Talks | Ümit İnatçı
October 21, 2025
Talks with artist, writer, and Ars Axis magazine publisher and editor-in-chief Ümit İnatçı on art, freedom, borders, and Cyprus...
Ümit İnatçı: I have never been able to be hopeful. For me, being hopeful is a consolation for those who can do nothing. But we don't have that kind of society. The society that can recognise what is valuable and what is worthless. So, there is no hierarchy of axiology, no hierarchy of values. Quite the opposite.
Evan Levent: Why not?
Üİ: Why not? Because it is a characteristic of mediocrity. Seeing something better than oneself makes one uncomfortable.
EL: What does this mediocrity depend on?
Üİ: On not wanting anything better. It lacks that ability. The ability of requiring a better version of something, recognising it and acknowledging that it deserves it.
EL: Because of an inferiority complex?
Üİ: It's complicated. This is also a kind of inferiority complex.They don't even know what they're used to. Because there are different sociological layers. That is, there is a working class, a civil servant class, and a so-called intellectual class. In our country, these layers are not peaceful, intertwined layers. That is, a civil servant does not know his job. An intellectual doesn't know his own limits. You see, academics think that by acquiring titles, they become great scientists.
EL: When you say they don't know their own limits, do you mean they don't know themselves?
Üİ: They don't know themselves either. Knowing yourself is also very important. This is something that comes from the ancient Romans or Greeks. ‘Nosce Te Ipsum’ (Latin for “know thyself”). Know thyself. After all, when you don't know yourself, everything is a fantasy to you.
EL: What do boundaries mean to you?
EL: Can we live without authority?
Üİ: There must be benevolent authority. That is, authority is needed to remedy the evils of humanity. Humanist authority is necessary. When we say authority, we mean power. Now, where does the need for law come from? So that people don't kill anyone who comes their way, don't steal, don't do this, don't do that. For restriction in a good and bad sense. Restriction for humans. Humans, yes. Because humans are not good creatures.
EL: They need to be restricted...
Üİ: Of course. Look, the Islamists weren't restricted, and what happened? That's what I mean when I say know thyself. Humans must know their own limits. But these limits are mental, human limits. I'm not talking about national borders.
EL: Would you feel safe in Cyprus, for example, if there were no borders?
Üİ: Wanting there to be no borders at all could necessitate other kinds of restrictions. For example, you would say to someone, yes, you can live wherever you want, but I must respect the life there. You must not come and destroy its existence.
EL: Can we do that here? Can we say that we are removing borders and that no one is an obstacle to anyone else's existence?
But there are other borders. There are mental borders. There are ideological borders. There are religious borders. When I talk about borders, I am talking about all of these. And for these to begin, humanity needs a process. Perhaps this process will be very bad.
EL: You're saying we can't give such a guarantee...
Üİ: Guarantees are already your obstacle. And they feed your reticence. They feed your cowardice. Because the moment a person starts thinking about what will happen to them, their egocentric nature comes out.
So, I need to protect myself from something. You won't think about that. You'll say, let me be sacrificed, but let humanity be fine a hundred years from now.
EL: Are Cypriots guarantee-oriented?
Üİ: Cypriots are very guarantee-oriented. For example, even if we got everything we wanted today, it would take half a century for us to recover. It's not that easy. Do you think that when the AKP leaves power in Turkey today, everything will suddenly get better? It's very difficult. Because the mindset has become ingrained there. It takes time for that mindset to slowly crumble and dissolve.
But we have to start somewhere. We humans see history as a linear process. It starts here, progresses here, ends here. History isn't like that. History is a spiral. And sometimes, by chance, certain things start something. And even if that new thing is often a good thing, you perceive it as bad. Because it's uncertain. But you have to accept the uncertainty. Because that is dialectics. There is never a concrete reality. Processes may give birth to realities you did not expect. Who knows, maybe those realities are beyond your expectations, better. Or worse. But in that process, with that will to know yourself, you find a solution. Perhaps solutions you hadn't thought of will come to mind. But the process is important. You have to start. That is, you have to initiate the process.
EL: So why can't Cypriots bring themselves to accept such a change?
Üİ: Conformism. Conformism is the greatest bastion of conservatism. Because conservatism begins with protecting one's position. What do you preserve? What do you feel the need to preserve? You hold on to what you can define yourself by. If it's not something you can define yourself by and it creates doubt in you, you resist it. This is the problem of those who cannot say they have removed the boundaries in their minds. So, in fact, our biggest problem lies in our inability to take even uncertainty into account and initiate a dynamic and revolutionary process. So, it's not even ideological, actually. It's a bit anthropological. Humans always have these reflexes to protect themselves.
