In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus, seizing one-third of the island and expelling nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots. The Turkish zone’s 1983 unilateral declaration of statehood as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which only Turkey recognizes, constitutes an occupation under international law. The United Nations, European Union, and International Court of Justice all affirm the Republic of Cyprus’s sovereignty over the entire island. The status of Northern Cyprus is not “disputed”; it is “occupied.”
Yet, the U.S. government avoids using “occupied” in the context of Cyprus. While congressional resolutions reference Turkey’s “invasion and occupation,” the State Department uses neutral phrasing such as “the area administered by Turkish Cypriots” or “the northern part of the island.” The United States does not recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but it still refuses to acknowledge that Turkey illegally occupies Cypriot territory.
The status of Northern Cyprus is not “disputed”—it is “occupied.”
This equivocation is not harmless diplomatic caution; it carries moral, legal, and political consequences. Language matters. Calling a territory “occupied” triggers obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and other rules protecting civilians and property, while signaling a sovereignty violation. By avoiding the term, the United States lends legal or moral justification to Turkey’s 50-plus-year military presence. This weakens international norms and grants the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus a de facto veneer of legitimacy, undermining legal claims of the Republic of Cyprus and the rights of displaced Greek Cypriots.
Unlike Northern Cyprus, whose occupation is universally recognized, the legal status of the West Bank is disputed. Israel captured the territory from Jordan in 1967; Jordan’s 1948 annexation of the territory lacked broad international recognition. Scholars debate whether the West Bank qualifies as “occupied” under classic definitions, since the land did not belong to a recognized sovereign state prior to 1967. The International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross consider it occupied, but politics rather than objective law infuses their decision-making. Regardless, the status of the West Bank remains legally unsettled.
Washington, however, often labels the West Bank as “occupied territory” in official statements, including the State Department’s “Israel and the Occupied Territories” page. Calling a legally uncertain territory “occupied” while avoiding the term in a real occupation is hypocritical and erodes U.S. credibility.
Why the inconsistency? The answer lies not in law but in politics, with the U.S. calibrating words to balance alliances rather than to uphold legal principle. Turkey is a NATO ally, and the United States has long treated Cyprus as a secondary issue. Israel, by contrast, occupies a central role in U.S. Middle East policy, giving the terminology domestic and diplomatic consequences in a delicate region of conflict.
For Cypriots living under division, U.S. ambiguity has real-world consequences.
The double standard sends three harmful signals. First, selective application of legal terms suggests labels depend on political priorities, not legal criteria. Second, U.S. reticence to use “occupation” as a legal, rather than political, term lends credibility to proxy states and criminal enterprises like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. By labeling the West Bank “occupied,” Washington empowers Palestinian legal and diplomatic claims, even amidst unresolved legal debates. Third, rhetorical ambiguity hampers justice. Greek Cypriots confront diminished leverage in negotiations, while Palestinians navigating settlement expansions embrace false hope and prolonged conflict.
For Cypriots living under division, U.S. ambiguity has real-world consequences. The State Department and the incoming U.S. ambassador to Cyprus should state unequivocally that Turkey occupies Northern Cyprus and that the Turkish Republic has no standing in international law. At the same time, Washington should acknowledge the West Bank’s status as “disputed”—not “occupied”—and support negotiated resolutions rather than allowing linguistic presumptions to shape policy. For Palestinians and Israelis, misapplying the term “occupation” turns a complex territorial dispute into a rhetorical weapon, kneecapping meaningful diplomacy.
By clarifying its language, Washington would reaffirm its commitment to international law as a framework, not a political tool. Precise application of the term “occupation” would strengthen diplomatic integrity, enhance credibility abroad, and offer hope to populations living under contested sovereignty. Legal precision would also help Greek Cypriots achieve justice and would encourage realistic pathways for Palestinian aspirations.
