Δεν ξεχνώ. Never forget.
This message was all over the Republic of Cyprus, in the posters around the island, historical museum exhibitions and the words of the Cypriot military officers I had the chance to share meals with.
This summer, I visited Cyprus for the first time. Located in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea just 225 miles away from Gaza and 100 miles from Syria, the nation sits at the crossroads of numerous global conflicts, yet receives very little global attention. This disregard must change. The United States should care about Cyprus because we have an obligation to uphold humanitarian principles and preserve international law. Further, the U.S. has our own strategic interests in the region.
Cyprus has been divided for the past 51 years. In 1974, the Greek military junta launched a coup to reunify the island with Greece. Immediately after, the Turkish government launched a full-scale military invasion, claiming they were taking a defensive move to protect the Turkish Cypriot minority. They captured approximately 36% of the island and displaced approximately 160,000 Greek Cypriots, comprising a third of their total community. That year, the United Nations established a demarcated buffer zone known as the “Green Line” staffed by UN peacekeeping forces to prevent conflict and promote negotiations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot populations.
Today, 34.8% of the island is occupied by Turkey, 3% is a United Nations buffer zone to mitigate conflict, 2.8% contain British sovereign bases and 59.4% is the free area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus, containing mostly Greek Cypriots.
For the past 51 years, the Turkish government has illegally occupied the island, carried out ethnic cleansing by mass resettlement of ethno-nationalist Turks and pursued continuous development to solidify their presence, actions that constitute clear violations of preexisting international law.
Since then, little to no progress has been made on what has come to be known as the “Cyprus question” over who has control of the island. During my visit this past summer, it quickly became abundantly clear that Cyprus was divided in every sense of the word.
Since the island is so small, the division is impossible to ignore. On my trip, our first dinner in Nicosia was a 20-second walk from a UN buffer zone checkpoint. We saw posters displaying heartbreaking stories of small acts of resistance being met with military violence in the occupied area, such as Solomos Solomou, a 26-year-old man who was killed after being shot five times by Turkish troops while attempting to remove a Turkish flag from its mast. On our walk on the beach in Famagusta in the occupied area, we watched as people vacationed to our right, with dilapidated buildings that had been untouched since the 1974 invasion on our left. We saw destroyed cemeteries and churches, many of which were converted into mosques.
One of the most shocking sights was the massive flag of the so-called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” recognized only by Turkey. The flag was painted onto a large mountain facing the southern area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus and lit up at night. Next to it is a motto that translates to, “How happy is the one who can say ‘I am a Turk.’”
Turkish actions clearly violate previous international agreements about use of force outside their sovereign territory. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne and U.N. Charter prohibit Turkish interference in foreign lands and forbid “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” violations evident in their seizure and control of the northern part of Cyprus and development throughout the area. If the Western international community continues to allow Turkey, a NATO member nation, to occupy Cyprus, while still providing it with the benefits of alliance membership, what other violations will we allow to slip under the radar?
Cyprus’s struggle is not just a regional issue; the U.S. has real reasons to care about the state of the nation. Due to its proximity to a multitude of global conflicts in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, Cyprus serves as a humanitarian hub for many refugees, especially those from Israel. The nation also has abundant natural gas reserves, giving it clear potential as an energy partner.
The U.S. turning its attention towards Cyprus would have strategic benefits too. For instance, the U.S. has potential to counter growing Chinese influence in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which could undermine the U.S.’s goals of global dominance, maintaining strategic partnerships across the globe and stabilizing conflict. China has strong reasons to look towards Cyprus next, considering its geopolitically strategic location and increasingly important nature as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Mediterranean” for the West. Furthermore, for the first half of 2026, Cyprus will hold the presidency of the Council of the European Union, providing the country with an augmented ability to advance U.S. interests throughout the E.U. by setting agendas and influencing political priorities.
In many cases, the reality of the Cyprus question remains deliberately obscured. For instance, soon after a “Famagusta,” a Netflix documentary about the Turkish invasion, was released in the U.S., the Turkish government successfully campaigned to get it removed after threatening to pull its 2.6 million subscribers from the platform. Now, after decades of ongoing occupation, the world as a whole needs to turn its attention toward Cyprus.
The Cyprus problem is a test case of whether or not the international community will truly uphold the principles they claim to defend. Ignorance is akin to acceptance. As academics, we must do our part in introducing Cyprus into academic discourse and raise concern over what is happening on the island. Silence is no longer an option. The world must know and care about Cyprus. Otherwise, what’s to stop continued violations of international principles our nation’s veterans have risked their lives to defend?
Ana Arzoumanidis is a member of the Class of 2028. Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
