1. Introduction – the “invisible Europeans” label
The recent Deutsche Welle article on “invisible Europeans” offers a useful point of entry into these questions because it openly acknowledges that Turkish Cypriots hold EU citizenship and live on EU territory, yet remain at the margins of how the Union imagines itself. The choice of the label “invisible Europeans” is analytically significant: it implicitly distinguishes between formal juridical status and practical recognition, and it invites the question of why a community that is legally part of the European project can be so weakly represented in its narratives and institutions. [1]
Placed in the context of the Cyprus file, this question becomes even more pointed. Since the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the EU in 2004 under Protocol 10, the acquis communautaire has been suspended in the northern part of the island, and the EU has dealt almost exclusively with the Greek Cypriot administration as the government of a member state, even while repeatedly noting the “special situation” of the Turkish Cypriot community. The DW article, read against this background, is more than a human‑interest story: it is an illustration of how the structural asymmetries created by the breakdown of the 1960 bi‑communal order and by subsequent EU choices translate into everyday feelings of invisibility, frustration, and misrecognition for Turkish Cypriots.
2.Background – legal and historical context of Turkish Cypriot invisibility
The 1960 constitutional order established the Republic of Cyprus as a bi‑communal partnership between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, with the latter recognized as a co‑founding community endowed with specific political rights and institutional guarantees rather than as a mere minority. This framework, anchored in the Treaties of Establishment, Guarantee, and Alliance, envisaged shared governance and a carefully balanced distribution of offices and veto powers between the two communities. [2]
From the early 1960s onward, however, this power‑sharing architecture broke down as inter‑communal tensions escalated, Turkish Cypriot officials were forced out or withdrew from state institutions, and the effective control of the Republic passed into exclusively Greek Cypriot hands, leaving Turkish Cypriots confined to enclaves and subjected to growing political and economic isolation. AVİM’s previous commentaries and analyses on Cyprus have repeatedly highlighted the resulting mismatch between the original bi‑communal design of the Republic and the way in which the EU, particularly since the 2004 accession of the Republic of Cyprus, has treated the Greek Cypriot administration as the sole representative of the island, relegating Turkish Cypriots to a problem to be managed rather than a constituent partner to be engaged. [3]
3.Analytical core – what the DW narrative shows and what it omits
By the time the DW article turns to the daily experiences of Turkish Cypriots, the historical and legal background of bi‑communal partnership and subsequent exclusion has largely receded into the background of the narrative. Instead, the piece foregrounds concrete obstacles such as crossing‑point procedures, access to consular services, and the fragmented application of EU law, and it relies heavily on the language of frustration, disappointment, and marginalization at the level of individual citizens. Within its own limits, this emphasis captures an important dimension of how Turkish Cypriots encounter the European Union in practice.[4]
Yet precisely because the focus rests on mobility, bureaucracy, and personal grievances, the DW account says relatively little about the collective political status of Turkish Cypriots as a constituent community endowed with treaty‑based equality. The question of who is recognized as a co‑founding partner in the state whose EU membership frames these everyday experiences remains largely implicit, if it appears at all. Framing Turkish Cypriots mainly as “invisible” Europeans in a socio‑economic sense therefore risks obscuring a deeper issue: who is seen, in Brussels and other European fora, as legitimately speaking for Cyprus, and on what legal and historical basis. Since the 2004 accession of the Republic of Cyprus, EU practice has, in effect, consolidated the position of the Greek Cypriot administration as the sole interlocutor, even while the Union’s own documents continue to acknowledge the “special situation” of the Turkish Cypriot community and the unresolved nature of the island’s constitutional question.[5]
4.AVİM’s earlier Cyprus work and the law–narrative gap
The limits of the DW narrative become clearer when it is viewed against the line of analysis developed in AVİM’s earlier work on Cyprus. Those commentaries and analyses have consistently approached Turkish Cypriots not as a humanitarian appendix to the Republic of Cyprus, but as a constituent people with treaty‑based rights anchored in the 1960 arrangements and in the bi‑communal character of the state. In this perspective, the problem is not simply that Turkish Cypriots suffer from everyday inconveniences, but that a co‑founding community has been progressively pushed to the margins of representation and decision‑making.