EL: Is such a thing possible?
Üİ: I can't see such a thing. Because they believed so strongly that we were experiencing something normal here, that is, occupation, ceasefire regime... These concepts, which are unnecessary for some, are fundamental concepts, and even mentioning them is significant. So it's as if you're talking in vain, as if there's no such thing. How many people within the borders defined as the TRNC analyse it this way and start by saying the problem is the occupation? How many people are left? I don't know, I don't think there are more than a hundred. So there is a serious imbalance between the regime and the opposition.
And we will never overcome this regime. The big players will decide. Just as, in 1960, Britain decided. It was in economic difficulties after the Second World War. Let me get rid of this Cyprus they thought. But let me take a couple of pieces of land, let me take my bases here. Let me create a state for the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. Let them be my satellites, let them not stray from my word. We went and signed it. Is the Republic of Cyprus a republic born of the free will of the Cypriots? Where does it say that?
EL: Three years ago, in a programme you did with Ulaş Barış, you said that all the politicians currently in parliament should resign and step down...
Üİ: Yes. I would say the same thing today. If you believe, and if you want to convince this society, that we have a way out, this is it. It means showing a radical, wholesale counter-reaction and telling the world that this country is under occupation. That is the first step. Then people can think and say that there is a blood incompatibility between Turkey's colonial regime and the society living here. Can they say that today? There is no such scenario. I have been to Strasbourg, many times... We talk to people there. When we ask them why they don't take more forceful steps in Cyprus, they say there is no such demand from you. They do their research. Trust in the military is 90%, trust in Turkey is 90%, demand for a guarantee agreement is 90%. Who would believe you? Even today, our main opposition party says that a solution can be found through reconciliation with Turkey. You cannot find a solution through reconciliation with Turkey. You can find Turkey's solution. That is, if you can find it. Because Turkey does not want a solution right now. It wants no solution.
EL: So how should it be? Should we return to a single state under a single roof?
Transformation according to what? According to historical processes. In other words, there is a factual process, a positivist approach. The federal solution emerges from a positivist approach. An event occurred. The two communities separated. These were unnecessary, superfluous, wrong. These are now over, indisputable. Because there is a divided island. There are societies that have developed in opposite directions. Today, even among the Greeks, there are people who do not want a federation, who want it even less than before, who are ready to recognise a separate state.
EL: Why is that?
Üİ: Because they internalised that break. It is the fault of these societies. Both sides. So, it's not that the Greeks are right and the Turks are wrong, or that the Turks are right and the Greeks are wrong — it's not like that. It's a joint product. They did these things together. I lived there for seven years, I was a diplomat, I know.
They sent me as a diplomat, I was registered as “local staff”.
When I discovered this, I said, I'm leaving, I handed in my resignation, and I left. Why, I asked? Well, it's been like this since 1960 they said... And a lot of stuff. So now we say there is a geographical occupation in the North, but there is also a constitutional occupation in the South, and they say don't say that. But I lived it. I'm not someone who believes in the Republic of Cyprus either. Because the Republic of Cyprus is a republic formulated by the British colony. But it's valid. So let's use it. Can Turkish Cypriots come out today and say, “We're returning to the republic”? I want them to say that. We had a fight with Christofias in London after the Annan Plan referendum. Why did you say no, I said. They gave us an opportunity to start from somewhere, and you rejected it. Will there be something better, I said. Could it be worse than this, he said to me. Well then, I said, since that didn't happen, make an announcement to the Turkish Cypriots and say that The Republic of Cyprus is yours, and say 'we have reversed that decision'. Write to the United Nations too. Say that the Republic of Cyprus will no longer be represented one-sidedly by the Greek Cypriots. I said, you're the president, do it. Do you know what he said to me? I'll tell you the translation. He said, “We'll f*ck it up”. Exactly like that. Their order will be disrupted. They won't be able to cope, they won't be able to handle it.
EL: Do people want freedom?
Üİ: People are already free. But they are also liars. Because there is no freedom; what they mean is that they don't want to be free.
EL: Do Cypriots know what freedom is, do they want freedom?
