The European Parliament’s decision to fund a monument honoring the victims and missing persons of the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus has sparked sharp reactions, underscoring the island’s enduring divisions between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
The proposal, introduced during deliberations on the EU’s 2026 budget by Greek Cypriot MEP Michalis Hadjipantela, passed with a comfortable majority, backed primarily by Greek and Greek Cypriot representatives. Hadjipantela described the planned memorial as “a perpetual reminder of an open wound for Europe,” positioning it both as a symbolic political statement and a gesture of solidarity with Cypriot victims. Supporters say the monument, to be located at the heart of the European Union, will serve as a focal point for remembrance, awareness, and historical truth.
Hadjipantela urged that EU resources be allocated for its construction, stressing that “Europe must remember and stand by the victims of the Turkish invasion.” This sentiment resonates strongly within the Greek Cypriot community, where many view the initiative as moral recognition of their suffering.
However, the announcement provoked swift and forceful condemnation from prominent Turkish Cypriot figures. Former Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat called the decision “unilateral” and criticized it as lacking in diplomacy and inclusivity. He argued that it disregards the equal pain endured by Turkish Cypriots and highlights shortcomings in their representation within EU institutions.
Similarly, the new leader of the internationally unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), Tufan Erhürman described the monument plan as “one of the most painful examples of acting as if Turkish Cypriots do not exist on this island.” He underscored the absence of genuine Turkish Cypriot voices in the European Parliament, noting that the two seats theoretically reserved for them are currently occupied by Greek Cypriots.
Both Talat and Erhürman referred to the bicommunal Committee on Missing Persons (CMP), which has worked for decades to locate and identify missing persons from both communities. They argued that the EU’s monument decision sidesteps the CMP’s mandate and politicizes what should remain a humanitarian issue. In their view, any memorial should reflect the shared tragedy, as victims and missing persons include Turkish Cypriots as well as Greek Cypriots.
Former MEP Niyazi Kızılyürek joined the criticism, publishing an open letter to European Parliament President Roberta Metsola. In it, he warned that one‑sided commemorations risk deepening divisions rather than fostering reconciliation. Kızılyürek stressed that victims existed on both sides even before 1974 and urged the adoption of inclusive remembrance policies honoring all lives lost, regardless of ethnicity or political affiliation. He invoked the European Union’s founding ideals, reminding lawmakers that peace and unity require recognition of all suffering.
The controversy comes at a time when renewed UN‑led efforts to reach a settlement between Greek and Turkish Cypriots remain stalled. Analysts note that the politics of memory on the island are deeply sensitive, often reflecting the broader political deadlock.
While supporters see the monument as a step toward truth and solidarity, critics warn it could deepen mistrust and undermine prospects for eventual reunification. The decision coincided with the election of Tufan Erhürman as the new Turkish Cypriot leader — a timing that some observers believe may further complicate the climate for dialogue as both communities recalibrate their political strategies.