5.Conclusion – visibility, equality, and the future of the Cyprus file
A normative assessment follows naturally once the law–narrative gap has been established. The DW article is valuable precisely because, even in its limited focus on daily frustrations, it shows how normalized Turkish Cypriot marginalization has become in European public debate: Turkish Cypriots are seen, heard, and cited, yet rarely recognized as a co‑founding community whose treaty‑based equality should structure the conversation. In this sense, the piece is symptomatic of a broader pattern in which empathy for individual grievances coexists with a persistent reluctance to revisit the constitutional and legal premises of the island’s relationship with the European Union.
Overcoming this “invisibility” therefore requires more than improved media coverage or better consular services. It calls for a deliberate return to the legal foundations of the Cyprus settlement and to the bi‑communal logic of the 1960 arrangements, so that Turkish Cypriot experiences and positions are reflected in EU discourse as those of an equal partner in a shared constitutional framework. For institutions like AVİM, whose work has consistently combined legal, historical, and political analysis of the Cyprus question, the task is to keep this perspective in view at a time when narratives centred solely on the Greek Cypriot administration continue to dominate. By maintaining a law‑ and history‑sensitive reading of Turkish Cypriot “invisibility,” such institutions contribute to a more balanced discussion of Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean in European fora and help ensure that any future settlement is assessed against the standard of genuine political equality rather than rhetorical inclusion alone.