Üİ: This isn't just a Cypriot issue, it's an issue for all humanity. Cypriots exaggerate themselves too much. They think — because Cypriots are a very sociocentric community — that the world revolves around Cyprus. But Cyprus is a speck in the Mediterranean. We have problems because we can't see ourselves as global citizens. We have problems because we can't see Cyprus from the perspective of the world. We think even our smallest problems are the world's biggest problems. Nobody cares. If anyone cared, the Cyprus issue would have been resolved long ago. When we realise that nobody cares about Cyprus and we assert our will about our own future, then things might change. So I believe that these marches, the protests, the manifestos, have now reached a point of futility. Because it's like fragmented memory.
We are creating a memory, but this memory does not come together holistically to form a field of consciousness. It is fragmented. When do these fragments reveal themselves? They reveal themselves in moments of reaction. If there is nothing we can react to, they do not emerge within society. So there is a reactionary attitude in the Turkish Cypriot community, in the area we call opposition. As long as this is the case, these will be absorbed by the regime. So your flashes of insight, the oppositional attitude you display reactively, actually serve to expand the regime's sphere of influence here. Because it has the power to remove your petty oppositional antics. From time to time, it makes you feel its power. From time to time, you think you have gained ground. This makes you feel equal. But it is actually a lie. It is stronger than you. So what should be done? Another power must be created to counter that power. How will this power be formed? It will be formed by people who think exactly the same way coming together...
EL: What is the alternative to capitalism?
Üİ: Anarchism. Socialist anarchism, of course. Not statist anarchism. I don't believe in the state either.
EL: Do you believe in the individual?
Üİ: The individual is very important. If we don't believe in the individual, society cannot emerge. We always say things, there are these very demagogic, populist statements. Either one of us, or all of us. Or how do they say it, if I don't burn, if you don't burn, and so on. I find these very contrived. The individual will exist. Society cannot exist without the individual creating their own existence processes. The individual will know who they are and what they are. They will know their limits. They will know what they can do. They will know their capacity. They will know their talent. And we need to create an environment for the individual to develop those talents. The stronger the individual, the stronger socialism can be. But there must be individual consciousness and social consciousness. Individualism is one thing. Individuality is another. Egoism or egocentricity is something else. Being able to determine the existence of the ego is something else. We confuse these concepts a lot.
EL: What kind of socialism?
Üİ: A socialism without a state. I did not invent this. These are the things that libertarian socialism envisages, and in my opinion, even if a century passes, humanity will reach this point. Because capitalism is like an octopus. When it is hungry, it will eat its own legs. It is already eating them. Everything we are experiencing today is the result of capitalism and neoliberalism.
But we think that by earning more money, by making more money, by feeling better about ourselves – because this is the form of feeling good that capitalism has taught us – we think that by achieving all these things, we are better people. And we even feel satisfied because we are better than others. Look, he is poorer than me, I am better. When all this disappears, we can become human beings. Because there has been a humanism since the Renaissance period.
But what kind of period was that humanism period? They brought God's divine power down to earth with scholastic philosophy. Let us give up the other world now. The earth we live on is the world above. And this earth is also a reflection of God. This was a great revolution, the beginning of humanism. But we need a new humanism. And a new understanding of civilisation, which is what Gramsci meant when he said that the old civilisation is dying, but the new one is not being born.
EL: A lot of time has passed since Gramsci...
Üİ: Not much time has passed. That is also a human obsession. We expect everything to happen within 70 or 80 years because our lifespan is 70 years. But the Renaissance lasted 600 years. Time is not like that.
EL: So if we cannot set a specific time, we can say in a utopian future...
Üİ: So when we talk about the Egyptians, we're talking about 1500 BC. When we talk about Mesopotamia, we're talking about 3500 BC. What we call civilisation isn't something that happens in 100 years. They established a modern state in Turkey – a modern state in quotation marks. A hundred years have passed since then. What happened? Is it that easy to build a civilisation? It's not like that.
EL: So, in your opinion, is human nature really a being that wants equality, that wants to live in an equal order?
Üİ: Holistically—even within this question, a second question arises: is there equality among people? You're saying, can people accept equality?
EL: I'm asking if they want it. Do people really want to be equal?
Üİ: If they can feel it, they can want it. So if they say, I feel equal, but this system doesn't provide me with that environment of equality. Then I want it—and by wanting, I mean Schopenhauer's kind of wanting. When a tendency to desire arises, a human will also emerges. Now, if I imagine equality and desire it, even its limits are clear. Because one person's capacity is not the same as another's. So there are areas where we can be equal, and areas where we cannot. True equality begins with determining these areas of equality. This is not a new concept. This is why Socrates was sentenced to death.
