Talk:Cyprus settlement referendum, 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cyprus settlement referendum, 2004 article.
This article can be in the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents

[edit] Anonymous edits

Argyro, are you trying to use multiple IPs in order to instate your version? A new trick? [1] - Snchduer 14:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Argyro is using Asian open proxies to circumvent the block effective against him due to the violation of the WP:3RR rule. - Snchduer 17:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Designation of sectors

The so-called referenda were carried out between the Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Turkish colonists NOT between any so-called sectors which DO NOT EXIST. The Cyprus government opposed the participation of Turkish colonists in these referenda.--Argyrosargyrou 14:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do know about these things... Why you accuse me of not knowing it is strange... However, there were two referendae: one in the north and one in the south. So people in the north would go in the northern sector (north of the Green Line) to vote, people in the south in the southern sector (south of the Green Line). The fact that in the north live mostly Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers, and in the south mostly Greek Cypriots in my opinion is of no concern to the partitioning of the island in two voting sectors for the purpose of the referendum. Disprove me with official sources other than RoC. - Snchduer 14:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Just to explain recent edits in order to not get into another editing war: I tried to reword a bit in order to get a more NPOV formulation. I also edited the table to not mention Turkish settlers etc., and instead added a note about this subject below the table. I did this for two reasons: 1. In any case, the 40% were a pure estimate, not a number based on statistical data; and 2. This was not relevant for the outcome of the referendum, and can only be informative. - Snchduer 19:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table

People, do NOT get into another editing war. Let's discuss it here. Main issue is: Designation of voting sectors in the voting results table. Argyro, it might be possible that your designation is correct by the standards you mentioned, but they might still be offending to some people. "northern/southern sector" however seems - at least to me - offensive to no one and still correct, as you already have the note below the table for information about what you want to include. Another possibility would be "Turkish Cypriot north/Greek Cypriot south" - Snchduer 16:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Wars

I want to avoid getting into another editing war. Arygrosargyrou, please note that your edits seem offensive to quite some users here, as does your editing style. For example, what do you want to achieve by putting the ECHR ruling into another section? It is present, in the "reactions" part - the ECHR did not rule about the plan, it was only the Cypriot judge who made the remarks about the incompatibility with human rights etc. And this - in my opinion - justifies it being in the reactions part. - Snchduer 13:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop vandalising this page like you did with the Cyprus dispute page and turning it into a pro-Turkish rant by removing all the historical facts and reason for rejection. Stay out of affairs you know nothing about.
The ECHR rulled that the Annan plan violated the European Convention of Human Rights. This was the UNANIMOUS verdict of ALL the ECHR Judges. READ IT ! --Argyrosargyrou 13:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reading your quote in the context:
Concerning the latter, the Court notes that the Annan Plan would have been a significant development and break-through in inter-communal negotiations had it come into force. Consequently no change has occurred since the adoption of the above-mentioned judgments by the Court which would justify a departure from its conclusions as to Turkey's jurisdiction. In this connection, the Court points out, firstly, that the fact that the two communities were treated as having equal status in the negotiations leading up to the referendums, does not entail recognition of the “TRNC” or confer statehood thereupon. Secondly, the Court observes that the respondent Government continue to exercise overall military control over northern Cyprus and have not been able to show that there has been any change in this respect. Thirdly, the fact that the Greek-Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan does not have the legal consequence of bringing to an end the continuing violation of the displaced persons' rights for even the adoption of the plan would not have afforded immediate redress.
I ask you again: Do not make me search for your alleged ruling, provide it! I find no mentioning of the European Convention of Human Rights in the ruling of the ECHR. The court ruled that it had to decide assuming that Turkey holds control over the TRNC (if I understand it right), because the Annan plan was not accepted; and that had the plan been accepted, this would not have resolved immediately the properties issue. - Snchduer 13:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quote for this: The main purpose of the plan was to establish a “new state of affairs” by negotiation and agreement. However, this was not accomplished and the plan for all intents and purposes was rendered legally null and void following the referendums. Therefore, it would be anomalous for the Court to take any account of, let alone involve itself in, the political background to the Annan Plan. The plan referred to a political future and not to an existing political and legal state of affairs.
The fact that the Annan plan did not provide immediate redress VIOLATES Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the right to an effective remedy. READ IT. --Argyrosargyrou 13:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is your opinion. But please provide a quote for the fact that the court ruled that the Annan plan would violate Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights. As I understand it, the court did not want to go into this detail because of the political issues. - Snchduer 14:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights:
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. [2]
Note that is does not say immediate but effective. Thus, juridically, the ECHR did not rule the Annan plan violating the European Convention of Human Rights. Indeed, IMHO, the issue whether or not the Annan plan provides "effective" remedy is highly debatable. - Snchduer 17:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I have a few questions for the international law buffs out there. If I understand the facts correctly,

