The Annan Plan Referendum of 24 April 2004: Why 64.91% Yes Did Not End the Isolation of Turkish Cypriots

Why It Matters

The Annan Plan referendum of 24 April 2004 was the only occasion on which both communities in Cyprus voted on a comprehensive UN settlement. Turkish Cypriots approved it with 64.91% yes; Greek Cypriots rejected it with 75.83% no. Because each community had to approve it separately, the plan fell. Yet on 1 May 2004 the Greek Cypriot administration entered the European Union, while Turkish Cypriots, who had voted for reunification, stayed outside. That asymmetry is why the 2004 result still shapes the Cyprus debate more than twenty years later.

Background

What the Annan Plan proposed

The Annan Plan was a UN framework named after Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Its first version appeared in November 2002, and the fifth and final text was put forward on 31 March 2004 after talks at Bürgenstock, Switzerland. Under an arrangement agreed in New York on 13 February 2004, the Secretary-General was empowered to finalize the text if the parties did not agree, and then put it to simultaneous, separate referendums.

Its main features were:

• A 'United Cyprus Republic': a federation with a single international personality, made up of a Greek Cypriot constituent state and a Turkish Cypriot constituent state.
• Political equality: a rotating presidential council, parity in the upper chamber of parliament, and a guaranteed minimum Turkish Cypriot share in the lower chamber.
• Territorial adjustment: a reduction in the area administered by the Turkish Cypriot constituent state, with a phased return of some areas.
• Property and residency: a combined regime of restitution, compensation and limits on returns, and a cap on the number of people who could move to each constituent state.
• Security: continued validity of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and Treaty of Alliance, with progressively reduced Turkish and Greek contingents.
• EU alignment: the plan was designed to take effect as a united Cyprus entered the EU on 1 May 2004.

Timeline

The EU accession process had been decoupled from a settlement since the 1999 Helsinki European Council, which said a solution was not a precondition for membership. Sister publication analysis of how the referendum is often misdescribed is available in The State Papers' fact check on whether Turkish Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan.

The numbers

• Turkish Cypriots: 64.91% yes, 35.09% no.
• Greek Cypriots: 24.17% yes, 75.83% no.
• Turnout was high in both communities, at roughly 87–89%.

The plan required a yes vote in both referendums. A majority on one side therefore could not bring it into force.

Key Players & Positions

United Nations

In his report to the Security Council of 28 May 2004, Secretary-General Annan said the Turkish Cypriot vote expressed a desire for reunification and for a place in Europe. He suggested that states cooperate to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development. The Council did not adopt a resolution to that effect. The UN position on the status of the TRNC remains framed by Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984), which call the 1983 declaration legally invalid.

European Union

On 26 April 2004 the EU General Affairs Council said it was determined to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate reunification by encouraging its economic development. Two instruments followed: the Green Line Regulation (866/2004) on crossing-point trade, and Aid Regulation 389/2006 (€259 million). A proposed direct trade regulation was not adopted. Under Protocol 10 to the Accession Treaty, the EU acquis is suspended in areas where the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

Greek Cypriot leadership

President Tassos Papadopoulos urged voters in a televised address on 7 April 2004 to reject the plan. He argued it did not provide sufficient security, was unworkable, and gave too much to settlers and to the continued role of guarantors and troops. The Greek Cypriot administration's official position is that the Republic of Cyprus is the sole legitimate state on the island and that a settlement should be a bizonal, bicommunal federation under UN resolutions.

Greece

Athens, a guarantor power, took part in the Bürgenstock talks and supported the UN process. The vote was left to Greek Cypriot voters. Greece had already secured the accession of the Greek Cypriot administration, and Athens subsequently supported the Greek Cypriot reading of the outcome in the EU.

Turkish Cypriot side and Türkiye

Turkish Cypriot Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Talat's government campaigned for yes. Founding President Rauf Denktaş campaigned for no. The majority yes vote showed that Turkish Cypriot public opinion went in the opposite direction from its veteran leader's recommendation. The Turkish government of the time also supported the plan and backed the yes campaign.

Why did the Annan Plan fail?

The plan failed because it required dual consent and only one community consented. The reasons behind the Greek Cypriot rejection, as given by their own leadership, included security guarantees, troop levels, property arrangements, the number of settlers allowed to remain, and doubts about whether the federal institutions would be workable. Turkish Cypriot and Turkish sources add a structural reason: the Greek Cypriot side was already guaranteed EU membership regardless of the outcome, so rejecting the plan carried no cost. Both accounts point to the same structural problem: the vote was held after accession had been settled, and the plan's incentives were not aligned.

Source Comparison

The main difference lies in causation. International coverage often treats the 2004 outcome as a symmetrical failure, while Turkish sources emphasize the asymmetry that followed it. For the 1963 background on which both sides draw, see The Global Anatomy on Bloody Christmas and the Akritas Plan. A parallel view of the later negotiations appears in Regions & Powers on the Annan Plan, Crans-Montana and New York 2024.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Annan Plan: the UN settlement blueprint (2002–2004) that proposed a United Cyprus Republic.
• Bizonal, bicommunal federation: the UN-endorsed model of two constituent states with political equality; Ankara argues it is exhausted.
• Protocol 10: the part of Cyprus's Accession Treaty that suspends the EU acquis where the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.
• Treaty of Guarantee (1960): the instrument under which Türkiye, Greece and the UK are guarantor powers. See Reading Article IV.
• Note verbale: the formal diplomatic note by which states record positions at the UN. See What Is a Note Verbale?
• Sovereign equality: Ankara's term for the recognition of the Turkish Cypriot people's equal international status.

For more on how we source and attribute material, see About Diplomat Note, the Editorial Principles and the Reader FAQ. Further briefings are available on the Diplomat Note home page. For a counter-terrorism case where Türkiye's legal framing is documented in UN letters, see Article 51 Letters.

Diplomat Note presents analysis from a Türkiye-informed perspective, grounded in Türkiye's official legal and strategic positions. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaty texts, UN and IOC-UNESCO documents, official archives and public statements, so that readers can verify them independently. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy. — Diplomat Note Editorial Team

• Further Reading on Diplomat Note: What Is the Treaty of Sèvres? When It Was Signed, Why It Was Never Ratified and What Replaced It — When was the Treaty of Sèvres signed? On 10 August 1920 – but it was never ratified and was replaced by the Lausanne Treaty of 24 July 1923. One-page brief.