What he said was very simple, and it is still valid today. Can people without reason determine democracy? We see the results. This means that people need education, teaching, and a process of development. That is where equality lies. So when does equality exist? There must be equality in opening the way for people who can open the way for humanity. Not the equality determined by ideologies.
EL: Based on your experiences and observations while living in the south, if you were to answer, do you think the Greek Cypriots are ready to live with the Turkish Cypriots again?
Üİ: I can't give a homogeneous answer to that. It varies from person to person. If you spoke to 100 people today, 20 would give one answer, 30 would give another. There is no single answer.
EL: That's interesting, because my first contact with Greek Cypriots, for example, was after the borders opened in 2003, when I was working on Panicos Hrisantou's film “Akamas”. And although I met some very nice people, I remember that disappointment prevailed in that first impression...
Üİ: Well, the environment you enter is important... For example, I have very good friends. Like brothers… I can even say that I have more friends within the Greek Cypriot community. And there are people there that I would call first if I were in trouble. I wouldn't call someone from our community, I would call them. I have such good connections. But that doesn't mislead me. Because I know the situation there too. In fact, these friends aren't very happy with the situation either.
EL: What do you mean by “it doesn't deceive me”? It doesn't deceive you about which reality? So you're talking about a homogeneous structure, but you have a reality that you've created for yourself, right? Even if it's not so black and white.
Üİ: Now, we're talking about an individual who has completed their formation process. This individual is actually such that neither religion nor nation matters to them. I find these concepts ridiculous. For example, Andrea is my friend. The first thing that comes to mind is not that Andrea is Greek Cypriot. The first thing that comes to mind is that Andrea is a very good friend of mine. But how many people like that are there? I see because... And as I said, there are many people on the left too. Those who say we need to recognise the TRNC. There are even those who say “self-determination”. We argue a lot with them.
EL: Is there anything keeping you awake at night lately?
Üİ: Everything keeps me awake. (laughs) I mean, what keeps me awake is the opposition. Not the UBP (National Unity Party). I mean, so much hypocrisy... It's like the knife is at the bone now. Can we do anything? No, we can't. But I see these fights in parliament... They're fighting with the UBP.
I mean, with shadows... It's a Platonic fight. There's this Platonic allegory of shadows, and that's the kind of realm that exists in parliament.
EL: Can an artist be close to those in power? Or should they always stand against them?
Üİ: No. It's not like that. What power? From the moment you introduce the concept of power, it becomes something contrary to art. That's why I talk about libertarian social anarchism. You have to be against anything that could be considered authoritarian power. Not authority—that's why I make that distinction. So, an authority will be there to improve things. But not an absolute authority. A communal authority. An authority where everyone can have a say and where we can see how something better can emerge from there. Concrete powers, even the powers in our backward societies, are not powers related to governance, but powers related to oppression. And they have no need to govern. For them, governance is about administration and oppression. Like in Turkey. If you speak out, you go to prison.
EL: What is the driving force behind your art? I mean, what guides your art...
Üİ: To be able to understand the universe, to be able to understand existence... To be able to understand the limits of human intelligence. That's why I'm learning universal culture.
That's why I draw inspiration from art forms that have emerged in all regions. And what I try to do is universal art. There are elements from all over the world. So when you look at it, you can see Egypt, you can see Mesopotamia, you can see India, you can see China. You can see America, you can see Latin America. You can see everything. But to see this, you need to have knowledge of art. You need to know art history. You need to know how art was formed. Because art is a cultural field that can be consumed by knowledgeable people. People think that the artist will do something, an ignorant person will come along, and the artist will stop and explain it to them. I did this for that reason. There is no such thing. That is utter nonsense. That is why art education is necessary. The artist is not a teacher.
EL: Does art have a concern, such as conveying an idea or a message?
Üİ: No. Art is not like that. I try to become aware of my own existence. And people try to understand what a person's relationship with the earth, with life, is by looking at my production processes. I read a novel, I try to understand it. A painting. Why this painting? Why does the artist paint like this? I try to understand it. So the artist doesn't say, “Here's the message” by painting 100, 200, 300 pictures. When you have knowledge about the artist's philosophy of life, then you already know what the artist wants to say to you. That's why there are different tendencies.
EL: So, does the artist have a responsibility regarding their work?
Üİ: Regarding themselves, of course. They have an ethical responsibility.
