Former MEP Niyazi Kızılyürek speaks to Politis about how Cyprus’ enduring “war of memory” has taken root, and why he believes a memorial at the European Parliament for all victims of the Cypriot tragedy - Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots alike - is vital.
He stresses that the goal is not to erase collective memory, but to end the war over memory by promoting a shared remembrance that frees both communities from the selective memory shaped by nationalism.
“This,” he says, “is one of the most important steps towards peace, because half a truth means half a homeland.”
Why is it important that the memorial at the European Parliament honours all victims of the Cypriot tragedy - both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots?
The European Union attaches great importance to the politics of memory. The goal is not merely to recall the darkest pages of European history, but also to draw lessons from them. To highlight the destructive power of nationalism, fascism and totalitarianism, and to engage in self-criticism.
Of course, this is not a perfect policy of remembrance. As rapporteur for the report on European Historical Consciousness, I saw first-hand how selective memory politics can be. Still, such a policy is essential, both to honour all victims and to help build a peaceful future.
A memorial at the European Parliament for the victims of the Cypriot tragedy - a part of Europe’s own dark history - carries particular significance. It has two dimensions: one that concerns Europe, and one that concerns Cyprus.
First, it reminds Europe of its responsibility toward Cyprus. Second, by putting an end to Cyprus’s “war of memory” and promoting a shared memory, a willingness to see the truth of the Other, we can free ourselves from the selective memory shaped by nationalism and move toward self-criticism.
That, I believe, is one of the most important steps toward peace. Let us not forget: half a truth means half a homeland.
What exactly do you mean by “war of memory”, and how does it apply to Cyprus?
Prolonged conflicts have deep and lasting effects on societies. Each side constructs its own narrative, assigning full blame to the other. These narratives are then passed from generation to generation, through family stories, the education system, and even the military.
In Cyprus, intercommunal tensions that began in the late 1950s and early 1960s - and which culminated in the island’s division following the 1974 Turkish invasion - created a collective memory in which each side views the other as solely responsible. This is how the “war of memory” becomes entrenched.
Nationalist discourse dominates, and anyone who questions their own side’s actions is branded a traitor. Independent thought is discouraged, and those who attempt to explain the perspective of the other are seen as defenders of the enemy.
The media reinforce and amplify this nationalist narrative - not only about past events, but also in the way they frame current developments.
Is there a way to call a truce in this ‘war of memory’?
Of course. The goal is not to erase memory, but to exchange memories. As we tell our own story, we must also listen to the story of the other. We need a new language, one that expresses not only our pain, but also the pain of others.
Decision-makers must therefore adopt reconciliation policies and take institutional measures to support them.
Are there social or political forces in Cyprus capable of supporting an effort to articulate the ‘historical truth’?
It is never easy to speak of “historical truth.” Even among historians, there is little consensus. It is rare to find two who interpret the past in exactly the same way.
What matters most is to open historical issues to public discussion, and to ensure that different interpretations and perspectives are equally accessible to the public. Unfortunately, in Cyprus we face what I call a “prohibition of history.” Certain events are ignored altogether, or are presented in a distorted way.
In the schools of both communities, history teaching is particularly problematic. Instead of knowledge, it often produces prejudice.
We need to revise school history textbooks and adopt the Council of Europe’s recommendations on history teaching, ensuring it is free of racism and sexism, and does not foster hostility, hatred, or bias.
And, crucially, we must stop branding historians whose work we dislike as “traitors.”
Can the EU and the European Parliament play a constructive role in fostering a more holistic approach to history and memory?
When I served in the European Parliament, I was a member of the Committee on Education and Culture. The teaching of history was always on our agenda.
However, education remains under the jurisdiction of member states, so the EU has no power to impose reforms. Still, there are broadly accepted principles: history teaching must be critical and self-critical, pluralistic, and devoid of any form of racism, sexism, or prejudice.
These principles should also be applied here in Cyprus.
The election of Tufan Erhürman has raised hopes for the Cyprus problem. Is that hope enough, or must the new Turkish Cypriot leader take concrete initiatives?
Indeed, Erhürman’s election has inspired hope. There are many reasons for his success, but clearly the “two-state solution” promoted by Erdoğan and Tatar has not found popular acceptance.
However, hope alone is not enough. A lasting settlement requires political will. Let us not forget that when António Guterres reviewed the collapse of the Crans-Montana talks, he spoke of a “lack of political will.”
We will see whether both leaders possess that will. In the meantime, there are steps that can be taken.
Erhürman could take the initiative on several fronts, for example: opening new crossing points, facilitating the return of Maronites to their villages, restoring village names in both Greek and Turkish, implementing the EU’s solar energy project, establishing closer contacts with the Greek Cypriot community, and engaging openly with the press.
What steps should the Greek Cypriot side take to help restart the talks?
The same principles apply to President Nikos Christodoulides. Measures could include opening additional crossing points, granting citizenship documents to children of mixed marriages, allowing Turkish Cypriots to open bank accounts in the Republic, and promoting cooperation on environment and energy issues, among others.
Could Turkey change course on Cyprus and return to supporting a federal solution?
Turkey’s stance on Cyprus has never been entirely consistent; it has always shifted according to circumstances and national interests. There are, however, two constants: Ankara has always opposed union with Greece, and has always maintained that Turkish Cypriots are not a minority but a politically equal community.
Therefore, guided by its interests, Turkey could once again - as in the past - change its position. Developments in EU–Turkey relations and energy issues in the Eastern Mediterranean could eventually move Ankara away from the two-state narrative and toward endorsing renewed negotiations for a federal Cyprus.