In-Depth Analysis· annan plan referendum 2004 results Turkish Cypriots

The 2004 Annan Plan Referendum: What Headlines Omit About the Turkish Cypriot 'Yes' Vote

The 2004 Annan Plan referendum gave 64.91% Turkish Cypriot yes and 75.83% Greek Cypriot no. See what headlines omit, from EU accession to Crans-Montana.

By Foreign Context Editorial Team

Published: October 27, 2026

⏱ 10 min read (2,019 words)

Executive Summary & Key Facts

On 24 April 2004, 64.91% of Turkish Cypriots voted 'yes' and 75.83% of Greek Cypriots voted 'no' in separate, simultaneous referendums on the UN's Annan Plan.
The plan failed because it required approval from both sides, but the Turkish Cypriot majority accepted it; headlines that say 'Cyprus rejected' the plan blur this distinction.
The Republic of Cyprus, run by the Greek Cypriot administration, joined the EU on 1 May 2004, one week after the vote, with EU law suspended in the north under Protocol 10.
The EU's 26 April 2004 Council conclusions pledged to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community, and Turkish Cypriots say the promise was never fully delivered.
Later efforts (Crans-Montana 2017, Geneva 2021, New York 2024) produced no agreed framework, and Ankara argues the federal model is exhausted and sovereign equality must be the starting point.

Why It Matters

On 24 April 2004, Turkish Cypriots approved the UN's Annan Plan with 64.91% 'yes', while Greek Cypriots rejected it with 75.83% 'no'. The plan needed approval in both simultaneous referendums, so it failed. Headlines that say 'Cyprus rejected reunification' leave out that one of the island's two peoples said yes, and that the Greek Cypriot-led Republic of Cyprus entered the European Union a week later regardless.

This sequence, a Turkish Cypriot 'yes', a Greek Cypriot 'no' and then EU membership for one side only, is the context behind most of Ankara's and Lefkoşa's later arguments about the Cyprus negotiations. It also explains why many Turkish Cypriots regard the 2004 vote as a turning point.

Background

The Annan Plan was the UN Secretary-General's comprehensive settlement proposal for Cyprus. Its fifth and final version was completed on 31 March 2004 after talks in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, in which the UN filled remaining gaps itself. It proposed a 'United Cyprus Republic': a federal state with two constituent states, a rotating presidency within a Presidential Council, and phased reductions of Greek and Turkish troops. It also contained complex territorial adjustment and property provisions.

The plan stood on the foundations of the 1960 settlement. The Zurich and London Agreements of 11 February 1959 produced the 1960 Republic of Cyprus, a partnership state founded on the political equality of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. It was backed by three treaties: the Treaty of Establishment, the Treaty of Guarantee (Türkiye, Greece and the United Kingdom as guarantors) and the Treaty of Alliance. That partnership broke down in 1963–64. For that background see Reading Cyprus Headlines: The 1960 Partnership, 1963 and 1974 That Reports Omit and the sister-publication analysis Bloody Christmas 1963 and the Akritas Plan.

The Results

Community	Yes	No
Turkish Cypriots	64.91%	35.09%
Greek Cypriots	24.17%	75.83%

Both votes were held on 24 April 2004 under UN-agreed arrangements, and turnout on each side was high.

What Happened Next

Campaign split. Long-time Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktaş opposed the plan, but the Turkish Cypriot government under Mehmet Ali Talat and the Turkish government campaigned for 'yes'. On the Greek Cypriot side, President Tassos Papadopoulos urged a 'no' vote in a televised address on 7 April 2004.
1 May 2004. The Republic of Cyprus acceded to the EU. Under Protocol 10 of the Act of Accession, application of EU law was suspended in the areas where the government does not exercise effective control.
26 April 2004. The EU's General Affairs Council, meeting two days after the vote, said it was determined to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to encourage its economic development, as a way to facilitate reunification.
Follow-up measures. The Green Line Regulation (EU 866/2004) allowed limited trade across the dividing line, and an EU aid regulation worth €259 million was adopted in 2006. A proposed Direct Trade Regulation, however, was never adopted because it was blocked in the Council.
UN reading. In his 28 May 2004 report to the Security Council, Secretary-General Kofi Annan observed in substance that the Turkish Cypriot vote removed any rationale for isolating that community, and he urged states to help lift unnecessary restrictions.