I mean, for example, I see them opening these ridiculous exhibitions, and I don't find that ethical. If you know that what you're doing is actually worthless, but you present that worthless thing as a great work of art, then there's an ethical problem. That's where ethics begin. Why do you present yourself as an artist without being one? Is that ethical? If you're not a dentist and you open a dental surgery, saying, ‘Come, I'll fix your teeth,’ is that ethical? But everyone does this in art. If art were electricity and it shocked you when you touched it without knowing how to handle it, no one would touch it. But it doesn't shock you, the damn thing ('beytambal' in original text --(a “cursed load'' in Cypriot dialect). That's why everyone sticks their hand in.
EL: Does happiness or peace mean death for an artist?
Üİ: That's how — they say sometimes —if you're happy you can't produce anything. A true thinker and a true artist doesn't really have much to do with the concept of happiness. I don't start my day by asking myself how I can be happy. I don't start by asking myself what makes me unhappy. Not me — not me. What is good and bad for humanity? That's where I start.
The concepts of peace and happiness are often confused. You can be unhappy and still be at peace. Why? Because your conscience is clear.
So there are many things that bother me. There are many things that cause me pain. But I am at peace. Because it's good that I can see these things. It's good that I'm aware. It doesn't matter if I'm happy.
EL: You're angry...
Üİ: Of course. Because anger is a virtue. Virtuous people get angry. They get upset.
EL: Did you go to Varosha after it opened?
Üİ: I went - with friends. Even Varosha shows what a despicable society we are. So, in the place you call your common homeland, they take people's homes, loot them, destroy them, and then open them up for tourism and show them off. How can this despicable behaviour be accepted? A few people come out and say something like we do, but who listens to us? If the parties integrated into the system, the parties that want peace, don't speak up about this, what good is what we say? It's a disgraceful situation. Sometimes artist friends come, and I take them to see it. So they can learn the truth about Cyprus... Because most intellectuals in Turkey don't know Cyprus very well. They know a few things based on the official ideology's understanding of history. When I take them to see it, they are shocked too. Imagine, the owner of that house comes there, looks at his house, relives his memories, cries and leaves.
And you feel comfortable with that (?) We are not a healthy society. Our state of mind is not good.
EL: Do you think there is a Cypriot identity crisis?
Üİ: First and foremost, I am a human being. I am human. Where do I live? In Cyprus. So how can I make the place I live in more beautiful? That is my question. My question is not how to be the best Cypriot. Because the question of how to be the best Cypriot and how to be the best Turk is actually the same. And it takes you to the same place. As people living in this geography, how can we make this country more beautiful? How can we live together with love for humanity? That is my question. That's why I don't have an identity question. If we start with the identity issue, it means we're starting from a flawed place. Then we turn to folkloric elements.
Dillirga, millirga (Dillirga— Cypriot folk song). It goes like that. Why shouldn't my light be in Hegel? Why shouldn't it be in Kant? Why shouldn't it be in Schopenhauer, for example? Or why not in Confucius? There are many intelligent people on earth. Not German, not French, not Italian. Human.
EL: This brings us to what you said about needing a new order in the future...
Üİ: We have to. Of course, because if a thousand people used to work in a factory, today that number has fallen to a hundred. They switched to an automation system. They robotised humans within the control mechanism... Something went wrong somewhere. So, ultimately, the destination is clear.
Good things happen along the way, and bad things happen too. That's part of life. You plant two saplings in the garden... You give both the same amount of water.
When their roots reach the bottom, perhaps one of them will find a rock at the bottom. It won't grow well. A year later, it will wither. The other one will grow. That's life...
Üİ:Right now, the Republic of Cyprus is the most effective constitutional tool we can use. And the federal solution will also emerge from within the Republic of Cyprus. That is the nature of this negotiation process. They think that the two communities will agree and that the two communities will form a single entity as separate entities. That is not the case. The federal state is a transformation of the Republic of Cyprus.
Üİ: For me, there are no boundaries. That is, there are no boundaries in my mind. I also consider the political boundaries on the ground to be the enemy of humanity. That is, the enemy of being human. Because setting boundaries means not establishing authority. That is the ruling here.
Üİ: So it's a matter of respect. We have to be able to say it. Because if we don't, the healing process won't begin. Once the occupiers leave, once the Turkish army leaves this place, once the settlers leaves, then the borders will automatically disappear. Who determines the border? The existence of the occupation? When that ends, the border will also disappear.
Talks
OZ KARAHAN | POLITICAL ACTIVIST
September 20, 2025
Oz Karahan at the Ledra Street in Nicosia...