  • The government of Southern Cyprus has internationally recognized sovereignty over the whole island but is unable to exercise sovereignty over Northern Cyprus
  • The government of Northern Cyprus exercises sovereignty over the north of the island, but is not recognized to have sovereignty over this territory by the international community
There is NO SUCH PLACE as Southern Cyprus or Northern Cyprus. Don't use these offensive terms --Argyrosargyrou 13:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand that there are practical consequences of this. What are they?

I realize that similar situations hold in other places around the world, this is not what my main question is about.

My question really is: now that the (sovereign) people of Southern Cyprus have rejected unification (under the terms of the referendum), are there any implications for the issue of de iure/de facto sovereignty? It can be argued that the South rejected the referendum because its terms were an unacceptable encroachment on their recognized sovereignty over the whole island, but the government was at the negotiation table in Geneva and did accept the holding of the referendum in those terms. The continued separation is by the South's choice but against the will of the North. Will this undermine in any way the South's claim of sovereignty over the whole island? Finally, the outcome of the referendum is that the South will join the EU but not the North. Since every EU member recognizes the sovereignty of the South over the whole island, doesn't it mean that the EU must now consider the inhabitants of the North to be EU citizens under an illegitimate government?

— Miguel 20:08, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

From BBC:
Forty thousand Turkish troops are stationed there and they will be technically in occupation of EU territory when the south of the island joins the EU on 1 May.
— Miguel 00:39, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
This other BBC page highlights the complexities of the situation:
While President Tassos Papadopoulos said after the referendum results were announced that efforts to reunify the island would continue, the EU and the UN insist that the latest version of the plan was the final one.
While former Presidents Glafcos Clerides and George Vassilliou campaigned for a 'yes' vote, they faced formidable opposition from Mr Papadopoulos and Akel, the powerful and influential Communist party.
In the north, by contrast, the result was much as predicted and followed the pattern that has emerged in Turkish Cypriot politics over recent years - with supporters of reunification and EU membership on one side, and the nationalists, headed by veteran politician Rauf Denktash, on the other.
The likelihood is that Europe will lift the trade embargoes that have been a major factor in the impoverishment of northern Cyprus.
There is also a possibility that some governments will break with their past policies and decide to recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Turkish Cypriot politicians may not encourage the international community to recognise their self-declared state, seeking instead the acceptance of the status of a Cypriot constituent state, as it would have become - alongside the constituent Greek Cypriot state - under the UN's federal plan for Cyprus.
Deciding on the status of a frontier running through a sovereign EU nation and abutting an unrecognised state is just one of the many problems that European politicians must tackle.
— Miguel 00:47, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
Astute questions, to which I do not have the answers. Let's wait and see if there are any statements from Brussels over the coming days. I suspect a lot of EU govts are now angry enough with the Greek side to take radical action (remember the accusations from Brussels last week of Papadopoulos having 'deceived' the EU), but any Community move will of course be blocked by the Greek veto. Or, as of next week, the two Greek vetoes. Interesting times... –Hajor 20:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It is an interesting situation for Greeks... on the one hand, Greek Cypriots may lose from this, because the Turkish Cypriots are no longer seen as the intransigent bad guys. On the other hand, Greeks will now have effectively two states in the EU, twice as many as any other single nationality. Given that the EU is heavily weighted towards votes being by states rather than by population (or else Germany/UK/France would control everything) this gives Greeks some odd amount of power. --Delirium 00:20, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