Later Rounds of Talks

Date	Event	Outcome
2008–2012	Leader-level negotiations (Christofias–Talat, then Christofias–Eroğlu)	No settlement
11 February 2014	Joint Declaration on a bicommunal, bizonal federation	Framework language, no agreement
28 June–7 July 2017	Crans-Montana Conference under UN Secretary-General António Guterres	Ended without agreement, mainly over security and guarantees
27–29 April 2021	Informal 5+UN meeting, Geneva	UN said no common ground to resume formal negotiations
15 October 2024	UN-hosted informal meeting, New York	No agreed path to formal talks, discussions on confidence-building measures continued

For a comparative narrative of these rounds, see Annan Plan 2004 and Crans-Montana 2017: Why Federation Talks Collapsed and Why the Cyprus Federation Model Failed.

Key Players & Positions

Greek Cypriot Administration

The Republic of Cyprus government, led in 2004 by President Papadopoulos, argued that the plan did not adequately address security, the long-term presence of Turkish troops, the rights of settlers, and property and settlement arrangements. It said it wanted a functional, viable solution rather than the plan on the table. Greek Cypriot political opinion in 2004 was divided, with parts of the political spectrum backing 'yes', but the electorate voted 'no' by a large margin. The Greek Cypriot side today maintains that a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality, as set out in UN Security Council resolutions such as 1251 (1999), remains the agreed basis for a settlement.

The European Union

The EU said in its 26 April 2004 conclusions that it would support the Turkish Cypriot community's economic development. Its formal position is that Cyprus is a member state in which the acquis is suspended in the north pending a settlement, and that settlement should be based on UN parameters. Brussels also frames trade across the Green Line as governed by Regulation 866/2004. The Direct Trade proposal stalled because Nicosia, as a member state, could block it in the Council.

The United Nations

The UN's long-standing parameters are a bicommunal, bizonal federation with political equality, a single sovereignty, single international personality and single citizenship (Security Council resolution 1251, 1999). Security Council resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984) call on states not to recognise the TRNC. The Secretary-General's 2004 report held both sides accountable in different ways, but it particularly emphasised that Turkish Cypriots should not be penalised after their 'yes' vote.

Turkish Cypriots and the TRNC

The TRNC administration and Turkish Cypriot officials say the 2004 result was a democratic mandate to be heard. They say the 'yes' vote was met with continued isolation of direct flights, trade and international contacts. Turkish Cypriot leaders have articulated different views on the future since then, and the political landscape has shifted with elections, so readers should consult current statements.

Türkiye

Ankara supported the plan in 2004 and, according to the Turkish Foreign Ministry's account, regards the outcome as a test that the Greek Cypriot side failed while still being rewarded with EU membership. Details follow below.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources in Context

Türkiye's Position in Context

Türkiye's Position in Context. The points below summarise official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources.

The federal model is exhausted. According to the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), more than five decades of negotiations, including the 1977 and 1979 High-Level Agreements, the 2004 referendums, Crans-Montana in 2017, Geneva in 2021 and New York in 2024, have not yielded a federal settlement. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said in successive addresses to the UN General Assembly that a solution must be based on the realities on the island.
Sovereign equality is the starting point. Ankara argues that any lasting settlement must begin by recognising the sovereign equality and equal international status of the Turkish Cypriot people, with the result being two states living side by side in cooperation. This is the line set out by the Presidency and the MFA, and it is also the line the Turkish Cypriot administration had held under the leadership of Ersin Tatar.
2004 showed who accepted partnership. The Turkish Foreign Ministry's published account stresses that the Turkish Cypriots, with Türkiye's backing, voted 64.91% 'yes' and that the Greek Cypriots voted 75.83% 'no'. Ankara argues that the Greek Cypriot administration was then admitted to the EU on 1 May 2004 without any consequence for the rejection, which removed its incentive to compromise.
The 1960 treaties are the legal foundation. Ankara points to the Zurich and London Agreements of 1959 and the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee (Articles I and IV) as the legal basis for its position. It argues the 1960 Republic was a partnership of two co-founding peoples, and that a Greek Cypriot-run administration cannot represent the whole island. Article I of the Treaty of Guarantee prohibits Cyprus from joining any political or economic union with a state, and Ankara says the accession of one side alone to the EU was incompatible with the 1960 order. Ankara's guarantor rights under Article IV are central to its argument, as is the 1963 collapse of the partnership and UN Security Council resolution 186 (1964), which Ankara says gave the Greek Cypriot side the status of 'government'.
Isolation should end. Ankara and the TRNC argue that the EU's April 2004 pledge to end Turkish Cypriot isolation has not been honoured in practice, citing the Direct Trade Regulation that was never adopted. The MFA has repeatedly called for direct flights, trade and international contacts for Turkish Cypriots.