Oz Karahan is a 34-year-old political activist. He is the son of an Meskhetian father and a Turkish Cypriot mother... Born in Istanbul and living there until the age of fifteen, he moved to Cyprus and has been living in the south of the island for the last six years... He is currently the president of the Union of Cypriots organization. Last June, after the Union of Cypriots, together with the Green Party, presented a list of 33 companies involved in the sale of Greek Cypriot property in the north of the island to Nikos Christodoulides, he became one of the targets of fanatical nationalists in the north and was threatened...
How did you come up with the idea to submit such a list to the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus?
In 2006, the Republic of Cyprus enacted Law 303A on property. This law introduced penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment for selling, renting, or advertising Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied area. It is regrettable that such legislation was not passed earlier, and even more regrettable that, once passed, it was never effectively enforced.
In the case of Akan Kürşat, for instance— (in February 2024, the District Court of Nicosia ruled that he had committed no crime in relation to the sale of Greek Cypriot properties in the TRNC and ordered his release— Avfri) we witnessed once again the government’s unwillingness to act on this issue.
In response, we, as the Union of Cypriots together with the Green Party, decided to compile a list. This list was not secret; it was open and accessible to everyone. Yet its publication caused turmoil both in the occupied area and here. On the very same day, Cafer Gürcafer, President of the Contractors’ Association, declared that this was “an act of war.” (Erhan) Arıklı and his brother also erupted in anger—hardly surprising, since Arıklı himself is a usurper. Thus, even that very simple list was enough to unleash chaos.
This is a list of construction companies and businessmen who have built on Greek Cypriot property in the occupied area. It is, in essence, a very simple list—one that everyone already knows, and one that could easily be compiled through a basic Google search. Yet the reaction to it has been explosive. The reverberations were felt not only in the occupied north but also in the free area.
The first to be unsettled were Gürcafer and Arıklı in the occupied area, followed closely by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. For the government, the priority has always been to avoid reopening such matters, which is why the law passed in 2006 remains unenforced to this day.
Of course, there is a reason for this. The governments of the Republic of Cyprus have been repeatedly warned by the European Union and the United States not to take steps in this direction—supposedly, “so as not to spoil the atmosphere for a solution.”
But we did not merely disclose the names of the companies; we exposed the entire picture. We wrote openly about why no steps have been taken so far, and why no steps are likely to be taken in the future. Naturally, this unsettled them. Soon after, arrests and other forms of pressure began in the free area. The government of the Republic of Cyprus was deeply disturbed by our actions.
Still, we continue our work—demanding that those responsible serve their sentences, and that others, too, be held accountable. This is such a simple step, yet it has never been taken. I am not boasting about it; on the contrary, I describe it as a terrible reflection of the situation we are in.
What we do, even as a political organization and party, has a tangible impact—so imagine what the state itself could accomplish, if it wished. And yet, we stand our ground: we confront the government here in the Republic of Cyprus, we confront the occupier, and we confront the politics that sustain this status quo. But we take the people with us. We are not marginalized. We remain the voice of society’s conscience.
So what needs to be done about this in practice?
They must apply greater pressure—they must exhaust every legal means. The governments of the Republic of Cyprus, for example, have spent half a century deceiving the people of Cyprus with empty rhetoric, doing virtually nothing to address the plunder of properties in the occupied territories or the issue of settlers.
Last year, following the arrest of Akan Kürşat, we pursued a strategy centered on ensuring he would not be released. Our aim was to shape public opinion, to make clear that someone involved in the usurpation of property could not simply walk free. Yet we failed—because of the government. By releasing him, the government signed a disgraceful act, effectively condoning property grabs.
It was then we realized that we had to act on our own, to take steps ourselves to change this reality. For this is the most pressing issue. Soldiers may withdraw tomorrow, circumstances may change, but the settler problem remains. The settlers are the occupiers’ long-term strategy, spreading like a cancer through the land—just as Israel does in Palestine. This is a question of Cyprus’s survival, of the very existence of the Republic of Cyprus.
Now, regarding identity: there is a distinction between ethnicity and nationality—between ethnic identity and national identity. Why do you argue that the future should be built on national identity rather than ethnicity?
Because we are not racists. We must not be racists. Ethnic identity is only one facet of human existence. Every person carries multiple identities—ethnic, gender, economic, professional, familial. Being a student is an identity; being a mother is an identity. Human beings wear many hats, and ethnicity is but one of these sub-identities.
In today’s nation-state system, these sub-identities exist beneath a greater, overarching identity—a upper-identity. That is what we must strengthen and rely upon.