The referendum certainly changes the political chemistry of the Cyprus issue, but it doesn't alter the legal facts: the Republic of Cyprus is a sovereign state whose territory comprises the whole island of Cyprus. Turkey is in illegal occupation of the northern third of the island, and the purported state it has created there has no legal validity. The majority of the people of Cyprus are quite within their rights to reject a proposal to cede part of their sovereign rights. Whether they were politically wise to do so is another matter. Adam 00:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

what gets in my gut is the feeling the Greeks will bully the Turks to get what they want - vetoing Turkish membership of the EU until they give in over Cyprus. 1974 still burns in their hearts - and i'm sure a few still cling to the Hellenic dreamworld of enosis

Under the proposed European constitution there will be no more veto power. — Miguel 13:49, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Why should 1974 not burn in their hearts? A third of their country has been occupied by a foreign power for 30 years. And why should they not support enosis if they want to? They are Greeks, after all. Cyprus has been Greek for nearly 3000 years, and would have become part of Greece 50 years ago were it not for fear of war with Turkey. Adam 05:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which only goes to show what good dictatorships are. The case of Cyprus reminds me of Argentina and the Falklands, another attempt by a floundering dictatorship to bolster their domestic popularity by trying to reclaim some lost territory by force which backfired and ended the dictatorship. — Miguel 05:53, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)

That does not address the substance of my previous post. Cyprus has been part of the Greek world since ancient times and the majority of its population is and always has been Greek. There is no reason why Cyprus should not be united with Greece if that is what the majority of the population want. (In fact, though, what they want is for the Turkish occupation to end). I don't excuse the 1974 coup, but 30 years of foreign occupation is a high price to pay for the actions of a handful of extremists. Adam 06:00, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I gather that the Greek Cypriots weren't nice to the Turkish ones even before '74 though 211.28.122.253 08:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is a matter for the people of Cyprus to resolve by democratic and legal means. It cannot be used as a pretext for a Turkish invasion and 30 years of occupation. Adam 09:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello everybody. It must also be said that most western media, especially British and U.S.A. ones were heavily biased against the Greek Cypriot side, and they immediately sought to condemn them. Most of them (if not ALL of them) failed to mention that Turkey (NOT Turkish Cypriots) has rejected 5 or 6 U.N. reunifications plans during the last 30 years. So I don't see why should Cyprus be so heavily condemned NOW.

In addition to that,the Annan plan was perceived as heavily injust and pro-Turkish both in Cyprus and Greece (expect from some exponents and supporters of some major Greek political party) and in large measure it was: in fact the "reunited Cyprus" citizens would have no right of appealing to any International Court for example, and the Turkish troops were to be "reduced" to a mere 30000 (from the 40000 now present) not to leave until TURKEY itself was admitted in the European Union just to name a few.

Last but not least,do not forget that the so-called "Turkish Republic Of Northern Cyprus" is NOT a globally recognized state, and as such HOW can it have a designated "president" or even "diplomacy" and "foreign policies"? How could it be accepted as the "fourth party" in the Swiss negotiations? This "insignificant" detail was widely perceived as a half-legalization of the invasion. EpiVictor 17:05, 27 Apr 2004 (GMT+2)

