Full Article: https://www.ozgurgazetekibris.com/kose-yazarlarimiz/gencler_yaziyor/139263-annan-planinin-20-yili-neden-bu-planin-basarisiz-olacagi-en-basindan-belliydi-1.html

Now tell me; Why would people prefer ‘virgin birth’, which is filled with many problems, instead of reshaping the state they have?

I will write this article to reassure you and show that all this is said is empty; the reason for ‘NO’ from the Republic of Cyprus is not that they do not want Turkish Cypriots or reunification; the Annan Plan contained some items that could harm ‘all of Cyprus and Cypriots’ and benefit the imperialists…

It is the twentieth anniversary of the Annan Plan. Is this ‘Annan Plan’ really as ‘important’ as it is said to be?

https://i.redd.it/9m8nvldq42vc1.jpeg

Posted by CypriotPeacemaker

5 Comments

  1. guywiththemonocle on

    Mehhh i dont think the arguments are great and they are also few. To reject annan plan you gotta have more and better opposition. Also the fact that the annan proposed a new country instead of reunification under republic of cyprus was kind of assurance to the turks that thr country wouldnt be gc dominated – a turk in favor of annan

  2. Annan plan was stillborn.

    It was a shit plan that only even came to referendum because of Cyprus EU accession. RoC had to accept some kind of referendum but it didn’t really matter since EU accession wasn’t dependent on it.

    The Annan plan may have been bad, but imho, the positioning of it as a one and done thing was mistaken. The 2 sides could have actually done some realpolitik and used it as a basis for further negotiation and community support since it set the precedent of actually having a referendum and active discussion.

    Instead everyone just retreated back to their corners, similar to what happened in crans montana.

  3. Independent-Win5420 on

    I am really waiting for her next articles curious to see what she is going to say about Annan Plan

  4. Unlike the author I am old enough and I have voted in the referendum.

    The flag was bad, and as the article states it emphasized the division (unlike the flag of RoC), but that was definitely not a major reason for the rejection of the plan.

    The main reason the plan was rejected was that it was legalizing the division instead of liberating the north. It essentially upgraded the “trnc” into a legal Turkish state while at the same time downgrading our side and equating us with it. Then it placed the officially created “Greek Cyprus” and “Turkish Cyprus” into a dysfunctional 50%-50% partnership under a loose federal arrangement, ignoring the fact that GC are the great majority of the population.

    The only important thing we got was 6% of land that was supposed to be returned. But even that was just a promise and we were supposed to get that land gradually in the future, while the Turkish side got everything from day 1.

    While reading the plan I was also comparing it with the constitutions of other countries, including the constitution of the Swiss Confederation. Even if we ignore the fact that the north was taken from us with a foreign invasion and ethnic cleansing and accept a federation, the proposed parameters for our federation were far worst than any other prosperous federation. The only thing that comes close would be Bosnia, and that country is a clusterfuck.

    Of course there is a lot more to be said about the Annan plan, but the gist of it is that it was so unfair for Greek Cypriots that this so called “solution” would result in a bigger problem from the one we already had.

    The UN, i.e. the AngloAmericans who were doing the work behind the scenes, were too focused in satisfying their own interests as well as the interests of their important ally Turkey, that they ignored (yet again) what most Cypriots wanted, and as a result the plan failed.