AVİM studies have also underlined how this marginalization has been accompanied by a steady erosion of the original legal balance and by a discursive shift in which European narratives describe Cyprus almost exclusively through Greek Cypriot perspectives. Legal texts and founding treaties continue to acknowledge bi‑communality and political equality, yet public and EU‑level discourses often translate this into a one‑sided story in which Turkish Cypriots appear mainly as a “problem” or as “invisible Europeans” requiring management. The resulting law–narrative gap is precisely where the DW article sits: it offers a useful glimpse of Turkish Cypriot frustrations, but it does so within a frame that underplays the community’s status as an equal partner in the constitutional order that still formally underpins the island’s relationship with the European Union.[6]
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.
[1] “Turkish Cypriots: The EU’s Invisible Europeans,” AVİM Bulletin, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), January 13, 2026, https://avim.org.tr/en/Bulten/TURKISH-CYPRIOTS-THE-EU-S-INVISIBLE-EUROPEANS
[2] Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, “60th Anniversary of the Defunct ‘Republic of Cyprus,’” Analysis, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), 2020/27, October 15, 2020, https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/60TH-ANNIVERSARY-OF-THE-DEFUNCT-REPUBLIC-OF-CYPRUS ; “Turkish Cypriots,” Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), accessed January 16, 2026, https://avim.org.tr/Tags/Turkish-Cypriots
[3] “Turkish Cypriots: The EU’s Invisible Europeans,” AVİM Bulletin, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), January 13, 2026, https://avim.org.tr/en/Bulten/TURKISH-CYPRIOTS-THE-EU-S-INVISIBLE-EUROPEANS ; Marcel Brus et. Al. “A Time To Keep Promise: Time to End the International Isolation of the Turkish Cypriots,” TESEV Publications No. 7, June 10, 2008, accessed via Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/92494/REV3%20kibris%20sorunu%2009%2006%2008.pdf ; “Turkish Cypriots: The EU’s Invisible Europeans,” AVİM Bulletin, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), January 13, 2026, https://avim.org.tr/en/Bulten/TURKISH-CYPRIOTS-THE-EU-S-INVISIBLE-EUROPEANS
[4] “Turkish Cypriots: The EU’s Invisible Europeans,” AVİM Bulletin, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), January 14, 2026, https://avim.org.tr/en/Bulten/TURKISH-CYPRIOTS-THE-EU-S-INVISIBLE-EUROPEANS ; Sean Patrick Smyth , “Is an Alternative for Turkish Cypriots on the Cards?,” AVİM Blog, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), November 5, 2017, https://avim.org.tr/Blog/IS-AN-ALTERNATIVE-FOR-TURKISH-CYPRIOTS-ON-THE-CARDS
[5] Hazel Çağan Elbir, “Thoughts on Turkey–EU Relations after Brexit,” Analysis, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), January 02, 2020, https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/THOUGHTS-ON-TURKEY-EU-RELATIONS-AFTER-BREXIT ; “Organization of Turkic States Pledges Observer Status for Turkish Cyprus,” AVİM Bulletin, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), March 17, 2025, https://avim.org.tr/en/Bulten/ORGANIZATION-OF-TURKIC-STATES-PLEDGES-OBSERVER-STATUS-FOR-TURKISH-CYPRUS
[6] Teoman Ertuğrul Tulun, “Admission by Kati Piri: ‘Allowing Cyprus in (EU) without a Solution to Cyprus Problem… Is a Big Mistake,’” Analysis, Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM), April 1, 2019, https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/ADMISSION-BY-KATI-PIRI-ALLOWING-CYPRUS-IN-EU-WITHOUT-A-SOLUTION-TO-CYPRUS-PROBLEM-IS-A-BIG-MISTAKE