Fact Check: Did Turkish Cypriots Reject the Annan Plan? What the 24 April 2004 Referendum Actually Showed

Why It Matters

The Turkish Cypriot electorate approved the Annan Plan; the Greek Cypriot electorate rejected it. In the separate, simultaneous referenda of 24 April 2004, 64.91% of Turkish Cypriots voted Yes and 75.83% of Greek Cypriots voted No. Because the plan needed approval in both votes, it did not enter into force, and the Greek Cypriot administration joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 without a settlement.

This matters because the claim that 'the Turkish side blocked the plan', or that both communities share equal blame, still shapes diplomatic talking points. It also shapes how the later Cyprus negotiations are judged. Accurate primary-source context, in line with our Editorial Principles, is the only reliable way to separate the record from the shorthand.

Background

From partnership to division

The Zurich and London Agreements of February 1959 led to the 1960 Republic of Cyprus. It was built as a partnership state of two politically equal communities and was backed by the Treaty of Guarantee, with Türkiye, Greece and the United Kingdom as Guarantor Powers. In December 1963, following the Greek Cypriot constitutional amendment proposals of 30 November 1963 and the violence that began on 21 December 1963, the partnership structures collapsed. The Green Line divided Nicosia. After the 15 July 1974 coup and the 20 July 1974 intervention, the island has been divided in practice. For the full chronology see The Cyprus Issue: From the 1960 Treaties to the Sovereign Equal Two-State Solution and The 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and Article IV.

The federal framework

The 1977 and 1979 High-Level Agreements, concluded between the two community leaders under UN auspices, set the agreed basis for talks: a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. The Annan Plan was the most detailed attempt to turn that framework into a legal text.

The Annan Plan process

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan used his good offices to table a comprehensive plan in November 2002. It was revised several times in 2002 and 2003 and reached its final text, commonly called Annan V, at the end of March 2004. The parties and the guarantor states agreed on 13 February 2004 in New York on a process under which gaps in the negotiated text could be filled by the Secretary-General. The talks were then held in Switzerland (Bürgenstock) in late March 2004.

The plan was put to separate but simultaneous referenda in the two communities. It would take effect only if both approved it. The Accession Treaty with Cyprus had already been signed in Athens on 16 April 2003, with entry into the EU set for 1 May 2004. For additional background see the explainers from our editorial network: Crossroads Review on the 2004 referendum and Regions & Powers on why federation talks failed. These are sister publications, not independent outside sources.

Claim vs. Fact Analysis

Claim 1: 'Turkish Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan'

Verdict: false. The claim appears in media shorthand, think-tank commentary and some diplomatic talking points. The documented result is the opposite.

The Yes and No percentages for each community are the official referendum results as reported by the UN Secretary-General in S/2004/437 (28 May 2004). The complementary figures (35.09% and 24.17%) are simply 100% minus the reported figures.

There is one grain of truth behind the claim, and fairness requires stating it. Rauf Denktaş, the long-standing Turkish Cypriot leader, opposed the plan and campaigned for a No vote. Turkish Cypriot voters, however, did not follow that advice. They approved the plan by a clear majority.

Claim 2: 'Cyprus rejected the plan'

Verdict: misleading by omission. This phrasing treats the island as a single electorate. There were two separate votes with opposite outcomes, and the Greek Cypriot No decided the result. Wording that does not name both percentages erases the Turkish Cypriot decision.

Claim 3: 'Both sides share equal blame'

Verdict: not supported by the vote record. The equal-blame framing may reflect broader judgments about decades of talks, but for April 2004 it cannot be squared with the results. One community approved the text and the other rejected it. Assessments of why the Greek Cypriot side voted No are covered below in the players' own words.

Claim 4: 'The No vote had no consequences'

Verdict: incomplete. The Republic of Cyprus entered the EU on 1 May 2004 as planned. Under Protocol 10 of the 2003 Act of Accession, the application of the EU acquis (the body of EU law) is suspended in the areas where the Republic's government does not exercise effective control, and the Protocol provides for the suspension to be lifted in the event of a settlement. The Turkish Cypriots who had voted Yes were therefore outside the full application of EU law, while the Greek Cypriot administration became a member. For the EU position, see the Council conclusions below.

Key Players & Positions

UN Secretary-General

In his report of 28 May 2004 to the Security Council (S/2004/437), Kofi Annan recorded the outcome of both votes. He expressed disappointment at the Greek Cypriot result and noted that Turkish Cypriots had voted in favour. He also recommended that states and international bodies help end unnecessary restrictions and barriers that isolate the Turkish Cypriot community. Readers should consult the report itself for exact wording.

Greek Cypriot leadership

The Greek Cypriot leadership of the period, headed by President Tassos Papadopoulos, urged a No vote. According to its public statements at the time, as reflected in UN reporting, its reasons were:

• Security: concerns over the continued role of the Guarantee and Alliance treaties and the presence of foreign troops.
• Property and settlement: objections to the arrangements on property restitution and the residence of settlers.
• Functionality: the argument that the proposed institutions were too complex to work in practice and that implementation guarantees were insufficient.

These are serious objections, and they are reported here in the form its leaders presented them.

EU institutions

The Council of the EU, meeting on 26 April 2004, expressed its determination to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification of the island by encouraging the economic development of the northern part. The Commission subsequently proposed a Direct Trade Regulation and a financial aid package. The aid regulation was adopted in 2006; the Direct Trade Regulation was not adopted. The Greek Cypriot administration's position is that its accession followed from its status as an existing state and the EU's earlier decision that a settlement was not a precondition.

United Kingdom and Greece

The United Kingdom, as a Guarantor Power and a party to the process, supported the plan and the UN effort. Greece took part in the Bürgenstock process as one of the parties to the 13 February 2004 arrangement.

Source Comparison

The table compares source types, not named outlets. The media column describes common patterns that readers can check for themselves; it is not a quotation of any particular publication.

Phrasing to watch:

• 'Cyprus voted No': merges two separate electorates.
• 'The plan was rejected': omits who rejected it.
• 'Both sides failed': ignores the opposite vote outcomes.

For related analyses within our editorial network, see The Polity Brief on why the federation model failed and Horizon of Nations on common claims about Türkiye. Our own Fact Check: Common Claims About Türkiye in International Media applies the same method.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Annan Plan: The UN Secretary-General's comprehensive settlement proposal for Cyprus, finalised as Annan V in March 2004.
• Simultaneous separate referenda: Two votes on the same day in two communities; approval in both was required.
• Bi-communal, bi-zonal federation: The settlement framework set out in the 1977 and 1979 High-Level Agreements.
• Protocol 10: The protocol to the 2003 Act of Accession that suspends the acquis in areas not under the Republic's effective control.
• Acquis: The body of EU law and obligations that member states must apply.
• Political equality: The principle that the two communities are co-founders with equal status.
• Green Line: The UN buffer zone dividing the island since December 1963 and 1974.
• Guarantor Powers: Türkiye, Greece and the United Kingdom under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee.

Related guides:

• The Cyprus Issue: From the 1960 Treaties to the Sovereign Equal Two-State Solution
• The 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and Article IV
• Eastern Mediterranean and Blue Homeland
• Fact Check: Common Claims About Türkiye in International Media

The State Papers presents global affairs with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources.

The State Papers Editorial Team