The results of the two referenda in Cyprus on 24 April 2004 saw a majority of Turkish Cypriots (65 per cent) vote for the Annan Plan, but an even greater majority of Greek Cypriots (76 per cent) vote against it. But why did this happen given that the Greek Cypriot people have dreamed of reuniting their island for 30 years following the brutal invasion and occupation by Turkey? Only those who have not actually read Annan 5 could ever wonder why.

It appears to have been forgotten by the EU and the UN that it is Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership that have successively, for 30 years, refused to resolve the Cyprus issue and to make any concessions. In violation of countless UN resolutions and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey has refused to withdraw its troops of over 40,000 from the north and has continued to send Turkish colonists to Cyprus to change the demographic structure of the island.

Notwithstanding the human rights abuses suffered by the Greek Cypriot people at the hands of Turkey and the fact that they have been denied their homes for 30 years, the Greek Cypriot side has always been willing to compromise with a view to reaching a settlement. However, the Annan Plan was a step too far for the following reasons:

Under the Plan Turkey would have been entitled to intervene in the affairs of Cyprus, including the affairs of the proposed Greek Cypriot constituent state and would once again be offered as a guarantor power not withstanding its abuse of the Treaty of Guarantee in 1974. For Greek Cypriots it was very much a case of once bitten twice shy.

There was absolutely no guarantee for Greek Cypriots that Turkey would abide by its promises to respect the territorial integrity of the island. The EU Parliament itself resolved on 1 April 2004 that Turkey is unfit to join the EU, citing amongst other things, torture, lack of democracy, imprisonment of political opponents, persecution of minorities and the influence of the military. Notwithstanding this assessment, Turkey was apparently regarded as fit to be a guarantor power for the future peace of Cyprus by a number of countries.

The Turkish Cypriot minority of 18 per cent of the population plus 120,000 illegal Turkish colonists were to have been allowed to keep 30 per cent of the island. Only 7 per cent of the area Turkish troops occupy since 1974 (37 per cent of the island)would have been returned to the Greek Cypriots (and then over the course of three and a half years) thus legalising the occupation and effectively creating partition in the name of confederation.

Freedom of movement and residence would have been severely restricted, notwithstanding that Cyprus was about to become an EU member state and the fundamental human rights of the Greek Cypriots to return to their stolen homes would have been abrogated forever. In this regard, Turkey would have managed to obtain an unjustified and unprecedented 19 year long derogation.

Cases brought by Greek Cypriots against Turkey and pending before the European Court of Human Rights would have been struck out and the Greek Cypriot constituent state would have been the responsible State party and not Turkey which escaped any liability. This was so, notwithstanding the fact that the ECHR has found Turkey guilty of numerous breaches of human rights and has declared that the Greek Cypriots are the legitimate owners of their title-deeds to properties in the north (Loizidou v Turkey, 1996).

The Cypriot National Guard was to have been disbanded but 6,000 Turkish troops were to remain on the island until at least 2011, and 3000 would remain until 2018 or Turkey’s accession to the EU.

Almost all the thousands of colonists (120,000) brought over by Turkey to change the demographic structure of the island would remain, notwithstanding the fact that the Turkish Cypriots have found it almost impossible to live with them and tens of thousands have chosen to leave Cyprus themselves rather than do so.

The resounding rejection of the Annan Plan in the referendum held on 24 April 2004 was a painful and difficult decision for the Greek Cypriot people to make. In spite of the threats and bullying tactics employed by the international community including individuals such as Kofi Annan ("there is no other plan on the table – it is this or nothing") and by EU Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen ("if you say "no" you open the door to another 100,000 Turkish settlers") the Greek Cypriots exercised their democratic rights and made the courageous decision to reject the Plan.

The international community should now not reward Turkey and legitimise its occupation of Cyprus by recognising the Turkish Cypriot puppet regime of Turkey and lifting the embargoes imposed upon it. President Papadopoulos has already confirmed that rights that were to be afforded to the Turkish Cypriots will be conferred upon them. Indeed the proposals of the Republic of Cyprus on cross 'border' trade have already been applauded by the EU and accepted.