Of course had Turkey not invaded in '74 some things could have been worse - for a start, those extremists might have achieved enosis and the Regime of the Colonels would not have fallen. Also it is hard to imagine Greeks regarding any deal that doesn't give them everything major they want as acceptable rather then heavilly unjust and pro-Turkish. 211.28.122.253 14:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
EpiVictor, could you elaborate on the "no right of appeal to international courts", please? For property disputes, or human rights issues, or what? And, wrt troop numbers, my understanding was that they would be reduced to 6000 Greek and 6000 Turkish until 2011, 3000 + 3000 until 2018, and 950 + 650 (more Gks than Tks) after that, with a view to eventual total withdrawal. [3] –Hajor 14:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course,here goes: the denial of the right to appeal to international courts would be "frozen" for a long time,allowing only a special court organized by guaranteeing forces to be used. This involves ALL kinds of claims,both property AND humanitarian in nature.It also creates another problem: what happens with those (many) claims ALREADY PRESENTED to and UNDER PROCESS by Int.Courts? Regarding the troops,the numbers mentionel by Hajor are correct, but the condition is that Turkey must first enter the EU and THEN she will start reducing its troops.And Turkey could be admitted way past 2011,as all things indicate. For everyone to know,I AM aware that Cypriots AND Greeks did their own part in creating that situation,back then.That's not a reason to forcibly accept a highly compromising solution for one (or even both) of the parts. Turkish Cypriots had (apparently) nothing to lose by saying "Yes".On the opposite,it seemed their chance for a better life. But Greek Cypriots..well...a popular joke going around Cyprus these days says it all: "One Greek Cypriot says to another: -So what's so wrong with Annan's plan? -Nothing really,it's pretty cool actually. -Really ?! -Yes,there will even be an unified football (soccer) championship on the island,with teams from both communities.Greek teams will play with only 8 men (vs 11) and the score will start from 2-0 for the Turkish teams."

Why accept an island united and controlled by non-EU forces (Turkey,USA...) with limited or abolished EU conquest and rights when reunion can be achieved in a much more profitable way for both sides through a 100% EU solution? It's about time that EU assumes its resposabilities,just this once. Had Cyprus been united by the 1st May of 2004 by means of the Annan plan, it would lead to a diplomatically and politically complex situation,where the much prized "European Conquest" would simply vanish. User:EpiVictor 19:14 27 Apr 2004 (GMT+2)

Can you elaborate on "a 100% EU solution"? — Miguel 17:56, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
Very briefly, I mean a solution involving only EU (and Turkish of course)procedures, with no USA intervention, and in FULL respect of the European conquests (human right, property disputes, no unilateral weapon embargo imposed on ANY EU member) and of course trying to work out an EU assistance and embargo removal (embargo should be pointless by then) programs for the Turkish Cypriots. Again, all of this should be done because Cyprus (in the "unified" meaning) will be a full EU member, with no "But"'s and "If"'s, and not because some major international force said "Do it like this because I say so".

EpiVictor 14:57, 29 April 2004 (GMT+2)

My understanding was that the final version of the plan (see de Soto's press conference of 31.3.04) provided for an immediate reduction to 6000 + 6000, irrespective of Turkish EU accession (which is not going to happen for a long time, I don't think). But perhaps all this speaks of nothing more than the UN's inability to get its message across. All academic now, of course. –Hajor 17:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I read the article,but I doubt that the declarations were "final" or even sincere. Mr. De Soto even spoke of "over a Hundred Thousand" Greek Cypriots being able to return back to their homes (but no time reference to that), while the Annan plan was about a depressing 18% at most immediately,and the rest only when "the life level of Turkish Cypriots matches that of Greek Cypriots", which is another VERY long term condition, IMHO. Then there were other compromising points such as weapon embargo for Greek Cyprus (valid even BEFORE a single turkish troop left the island).

