By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
President of the Republic Nikos Christodoulides described the book accompanying Cyprus’s participation in the 19th Architecture Biennale as “unacceptable”, supporting the decision by Deputy Culture Minister Dr Vasiliki Kassianidou to withdraw it. With this statement last Thursday, the President hastened to align himself with a social media post by Pavlos Mylonas on social media, adding that the book attempts to falsify our history.
The DIKO MP and chairman of the Education Committee wrote on Facebook: “The book in question, written in Cypriot dialect, is riddled with historical inaccuracies, raising serious questions about executive oversight of what gets funded. The fact that the book, translated into English, circulates abroad makes this issue dangerous for our national cause. Beyond recognising the existence of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot languages, the authors completely erase the Turkish invasion and occupation, transforming it into a ‘political division’, and refer, among other things, to ‘the two sides’, one of which ‘one recognised, the other not’.”
What caused offence
Let’s set things straight. What primarily caused offence? That there are two sides in Cyprus, one of which is recognised? Truly, does only one side exist in Cyprus—the Republic of Cyprus? We wonder: when the President participates in the five-party talks in July (if they happen), in what capacity will he attend? As President of the Republic of Cyprus or as the Greek Cypriot leader—that is, as representative of one side in Cyprus?
What we suspect caused greater offence is perhaps what the book’s contributors wrote whilst attempting to describe the stalemate in the Cyprus problem in recent years: “Both sides intent on perpetuating separatist, insular, cultural narcissism persisting under the pretext of a frozen ceasefire.”
What honest person who respects facts doesn’t agree that the above excerpt contains a large dose of truth? From 1960-1974, what did Greek Cypriots do? Did they try to operate the Republic of Cyprus as the Zurich-London Treaties envisaged? Wasn’t the policy of Enosis adopted by the Greek Cypriot side “separatist” and “insular”?
How is it possible to sign an Independence solution in 1960 and the next day have President Makarios say that Independence is a station towards Enosis? How truly distressed were Greek Cypriot politicians when Turkish Cypriots retreated to enclaves in 1963 immediately after the Greek Cypriot side’s request to change the Constitution? When Turkish Cypriots subsequently realised their mistake and on 3 June 1964 Fazil Kucuk asked Makarios for their return to government, wasn’t President Makarios’s response narcissistic when he replied: “You are no longer Vice-President. The life and existence of the government doesn’t depend on your will”? (Haravgi newspaper, 4 June 1964). Immediately afterwards we adopted the Greek national anthem and flag and began talking about a second Greek state. Wasn’t our subsequent policy truly narrow-minded when we thought we could manage a civil war too, sometimes founding the National Front and sometimes EOKA B? Wasn’t it foolish to think Turkey would remain uninvolved in these events, especially after the Greek junta’s criminal coup in Cyprus, which flagrantly violated the guarantee treaty?
The Turkish Cypriots
The book naturally concerns Turkish Cypriots too. After Independence, how honest were Turkish Cypriots when in 1960, despite their upgrade from religious group to political community, they chose to establish TMT and began smuggling weapons into Cyprus because they wanted everything? (see the Deniz vessel case). How honest were they after the 1974 Turkish invasion and the freezing of the ceasefire? How narcissistic and narrow-minded did their leadership and Rauf Denktaş prove when he told us the Cyprus problem was solved on the ground, with “you stay there, and we stay here”, ignoring the pain of 150,000 refugees whilst living illegally in Greek Cypriot homes and exploiting Greek Cypriot properties they now sell to foreigners?
Other objections
Some disagreed with other formulations regarding population exchange. The book’s authors wrote: “War, experienced in its dramatic explosive and immediate brutality, has led to territorial forced displacement and population exchange of a majority of Greek Cypriots from the north to the south, and Turkish Cypriots from the south to the north.”
Why do some categorically disagree and why does history doctorate holder Nikos Christodoulides consider the book unacceptable? Turkish soldiers, resorting to unacceptable tactics in 1974—murdering civilians and raping women—forced populations around Kyrenia and subsequently Karpasia’s population into refugeehood. Turkish Cypriots in southern Cyprus, for those who remember, didn’t remain in their villages after the invasion because they were endangered by Greek Cypriot irregulars. Their overwhelming majority had been transferred and lived in the British Bases, mainly around Episkopi. This led to the Third Vienna Agreement in August 1975, which resulted—with many violations by Turkey in Karpasia—in complete population movement.
Phraseology
Some disagree with specific phrases in the book, which refers only to “conflict” in 1974. President Christodoulides, apparently without reading the full text, speaks of “falsifying history”. In reality, the authors are clear, initially referring to the “coup, swiftly followed by a Turkish military invasion”.
Some were also offended by references to Cyprus’s two communities, which have “separate client statehoods”, one of which “one recognised, the other not”. If Mr Mylonas is offended by these references, I hope he never again speaks of client relationships and lack of rule of law on Republic of Cyprus territory.
Some were also offended by the reference to two languages in Cyprus, when it would be more correct to speak of two dialects. Let’s accept this.
What’s the real issue?
We’re ultimately trying to understand what truly offended the President and the House Education Committee chairman Pavlos Mylonas, and generally all the (obviously) nationally-minded politicians and journalists in our country. The truth, perhaps?
Unless, of course, the whole truth is different and based on what our truncated history bequeaths us: that the good Greeks of Cyprus suffered and suffer terribly from the bad Turks. The same applies inversely for Turkish Cypriot nationalists. Anything outside this narrative’s mould is unacceptable, dangerous and constitutes historical falsification. We’ve experienced this before—please, let’s not repeat it. The role of inquisition suits no one, nor is it fair or right for those considering themselves patriots to classify dissenters as traitors.
The text
The text submitted through the book accompanying Cyprus’s participation in the 19th Architecture Biennale may not be perfect, but it certainly has its own perspective. In my opinion, it is and appears more valid than the stereotypical nationalist narrative because it at least attempts to record both communities’ responsibilities. This is what those genuinely wanting to solve our problem do. This is what those who recognise, after 50 years, that our homeland will never be reunited without some concessions do. The President’s adherence to nationalist rhetoric and absolute truths proves what he’s accused of both domestically and especially internationally. He’s not interested in a solution but operates in the logic of blaming the other side, as some of his presidential predecessors did. Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar operates in the same logic.
What a shame
In Cyprus lately we’ve become trapped in easy slogans and narratives. The real loser from this retreat into ease is politics and culture. The attack and silencing attempt against some cultural figures by the President himself, because they wrote their opinion, is a sad development. He, due to anxiety about finding political support, has chosen to adopt nationalist and other phobic rhetoric. The President unfortunately vindicates what Austrian intellectual Karl Kraus wrote: “Nationalism is the love which ties me to the blockheads of my country”.
This article was published on 08.06.2025