That upper-identity is national identity. Citizenship is more than a legal status; it is a cultural and territorial bond with the land. It serves as a unifying force, a common point of belonging for all citizens of the state, for everyone who lives on that soil.
Our politics are not built on sub-identities; they are built on the higher identity—on national identity. Yet the current structure does not fully reflect this principle.
According to the 1960 Constitution, Cyprus was established as a unitary state. In other words, the most important institutions and responsibilities of the state were to be managed from a single center. Yet within this central administration, ethnic privilege was embedded. For instance, thirty percent of state employees were to be Turkish Cypriots and seventy percent Greek Cypriots; likewise, thirty percent of parliament seats were reserved for Turkish Cypriots and seventy percent for Greek Cypriots. The Constitution also stipulated that the Vice President must be Turkish Cypriot and the President Greek Cypriot.
Beyond this, separate community councils were created, granting each community authority over its own education and cultural life. In this way, the 1960 Constitution did not foster a super-identity that could unify all citizens. Instead, it elevated sub-identities and entrenched divisions among people.
The education systems imposed on us by foreign powers and occupiers carried a message: you cannot live together; you cannot create democratic unity together. That is why they continue to propose solutions modeled on the 1960 arrangements, or in the form of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation.
Yet, thanks to the struggle of İbrahim Aziz and the case he won before the European Court of Human Rights, today we cast our votes together in the European Parliament elections—even as the occupation persists, even as true coexistence remains out of reach.
I believe that democratic unity among Cypriots is possible without ethnic quotas or similar arrangements, and I have consistently supported this view. The 2019 European Parliament elections already demonstrated this. They offered a glimpse of what such democratic unity could look like—of how Greek Cypriots could cast their votes for Turkish Cypriot candidates. At the same time, the Jasmine Movement, despite having no budget and facing enormous difficulties, managed to secure a significant number of votes, largely thanks to Şener Levent’s name.
In any case, a return to the 1960 Constitution is impossible. Its ethnic-based structure was incompatible with European Union law, which is why it was amended in the first place. Certain aspects of it simply cannot be reinstated.
I am neither a supporter nor an admirer of the European Union. Had the Republic of Cyprus not joined the EU, we would not be facing many of the problems that weigh on us today—whether economic troubles or those arising from the refugee crisis. Yet, whether we like it or not, Cyprus is now a member state of the European Union. In my view, the sovereignty Cyprus has surrendered to the EU outweighs the benefits it has received in return.
Greek Cypriots know deep down inside that the current order will always come to an end. Because they live on this island with an invading, rapist great power. This is what I am trying to explain. There is also the fact that Greek Cypriots have not benefited from the occupation as much as Turkish Cypriots, on the contrary, they have suffered materially.
TURKISH CYPRIOTS AND ACCESS TO THE HEALTH SYSTEM IN THE SOUTH
The health system in the Republic of Cyprus is called GESY. It is an entirely independent system established by the government. In the past, any citizen of the Republic of Cyprus could benefit from public healthcare—including Turkish Cypriots. But that system eventually collapsed; it was not economically sustainable.
Like most states, Cyprus then adopted a more functional model—GESY. Under this system, individuals contribute financially and, in return, gain access to healthcare. Employees, pensioners, and people with disabilities are all entitled to its services.
When this change was introduced, Turkish Cypriots who had been receiving care in hospitals in the free area until 2015 suddenly lost access—simply because they were not contributing to the system. Yet many assumed the reason was ethnic: that hospitals were turning them away for being Turkish Cypriot. This is not the case. Interpreting every issue in such terms only reinforces ethnicist thinking.
As long as we fail to defend the Republic of Cyprus and its sovereignty, such situations will continue to arise. Of course, everyone is free to defend the political vision they choose: two separate states, or a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. But what must be understood is that these are alternatives outside the framework of the Republic of Cyprus—and they only serve to distance Turkish Cypriots further from the existing state.
Cyprus' entry into Schengen...
For many years, the Republic of Cyprus refrained from joining the Schengen Area, largely to avoid placing Turkish Cypriots in a difficult position. Once within Schengen, checkpoint controls would inevitably become stricter, making life more complicated for Turkish Cypriots.
But time changes everything. In 2022, when Nikos Christodoulides was serving as Foreign Minister, the Republic of Cyprus formally applied to join Schengen. Naturally, this move was not motivated primarily by concerns about Turkish Cypriots. Other factors were at play—most notably the growing number of refugees who arrive on the island and then find themselves stranded, since Cyprus is not part of Schengen. For these and other reasons, Cyprus felt compelled to submit its application.