To give some more food for thought, some Greek journalists even claimed that the Annan plan wasn't an UN plan at all, but it was conceived and redacted in a major Attorney office of New York and that such office had a strong connection to the actual leader of some major Greek political party...this leader is George Papandreou (Junior), who was raised and studied in the USA and who has recently suffered a rather humiliating electoral defeat here in Greece. Please notice that it was HIM who represented Greece in the recent New York negotiations about Cyprus (before the Lucerne negotiations) as he was just the Ministry of Foreign Policies back then,and became leader of his party only after another much disputed "public referendum" just before the Greek elections of 7/3/2004. Anyway, because of these facts and the fact that his party's exponents were among the few Greeks who "barked" and aggressively pressured and threatened Greek Cypriots into voting yes (much like a certain part of the international community), the feeling in Greece is that Mr.Papandreou and his party had already "sold out" the Cyprus dispute back in New York, but the recent electoral defeat of his party just made the whole setup crumble shamelessly, like a clay giant. EpiVictor 17:02 28 Apr 2004 (GMT+2)

Oh, well. Fwiw, I've just started a "Reasons for the rejection of the plan" on the Annan Plan page. –Hajor 15:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Cool.I happened to see the "Annan Plan" page first today and the last section

looked somehow familiar :-) . Anyway, there are deeper reasons for the rejection of the Annan plan by Greek Cypriots and the "insistence" by part of the USA, the UK and (to lesser extent) the E.U. and the aforementioned Greek party (OK, OK, it's the PASOK party :-). Most importantly, the enormous geopolitical and geostrategical importance of the island of Cyprus, often referred to as "a very big and UNSINKABLE aircraft carrier". This of course interests all major military powers operating in the Middle East, most notably the UK (which already has bases on Cyprus) and the USA. If the Annan referendum had been accepted, it would surely ease up the path of these great powers, as the dispute would have been "over" and the island would no longer have an "unclear" status. As for the people living there... well, Turkish Cypriots surely had nothing to lose by voting yes,quite the opposite. Greek Cypriots had a lot to lose on the other hand, namely most rights which are considered elementary by E.U. citizens (and I don't mean that they are not important to the Turkish people, see below). Closing,I would like to ask/know one thing: from a Turkish point of view,why some people like Rauf Denktash and the "Grey Wolves" tried to persuade (each in their own manner) Turkish Cypriots to vote "No" ? Besides over 30% of Turkish Cypriots voted "No", if I'm not wrong. Epivictor 14:08 29 April 2004 (GMT+2)

Sigh,yet another "POV" edit revert... There is a very good Turkish proverb for describing the "official" point of view of the Turkish government and most "major powers" over the Cyprus dispute:

"Atilan top, sikelen gyot, geri doymaz" or something like that :-)

It more or less means "A cannonball that has been shot and an a** that has been f****d do not return/come back". EpiVictor 09:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable assertions

I find this assertion in the article a bit questionable:

"On top of this the finalised plan had not been made public until 24 hours before the referendum was due to take place so everyone on both sides was voting on something they had not even seen and whose consequences could not be fully analysed."

My understanding was that the Annan Plan was published on 1 April, 3 weeks before the referendum. Can anyone substantiate the assertion above? -- ChrisO 18:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember -from the news- that some points were still in discussion and open to modifications up to minus 24 hours before the vote, and they were quite crucial points, too. Anyway, there was quite a lag between official presentation and public disclosure (people of both sides were only informed by hearsay and speculations, up to 24hours before the vote). EpiVictor 12:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removed ECHR case quote

I removed the quote from the ECHR case because the statement was not an official statement or decision on the referendum, it was a statement made during the admissability of a case against Turkey - not against the referendum itself. --E.A 16:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aristov.

Why change this title suddenly after so many years? This was not just any referendum as the title would imply, it was a referendum on reunification. Lets make that perfectly clear. --A.Garnet 14:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Garnet, thats what the referendum was. It was a referendum on the settlement plan known as "the annan plan". "reunification" is a relative term. The peoples of cyprus were not asked whether they want to reunify or not Cyprus. They were asked whether they "approve or not the settlement plan". [4] Aristovoul0s 10:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/p/Talk%7ECyprus_settlement_referendum%2C_2004_1e74.html"