On April 24, he was 21 years old since the referendum according to the plan on the unification of the Cyprus prepared by the UN Secretary General Cofi Annan. But deep disagreements on this subject are still relevant, and Cyprus remains divided.
On April 24, 2004, two plebiscites took place on both parts of the island. In support of the plan, the majority of Turkish-kypriots (64.91%) spoke out. But the Greco-Kirus community did not support the project: 75.38%voted against the plan. The turnout was high: 89.18% of the Greeks-kypriots and 87% of the Turks-Cipriotes.
The political leaders of both sides - the Tassos Papadopulos and Rauf Denctash - advocated voting against the plan. Türkiye, no matter how strange it may sound now, supported the idea of unification.
According to the ec-regulations conducted on that day, 75% of the Greeks-kypriots who voted against were indicated as the main reason for their choice of “consideration of security”. If the plan is adopted, Türkiye would again receive the right to unilateral military intervention. At the same time, the National Guard was supposed to be dissolved.
To get an idea of what would happen now, if the project had been adopted, you can familiarize yourself with its key provisions. Here they are briefly (the full text of the Annan plan on the link).
Management form
Annan's plan was developed in 2002-2004. He was perhaps the most worked out by the UN attempt to achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem in the federation format.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan presented the first version of his plan in November 2002, and the fifth and final option in March 2004. He wanted the final text to be prepared as a result of negotiations between the two parties, but in the conditions of the ongoing impasse, he finished it on his own.
The plan proposed the creation of the United Republic of Cyprus, "an independent state in the form of an inextricable partnership, with the federal government and two equal components: the Greek-Kiro and Turko-Purchases subjects." A single state was supposed to have international legal personality and unified sovereignty. People would have two citizenships: citizenship of the united state and citizenship of the subject in which they live.
The federal parliament consisting of two chambers - the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies would control the new state. The executive branch was to be transferred to the Presidential Council, consisting of six members with a decisive voice.
The Presidential Council would be elected according to a single list by a majority vote in the Senate and approved by a majority of votes in the Chamber of Deputies for a period of five years. Decisions in the presidential council would be made by consensus.
Territorial question
Territorial, the Turko-Khur community would have to make significant concessions compared to what territory TRSK occupied. At the time of the invasion of 1974, the Turks-Cipriotes accounted for 18% of the population, but 36.2% of the island was occupied. According to the plan of Annan, their territorial share should have been reduced to 28.5% in six stages for 42 months.
Kokkina, Varosha, Akhna, Famagusta, Morfa, Morfu, departed. The Turko-Kipr side remained control of half Nicosia, Kirenia and Lefka.
This could be the flag of the United Republic of Cyprus. Photo: wikipedia.org
Safety
From the point of view of security guarantees, the three international treaties of 1960 remained in force, and the UK, Greece and Türkiye would continue to act as guarantees.
The plan suggested a phased demilitarization of Cyprus. All Cyprian security forces should have been disbanded, Greece and Turkey would be allowed to keep up to 6,000 troops in Cyprus until 2011. By the time Turkey entered into the EU, which was then seriously planned, the number of the contingent was supposed to be reduced to 3,000 soldiers from each side. Then - up to 950 Greek and 650 Turkish military, provided for by the 1960 Allied agreement. Every three years, this amount would be reviewed with the aim of the final and complete withdrawal of all Greek and Turkish troops from the island.
The plan proposed a solution to the problem of Turkish settlers. 45,000 people could stay in the Turko-Kirus part. For comparison today, their number exceeds 100,000 people (there is no exact number).
For and against
When the Greeks-Kipriotes voted against the plan, Kofi Annan himself expressed their disappointment, as well as official Washington, London and Brussels. A week later, on May 1, 2004, Cyprus joined the EU.
Lawyer Christ Cleardis from the very beginning opposed. At the request to evaluate the consequences of the referendum, he says that the full implementation of what was written on paper would be quite dubious. “There was no way to guarantee that what was agreed will be realized. The UN could not guarantee anything of this, ”he claims. “In fact, this would mean that the implementation of the plan will be very doubtful, including the revision of the border.”
Another drawback of the plan was that in the new state no decision could have been made without the consent of the Turks Cypriots. “This could potentially paralyze everything - the work of the government, parliament and the judicial system. In the end, this could lead to the collapse of the state. And then, absolutely for sure, we (the Greek-Kirus side) would be forced to achieve international recognition, being an integral part of the collapsed state. Since the Republic of Cyprus would no longer exist, ”says Clinical.
Praksula Antoniada, a former Minister of Trade (2011-2012), criticizes such a position. She objects that the implementation of the plan would be guaranteed by the UN, as well as three powers. “Did the plan have weaknesses from the point of view of the implementation mechanism? Perhaps yes. But this is a familiar excuse for those who oppose settlement. Therefore, I ask them: do you prefer the current state of affairs, the divided country, Turkish troops in the north, the influx of Turkish settlers? " - exclaims Antoniad.
For her, Annan’s plan was an opportunity that could not be missed. “In a reunited country, the economy would have flourished. Settlers who would ultimately remain in Cyprus would be assimilated. Illegal migration would be controlled, unlike the current situation with a green line, ”she says. According to Antoniad, now everything would be different, starting with the problem of illegal development of the Greco-Quirus lands in quasi-state and ending with the problem of Islamization, which even secular oriented Turks-codes complain.
Antoniad also refutes another argument raised by skeptics - fears about the division of power and management. “Did they forget that the 1960 Constitution also provides for the separation of power with the Turks-Cipriotes? There is nothing new in this. But they behave as if they hear about this principle for the first time, ”she says. For her, it all comes down to the fact that among the Greeks-kypriots there are those who simply do not want to share power.
When asked if there is still a glimpse of hope of settlement, Antoniada answers in the affirmative. “There is always a probability, no matter how insignificant it may be, that Ersin Tatars can abandon his requirement to create two states. So we must be prepared for such a turn of events. But will we be ready? "
The text is prepared based on the materials of Cyprus mail
This article was first published in the "Vestnik Cyprus" on April 23, 2024. Part of the information could be outdated.