From my perspective, however, this is a troubling development—not only for Turkish Cypriots. Schengen membership also means reinforcing the dividing line across the island, further entrenching the barricades that already separate us. On a technical level, it hardens division. And for that reason, I am firmly opposed.
What is an ‘illegal settler’?
The definition comes from the Rome Statute—the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, which deals with war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to the Statute, when an occupying power transfers its own population into occupied territory, or otherwise alters the natural demographic structure of that territory, those individuals are considered illegal settlers. This practice constitutes a crime against humanity. If it takes place during war, it is classified as a war crime; if it continues after the war, it falls under crimes against humanity—the gravest crime under international law. That is precisely why, for now, their children are denied citizenship.
What if a French citizen—or someone of another nationality—marries a Turkish Cypriot? Can their children claim Cypriot citizenship?
This issue has nothing to do with ethnic identity. The only criterion is residence in the occupied area. If someone—be they French, German, or otherwise—settles there, the same rule applies. And indeed, there are already such cases.
“Apartheid Is Not a Solution”
The slogan “Apartheid is not a solution” is one we often carry on your banners during demonstrations. But can we truly speak of an apartheid regime in Cyprus?
Colonialism has never cared about skin color. Africa was colonized. Asia, Latin America, Ireland, Malta—all colonized. The logic was always the same: if exploitation served imperial interests, it was carried out, regardless of race or culture.
We maintain close ties with African organizations, developing anti-imperialist arguments together. Their struggle is genuine and deeply felt. It is wrong—completely wrong—to claim that Cyprus cannot be compared to Africa. That claim comes from today’s so-called liberal left, suffocated by identity politics. They tell us not to compare the struggle of the white Cypriot to that of the Arab Palestinian or the African. Yet the colonizer’s strategy may shift from place to place, but the enemy remains the same. The Palestinian fighter knows that without Cyprus’s freedom, there can be no freedom for Palestine. To sever these connections in the name of identity politics is to abandon the Palestinian, and the African, to their fate.
Africans themselves reject this separation. Palestinians reject it. The only ones pushing this argument are Europeans lost in identity politics—those who wave the Palestinian flag today because it is fashionable, only to move on tomorrow when another cause takes center stage. We, however, stand with these struggles yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Imperialism Beyond Labor and Resources
Imperialism takes many forms. Not everywhere is labor exploited. Not everywhere are natural resources plundered. Exploitation adapts itself to each region.
In meetings with European Marxists, we often hear the claim that “geopolitical exploitation” is nonsense—that imperialism is only about labor and natural resources. But such arguments serve their own interests. They are Europeans, reading Marx narrowly, while setting aside Lenin, Mao, and others. Their vision is limited.
The British did not come to Cyprus for its copper mines. They came to control the Suez Canal. Their imperialism here was geopolitical, not economic. To ignore that is to misunderstand both history and the present.
Our Ideology
We stand for the national democratic revolution, as Lenin and Mao taught: the first step toward socialism and communism. This means uniting the broadest possible front of the exploited—the working class, the peasantry, even the national bourgeoisie—into a common struggle against comprador elites, bureaucrat-capitalists, and imperial occupiers. In short, against both foreign domination and the domestic political elites who serve it.
CYPRUS AS A ‘THEME PARK OF IMPERIALISM’...
A Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group, with whom our Union of Cypriots maintains close contact, once visited the island. They are seasoned fighters, engaged in armed struggle in their own country, and they have traveled widely across the world. After completing their visit to Cyprus, the leader of the group turned to me and said:
“This is the theme park of imperialism. The Disneyland of imperialism. There is no other place like it on earth.”
About the Annan Plan…
If the Annan Plan were put to a referendum today, would the outcome be different?
No—and it should not be. I say this not only because I live in the free area, but because I know the sentiments of the people here. The polls confirm it as well. Of course, any referendum depends heavily on the political atmosphere and the propaganda campaigns of the moment. Much depends on which side mobilizes most effectively.
But both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have their own deep sensitivities. For Greek Cypriots, there are certain red lines: the occupation itself, the continued presence of Turkey after any settlement, the question of whether displaced families will ever return to their homes, and other vital issues. As long as these concerns remain, no patriotic Greek Cypriot could vote “yes” to a plan like the Annan Plan.
To present such a plan is no different than asking: “Do you choose death or captivity?” And if those are the only options, then I, like many Greek Cypriots, would choose death over captivity. But there is a third option: struggle. And that is the path I choose—the path of resistance and fight.