In the Shadow of History, at the Diplomacy Table: Cyprus

One of the most challenging tests of international relations is experienced in geographies with heavy historical baggage. There is an island in the Eastern Mediterranean that constitutes the most striking example of this context: Cyprus. It is the nodal point of all tensions between diplomacy and realpolitik from the Ottoman period to the present day. The history of Cyprus is not only the story of the island’s inhabitants, but also the story of the strategic legacy of the Ottoman Empire, Britain’s colonial habit, the geopolitical fault lines of the Cold War, and finally the multi-layered showdown between the European Union, Russia, the United States and regional powers.

In my opinion, to be content with current political debates when talking about Cyprus today would be tantamount to a diplomat losing his compass. Historically and geostrategically, this island is not just a “neighborly” issue for a Türkiye, but the cornerstone of its national security doctrine, energy diplomacy and regional influence strategy. Any analysis that fails to recognize this is incomplete.

Mirror of History

When looking at the history of Cyprus, it would be incomplete to see the period beginning with the Ottoman Empire’s conquest in 1571 as a military victory. It was also a game changer in the Eastern Mediterranean. The island not only strengthened the Ottoman dominance in the seas, but also played a critical role in the security of the Levant trade. The cession of Cyprus to Britain in 1878 under the name of “temporary administration” was a turning point that signaled the fragility of the Ottoman relations with the West. The real issue here was the shaping of the fate of the Ottoman Empire under the shadow of the calculations of the great powers, rather than the people of the island.

With the proclamation of the Republic, Türkiye chose not to directly intervene in Cyprus for a long time. However, in the 1950s, with Greece’s Enosis dream, the issue was brought to the international agenda. The Republic of Cyprus, established in 1960, envisioned the equality of the two peoples on paper. Soon, however, the constitutional order collapsed and the security of the Turkish community on the island was threatened. The coup attempt in 1974 and Türkiye’s Peace Operation, based on its right of guarantorship, was not just a military operation, but a necessary step that found its legitimacy in terms of international law. This operation guaranteed the existence of the Turkish Cypriots.

Unchanging Realities at the Table

Today, the Cyprus problem is not limited to the division of Nicosia into two parts. The issue should be addressed in a much broader framework. First, the energy deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean have put Cyprus back at the center of international diplomacy. Natural gas reserves have become not only an economic but also a geopolitical tool. Second, Cyprus is a security stronghold on Türkiye’s southern flank. Considering the civil war in Syria, the fragile political structure in Lebanon and the military mobilization in the Eastern Mediterranean, the importance of the island increases even more.

It should be underlined here: So far, the search for a solution in Cyprus has been mostly constructed with Eurocentric perspectives, and Türkiye’s security concerns have often been ignored. However, a lasting peace on the island is unlikely to be established only at the negotiation table. This can only be possible if the security balances on the ground are also taken into consideration. The international community finally grasping this reality may bring the issue closer to a solution.

Not a ‘Child Homeland,’ but the Homeland

For Türkiye, Cyprus is a historical responsibility and geopolitical imperative. This is not only a matter of national security, but also of identity. Turkish Cypriots have been seen as an integral part of Anatolia, and this perspective has been ingrained in the memory of the society. Today, Türkiye’s regional strategy, from energy lines to security doctrines, centers on Cyprus.

As a nation-state built on the Ottoman legacy, Türkiye defends its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean not only through power politics but also through historical legitimacy. Therefore, the issue should be seen as an indispensable part of Türkiye’s regional vision, not just a diplomatic dossier.

A Rhetorical Reading

It would be appropriate to open a parenthesis here and recall a truth often emphasized by Prof. İlber Ortaylı: “There is no diplomacy without knowing history.” This is the key phrase that explains the essence of the Cyprus issue. Cyprus is a geography shaped in the shadow of history and redefined in the competition of great powers. If a diplomat loses his/her awareness of history, every step he/she takes on the island issue will fall into a void.

Today, the European Union’s acceptance of Greek Cyprus as a “full member” is the result of this lack of historical consciousness. While the island is de facto divided, such a decision has only made a solution more difficult. At this point, Türkiye’s position is clear:

A lasting solution on the island must be built on the political equality of the two communities.

Witnessing the Struggle

Throughout history, Cyprus has been more than just an island, it has been one of the most challenging testing grounds for empires, great states and diplomatic traditions. Even today, any mind that wants to understand the geopolitical equations in the Eastern Mediterranean must open the Cyprus file. Indeed, the developments in recent weeks have once again demonstrated that the island is still a very much alive issue.

Following the visit of Afzal Khan, a Labour Party MP in the UK, to Ersin Tatar, the President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, intense pressure from both the Greek Cypriot lobby and political circles in the UK triggered a process that led to the resignation of an MP. More than a simple protocol visit, this development has raised serious questions about the UK’s historical and contemporary role in Cyprus. Khan’s resignation was more than just an individual decision; it was a clear indication of the political climate in London, the dominant influence of the Greek Cypriot lobby and double standards.

