. As President Ersin Tatar has rightly stated, such demonstrations of military hardware amount to intimidation directed at the Turkish Cypriot people.
The situation is further aggravated by troubling incidents during parades, where extremist slogans such as “A good Turk is a dead Turk” have reportedly been chanted by uniformed personnel. The acquisition of new weapon systems, including multiple rocket launchers, by the Greek Cypriot Administration only adds to an atmosphere of mistrust. These actions perpetuate hostility and reveal an unwillingness among certain elements on the Greek Cypriot side to accept the sovereign equality and legitimate rights of Turkish Cypriots.
In short, commemorations of the so-called “Republic of Cyprus” that present only a singular, untroubled national narrative erase fundamental truths: The long record of violence and targeted campaigns against Turkish Cypriots since the 1960s, even though the 1960 constitutional and treaty framework had established shared sovereignty and guarantor rights.
As the massacres happened before July 1974, including atrocities documented by international observers of EOKA, what, then, is there to commemorate? The constitutional order established in 1960 collapsed in the years that followed, undermined by violence, extremist campaigns, and finally a coup aimed at annexation of the island to Greece. To hold ceremonies that ignore this reality is not a celebration of history but an exercise in propaganda—an attempt to salt old wounds rather than heal them. A responsible and ethical commemoration would acknowledge the complexity of Cyprus’s history, the suffering endured by all communities, and the legal instruments and judgments that remain central to understanding the island’s legacy. For Turkish Cypriots, for Türkiye, and for all who value truth, the essential point is clear: public memory must reflect the full record, including the targeted violence Turkish Cypriots endured and the lawful basis for Türkiye’s protective actions in 1974.
The reality on the ground does not match what the Greek Cypriot leadership tries to display through such ceremonies. Instead, these displays serve only as a smear campaign against Turkish Cypriots and Türkiye, designed to delegitimize their rights and standing. As tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean continue to rise, it is imperative that civic leaders, editors, and institutions marking anniversaries approach these occasions with balance and fairness. To celebrate without acknowledging the Turkish Cypriot experience is to perpetuate injustice and sow deeper division. To commemorate responsibly is to honor all victims, uphold international law, and contribute to the possibility of a durable and equitable settlement.
Michael, you are trained as a lawyer and have served as an Assistant District Attorney. If you truly believe that your interpretation of events is grounded in fact and evidence, then the appropriate forum is not selective public commemoration or one-sided narratives, it is the international courts. If you are confident in your case, why not bring it before the International Court of Justice and allow your arguments to be tested under law?
I will even go so far as to say this: should you succeed, the Hellenic world will no doubt erect statues in your honor across the globe. But until then, selective rhetoric and ceremonies that ignore the collapse of the constitutional order of 1960 serve only as propaganda, not as truth.
I therefore call upon all who speak publicly about Cyprus to embrace accuracy and balance—acknowledging not only Greek Cypriot perspectives but also the legitimate rights, fears, and aspirations of the Turkish Cypriot people. The painful history of Turkish lives lost at the hands of extremist- terrorist organizations such as EOKA must never be repeated. Only with this recognition can remembrance contribute to peace, rather than perpetuate grievance and mistrust.
Ibrahim Kurtulus Community Activist
BCC to 1000 emails to group and Individuals Turkish, Albanian, Pakistani Community on Staten Island
