By Marcus Templar, MA, MS -
Greek Cypriots, the majority population on the Island of Cyprus, overwhelmingly rejected a plan for reunification with the island’s small Turkish minority developed by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in a referendum on April 24, 2004. The majority Greeks regarded the solution offered by Annan as impractical and unfair, while the government of Turkey praised it as very doable and accommodating to both parties. The size of the Turkish minority in Cyprus –some 18 percent of the island’s population–equals the percentage of the Kurdish minority in Turkey itself. Given long-standing Kurdish demands for greater political and other rights in Turkey, an interesting “what if” question arises–if the Annan Plan were implemented within Turkey for its Kurdish minority, would the Turks still find the plan fair and practical?
Here’s the “what if?”
Upon agreement of the two main communities living in Turkey (Kurdish and Turkish), the present state ceases to exist pending approval of the citizens of the Turkish Republic through a nation-wide referendum. Immediately after the approval of the new settlement, the new state is a reality. There is no going back to the old state even if later on majorities in both the Kurdish and Turkish areas overwhelmingly vote to do so. Under the provisions of the Plan, Turkey becomes a bi-zonal and bi-communal federal state in which 37% of its land passes to the new government of the Kurds. The new federal state is misnamed “ United Turkey Republic ” and under the new Constitution, the two major ethnic groups (Turkish and Kurdish) have equal representation in the proposed Senate regardless of unequal populations. Under the above provision, the state comes to a standstill.
The Supreme Court consists of an equal number of Kurdish (18% of the population) and Turkish judges (80% of population) plus three foreign judges; thus, foreign players would cast deciding votes. Since a hierarchy of laws does not exist, the federation is an actual confederation in which the component states are the source of laws for the central authority and not the other way around! One must have in mind that the reason the United States had abandoned its original confederation structure was because it was not workable. The Constitution of the United States established in 1789 gave clear federal supremacy over the laws of its constituent states. All state laws in the United States originate from federal laws.
Turkish and Kurdish populations are displaced, each moving to the other’s pertinent ethnic territory. Time restrictions on the right of free and permanent installation of Turks back to their homes and properties in the Kurdish state are imposed; Kurds have no restrictions. Those Turks who choose to live in their old homes in regions under the Kurdish administration have no local civil rights because only Kurds may elect the political representatives of the Kurdish state. In addition, the Turks that stayed in the Kurdish lands will never be allowed to make up more than 6% of the population in any single village. In this manner, Turks are prevented from setting up their own schools and are even unable to give birth once this quota is reached!The economy of the new federal Turkey is separate with no common monetary and fiscal policy. In addition, Turkish businesses are not allowed to invest in the Kurdish constituent state, and while all provisions above benefit the Kurds, the Turkish taxpayer ends up paying for all modifications, adjustments, and conversions in the new republic because the UN considers that in the previous decades the Kurds suffered enormously and must be compensated. In addition, Turkish citizens are not allowed to file any complaints with the European Court of Justice in relation to any losses suffered because of the implementation of the Plan.
The above “what if” analysis indicates what could happen to the Turks if the Plan had applied to Turkey and depicts what would have happened to the Greek Cypriots had they voted for the Annan Plan for Cyprus’ reunification. We welcome your comments.
Marcus Templar
MA, MS
________________________
You may also read this hypothetical in two other languages:
Related AGORA reports we recommend:
Very interesting article!
You successfully applied some crucial provisions of the Koffee Anan Plan which are against fundamental human rights in the case of Turks and you proved that the plan cannot be workable!
Well done!
Excellent article and analysis!
Perfect example for comparison. Congradulations!
Unfortunately, even UN use different criteria, according to the… circumstances, i.e. according to their “master voice”.
Bravo! ( they should be more trnsaltions in other languages )
Could anyone imagine a world where the proposition (that is the principles used) by the then Secretary General of the United Nations Mr Kofi Annan in the case of the Republic of Cyprus and also the suggestion by Marcus Templar in the case of Turkey in relationship to the Kurds, could be applied to Mr Alexander Downer’s and Dr Gareth Evan’s country ( Australia ), in Henry Kissinger’s and Hillary Clinton’s country ( USA ), or Blair’s and Brown country ( UK )?
Unthinkable.
I remember feeling so angry at hearing the plethory of public criticism towards the Greek Cypriots the days/weeks/months after they rejected the Anan Plan. Especially from the American and British diplomats…
We must remember that the Anan plan was not a plan for reunification of the Republic of Cyprus, but rather a plan to eliminate the Republic and legitimise the illegal Turkish invasion and ongoing occupation of the island state.
Those who wrote this monstrocity of a plan did not write it for the people of Cyprus. The architects of the Anan plan wrote it for the benefit of others: Under the prposed plan – even the British bases in Cyprus acquired territorial waters [note that according to international law, territorial waters can only be owned/acquired by legitimate states - sovereign bases are not states!]. This situation would not only have given Britain the “right” to tap into the natural gas resources found under the sea between Cyprus and Egypt, it may have also created a dangerous precedent in international law with respect to ownership of territorial waters.
The proposed plan was not consistent with the principles of international law, the EU acuis communaitaire, and even the UN Charter!
It was simply unacceptable. Thankfully the people of Cyprus were wise enough to reject such a plan, even under the dark duress and blackmail directed by foreign diplomats during the weeks/days which preceded the referendum.
The fact that the Anan plan was proposed as a solution to the Cyprus problem and was put before the people of Cyprus, proves as another example that the United Nations is not the platform for reaching just and viable solutions to such international issues.
Elias Eracleous
What a difference when the laws and constitutions we recomend for other countries are proposed to be implemented on our own country.There is a saying “A thousand lashes on somebody else’s back,a thousand on your own” The one on your own back seem far worse.
The article is a feast for thought and easy to digest.