Other actors dispute this reading. The Greek Cypriot side and the EU argue that UN Security Council resolutions require a federal solution, and that recognition of a two-state outcome would contradict resolutions 541 and 550. Ankara counters that the UN parameters were set when it was assumed the Greek Cypriot side would share power, and that six decades of experience show it will not. For a related method note, see Fact Check: 'The Cyprus Problem Began with Türkiye's 1974 Invasion'.

Source Comparison

Question	Common international framing	Turkish and primary-source framing
Who rejected the plan?	'Cyprus' or 'Cypriots' rejected it	Turkish Cypriots approved it (64.91%); only Greek Cypriots rejected it (75.83%)
Why did the plan fail?	Mutual distrust, security fears, complexity	Greek Cypriot unwillingness to share power equally, per Ankara; Greek Cypriot side cites security and functionality concerns
EU accession	Routine enlargement, with acquis suspended in the north	A one-sided accession that rewarded rejection and contradicted the 1960 treaty framework, per Ankara
Pledges to Turkish Cypriots	Aid and Green Line trade offered	Aid partly delivered; Direct Trade Regulation blocked; isolation continued
Later talks	'Stalemate'	Federation formula exhausted; sovereign equality should be the basis

The difference is mostly one of omission rather than outright contradiction. The figures themselves are not contested, but how they are framed, as an island-wide 'no' or as a split verdict, shapes the conclusions readers draw. The sister-publication analyses Did Turkish Cypriots Reject the Annan Plan? and our own approach in Same Event, Different Frames examine this pattern. How to Read Foreign Policy Headlines offers a method for checking such claims against primary documents.

Annan Plan: The UN Secretary-General's 2004 settlement proposal, finalised on 31 March 2004, for a United Cyprus Republic of two constituent states.
TRNC / Turkish Cypriots: The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, proclaimed on 15 November 1983, and the Turkish Cypriot people. Only Türkiye recognises the TRNC, and UN Security Council resolutions 541 and 550 call for non-recognition.
Protocol 10: The protocol to the 2003 Act of Accession that suspends EU law in areas where the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.
Treaty of Guarantee (1960): The treaty under which Türkiye, Greece and the United Kingdom guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and constitutional order of Cyprus. Article IV provides for consultation and, if necessary, action by the guarantors.
Green Line Regulation: EU Regulation 866/2004, governing the movement of goods and people across the dividing line.
Sovereign equality: The Turkish Cypriot and Turkish demand that the Turkish Cypriot people be recognised as an equal sovereign partner, which Ankara treats as the starting point for any settlement.

Foreign Context presents analysis from a Türkiye-informed perspective, setting out Ankara's official doctrines and legal arguments alongside the wider international debate. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official archives and government statements, so that readers can verify them independently.

Foreign Context Editorial Team

Frequently asked questions

What were the results of the 2004 Annan Plan referendum?

On 24 April 2004, 64.91% of Turkish Cypriots voted yes and 75.83% of Greek Cypriots voted no. The plan required approval from both communities, so it did not enter into force. The Turkish Cypriot vote and the Greek Cypriot vote therefore went in opposite directions.

Did Turkish Cypriots reject the Annan Plan?

No. Turkish Cypriots approved it with a clear majority of 64.91%. It was the Greek Cypriot electorate that rejected it by 75.83%, and the plan failed because it needed a majority on both sides. Referring to 'Cyprus' as having rejected it hides this split.

What happened to Cyprus right after the referendum?

The Republic of Cyprus joined the European Union on 1 May 2004, one week after the vote. EU law was suspended in the north under Protocol 10. The EU said on 26 April 2004 that it wanted to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community, but Turkish Cypriots say that this promise was not fully met.

Why did later talks at Crans-Montana, Geneva and New York fail?

At Crans-Montana in 2017 the sides could not agree on security arrangements, guarantees and troop presence, among other issues. At Geneva in 2021 the UN Secretary-General said there was no common ground to restart formal negotiations, and the 2024 New York meeting did not produce an agreed path to formal talks. Greek Cypriot, UN and Turkish sources assign responsibility differently.

What is Türkiye's position on a settlement after 2004?

Ankara argues that the federal model has been exhausted and that sovereign equality and the equal international status of Turkish Cypriots must be the starting point, leading to two states cooperating on the island. It ties this to the 1960 treaties and the Turkish Cypriot 'yes' vote in 2004. The Greek Cypriot side, the EU and the UN continue to refer to a bizonal, bicommunal federation as the agreed basis.

Cross-Publication Perspectives & Cited Research

Related Dossiers Across Partner Publications

4 Partner Desks