Upon all these developments, I had a phone call with Mr. Zorlu Töre, who served as the former Speaker of the Northern Cyprus Parliament between 2022-2024. Töre, as a politician who has witnessed the historical struggle of the Turkish Cypriot people, criticized the UK’s claim of neutrality with harsh words. His statements were not only about a current diplomatic crisis, but also a reminder of historical facts that are etched in our memory.

Töre started his speech with the following sentences:

“There were British soldiers on the island, now there are British sovereign bases. Yes, Turks in Cyprus were constantly subjected to oppression and massacres. However, Britain was still unable to do its duty at that time,” he said.

Then, explaining the process of the transfer of Cyprus from the Ottoman Empire to Britain in historical detail, he reminded the opportunism of the London administration:

“Britain had temporarily taken over the island of Cyprus from the Ottoman Empire and had promised to withdraw and leave the island to the Ottoman Empire again. However, when the Ottoman Empire took part in different poles in the First World War, Britain opportunistically annexed the island of Cyprus to itself. With the 1910 agreement, the island of Cyprus was left to Britain. This was also accepted by the Republic of Türkiye,” he added.

Töre’s historical references were not limited to this. He emphasized that the Turkish side was the second founding partner in the establishment process of the Republic of Cyprus, but the Greeks unilaterally occupied this partnership:

“In the following years, if Britain was going to end its sovereignty on the island of Cyprus one day, it should have discussed this with Türkiye. However, the EOKA fighters and the Greek junta wanted to connect Cyprus to Greece. The Greek side prevailed. Thus, the Greeks became the first founding partner and the Turkish Cypriot side became the second founding partner. However, the Greeks turned this to themselves and occupied the Republic of Cyprus.”

At this point, Töre expressed in harsh words that Britain has lost its neutrality not only in the historical process but also today:

“As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the UK has never put forward an opinion to defend the rights and interests of the Turkish Cypriot people. In the UN resolutions, provisions accusing Türkiye and the Turkish side of Northern Cyprus were enacted. Therefore, the UK has never fulfilled its duty as a guarantor, its duty as a UN member and its obligation as a NATO ally. It has always supported the Greek Cypriot side and the Greeks more than Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriot side. This image still persists.”

Töre’s words did not only shed light on history. He also held up a mirror to current politics. He described Khan’s resignation as a reflection of double standards today and made the following assessment:

“This issue came to the agenda with the Greek Cypriot protests against the visit of the British MP to the TRNC Presidency and the attitude of the British administration. The resignation of that MP from his post also led to this. This shows that double standards still continue.”

However, despite this picture, Töre did not despair; on the contrary, he emphasized his determination to struggle. When I asked him whether such visits will continue in the coming period, he said:

“It is foreseeable that similar visits will increase in the coming period. There are Cyprus Friendship Group MPs in the British Parliament. They visit Northern Cyprus from time to time and come back. Therefore, the resignation of the MP would not change the reality. It is necessary to resist. There are many MPs in London, they come and visit Northern Cyprus, they also visit Southern Cyprus. They see and listen to the facts on the ground. What we expect from the UK is to be impartial.”

Finally, Töre reminded Britain’s 82-year rule in Cyprus and stated that although EOKA has historically attacked even the British, London has never given up its pro-Greek attitude with the following sentences:

“The British know the realities of Cyprus very well. Because British rule lasted 82 years on the island. From 1878 to 1960, the British stayed on the island of Cyprus. In this process, EOKA members killed many British people. In fact, in the book of Grivas, the leader of EOKA, there is a statement that ‘With 400 guerrilla fighters, we destroyed the entire British army in Cyprus’. Despite this, Britain continues to exhibit a behavior closer to the Greek Cypriot side.”

In the light of all these developments today, the following fact cannot be denied: Cyprus is at the center of diplomacy today as it was yesterday. The pressure of the Greek Cypriot lobby in London, the UK’s disregard for its historical obligations and the just struggle of the Turkish Cypriot people are integral parts of the great equation in the Eastern Mediterranean. And it is important to remember this: It is impossible to understand the Eastern Mediterranean without understanding Cyprus and global politics without understanding the Eastern Mediterranean.

As we finish

Cyprus is one of the cornerstones of international diplomacy today as it was yesterday. For Türkiye, Cyprus is more than just a security issue; it is a symbol of regional influence and historical responsibility. Today’s discussions on Cyprus should be seen in the broader context, from Syria to Lebanon, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the European Union, and should not be confined to the political dispute between the two communities.

I would like to conclude my remarks here by referring to a recent development and opening the door to a recent issue.

The political process on the island, which has been fragile throughout history, has once again become a turning point that needs to be watched carefully by Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriots, with the elections expected to take place on October 12, 2025, being postponed. In a phone conversation with a journalist colleague who was working in Cyprus, I learned that the public had known for a long time that the election would be held on October 12, 2025; however, the election date was postponed from October 12 to October 19. As a matter of fact, the elections to be held in Cyprus on October 19 will be a critical turn in terms of island politics. It should also be said that this information is not well known to the public on the island. This situation once again reveals how fragile and full of uncertainties the political process on the island is.