A spokesman for the European Commission, which is dominated by the continent’s biggest imperialist powers, Paris and Berlin, said the EC “deeply regrets that the Greek Cypriot community did not approve the comprehensive settlement.” Both Annan and the U.S. State Department likewise expressed disappointment.

The imperialist powers presented the plan as a step toward reunification as they pushed for a stabilization of the situation in Cyprus leading up to its membership in the European Union.

Cyprus was carved in two in 1974 following an attempt by the then-military government of Greece to annex the island for Greek imperialism. Seizing the moment, the rulers of Turkey invaded and occupied the northern area.

Annan’s plan would have created a federal government with responsibility for external relations and monetary policy. The Turkish and Greek Cypriot areas would have remained under distinct administrations, with control over industry, commerce, and many other areas.

Under the blueprint, the 37,000 Turkish troops in northern Cyprus would have been reduced within two years from their present level to 6,000—equal to the number of Greek forces, with further reductions to follow.

The plan prescribed no reduction in London’s military presence, centered on three military bases covering 99 square miles of the island’s territory. The British government has retained this foothold since ending direct colonial rule over Cyprus in 1960. UN troops are also stationed there.

The vote in the north expressed the desire among Turkish Cypriots to overcome their economic isolation and backwardness compared to the south of their country, and to bring to an end their status as an occupied territory on a divided island. Many have hopes that EU membership will advance those ends.

While most northern politicians campaigned for the referendum, Rauf Denktash, president of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, opposed it, railing against Annan’s proposal to give the Turkish Cypriot component of the state 29 percent of the land area—down from 39 percent today.

In the south the “no” camp included President Tassos Papadopoulos, officials of the Orthodox Church, and the Restorative Party of the Working People (AKEL). These forces concentrated on nationalist demands for greater concessions for the Greek-Cypriot region.

The majority “no” vote among Greek Cypriots was driven, among other things, by concerns over the Annan plan’s approach to the question of the refugees created by the division of the country 30 years ago. Rather than simply establishing the right of refugees to return to their previous homes if they so chose, the plan laid out detailed limits on resettlement.

In the Pyla village, located in the buffer zone between north and south, with a mixed Greek- and Turkish-Cypriot population and policed by UN soldiers, the majority rejected the UN plan.

“We have lived together for years and there have been no problems at all ,” said 62-year-old George Sotirou, a Greek Cypriot born in the village. “With a better plan and agreement between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots we will be fine. Unfortunately the UN hasn’t offered us such a plan.”

Cyprus became a formal member of the EU on May 1. On the eve of the accession, the EC voted to approve a 259 million euro aid package to the north. The imperialist powers at the EU’s helm are eager to have access to Cyprus as a stable export platform to the Mideast. Athens is looking forward to using its proximity to the island to its advantage.

For their part, U.S. and British officials are using Cyprus’s EU membership as leverage in their efforts to force Paris and Berlin to agree to admit Turkey, a U.S. ally. Meanwhile, the competing imperialist powers are still intent on forcing an Annan-type “solution” to the division of Cyprus.

“The only way to restore any chance of reunifying the island,” stated the April 27 editorial of the International Herald Tribune, which is owned by the New York Times, “is for the EU and the United States to get tough—to lift the economic sanctions in the Turkish north and to limit aid to the Greek south.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home