Independent In-depth Paragraph by Paragraph Analysis of the Implications of the Annan Plan
Article 10 Property
3. In areas not subject to territorial adjustment, the arrangements for the exercise of property rights, by way of reinstatement or compensation, shall have the following basic features:
a. Dispossessed owners who opt for compensation or whose properties are not reinstated under the property arrangements shall receive full and effective compensation on the basis of value at the time of dispossession adjusted to reflect appreciation of property values in comparable locations;
Comments and Analysis
The so-called “property arrangements” Kofi Annan intends to put in place are these. Instead of treating the issue of property rights on the basis of justice and legality by accepting the validity of all legal title deeds registered with the Republic of Cyprus land and property registry and reinstating all properties to their legal owners without discrimination and leaving the courts to settle disputes Mr Annan intends to create a committee whose primary purpose will be to decide which property will be expropriated and which will be returned on an extra-judicial discriminatory basis.
The Annan plan indicates is that in areas not subject to territorial adjustment the majority of the dispossessed owners will not have their property reinstated. This is contrary to what is demanded by the European Court of Human Rights, the resolutions of the United Nations and all human rights norms.
Respect for the right of disposed owners to compensation for loss of enjoyment of their property and loss of income from that property, eg. rent, revenue from tourism or from business or agriculture is not mentioned in this article or any other part of the Annan plan.
Greek Cypriots, Maronites, Armenains and Latin’s own more than 87% of the property in Cyprus whereas the Turkish Cypriots own less than 13%. The property owned by Greek Cypriot, Maronite, Armenain and Latin refugees from the occupied areas amounts of 33% of the islands territory whereas that of Turkish Cypriots is 5%. The value of the property owned by individual Greek, Maronite, Armenain and Latin Cypriots is on average 10 times the value of the property owned by individual Turkish Cypriots.
Based on the maps and figures given in the plan the number of dispensed owners who will not have their property reinstated will amount to over 50% of the Greek Cypriot refugees or 100,000 people whereas in contrast all Turkish Cypriot dispensed owners will have their property fully reinstated and they will be given more besides. If properties were to be exchanged on the basis of Article 10, 3b; between 25% to 16% of all the property in Cyprus all of which legally belongs to Greek Cypriot refugees will be left outstanding. Instead of allowing the Greek Cypriot owners to return to reclaim even that property Mr Annan construes to enforce measures to allow current occupants to keep the property of the dispossessed Greek Cypriot refugees, measures which are clearly illegal within EU law. This constitutes more evidence to show that the clear intention of the Anann plan is to create an Apartheid state.
The principles of non-discrimination, fairness and justice are treated with complete and utter contempt by Mr Annan.
The Annan plan prevents 100,000 Greek Cypriot refugees from freely exercising their legal right to return and enjoy their property by putting obstacles in their way and intends to force the dispossessed owners who will not be allowed back to accept dubious compensation for the value of their property instead.
The valuation of properties will not take into consideration that after reunification the property values in the occupied areas will sky rocket because of new investment and development of tourism and commerce within the EU. Dispossessed owners will not be allowed to choose their asking price or sell to the highest bidder which they would have the right to do if properties were sold privately.
Detailed study to the provisions of this plan in their entirety shows that the compensation will not be paid by Turkey which is responsible for the crimes committed to the refugees but by the Cypriot Tax Payers including the refugees themselves who are the victims. The Greek Cypriot refugees will be told that they must compensate themselves with their own money since there will not be enough money to cover even a fraction of the value of the properties involved, estimated as some €500 billion Euros. Mr Annan is fully aware that there will not be adequate funds to pay compensation since instead of cash the Annan plan states refugees will be given worthless pieces of paper or so-called bonds promising payment at some future date. The refugees will be stripped of their property and not see a penny in compensation within a hundred years.
There no guarantee that Turkey will even withdraw its illegal forces and colonists or return the territory it illegally occupies when this agreement comes into force so why does it not demand that Turkey must remove its illegal troops and colonists from Cyprus soil prior to the enactment of this Agreement.
Paragraph 3. and 3. a are completely illegal, and violate the rights of the refugees and thus cannot be tolerated. They in conjunction with the details given in this plan will never hold up under scrutiny at the European Court of Human Rights and must be amended to make this plan non-discriminatory, just, viable and workable.
What guarantee is there that Turkey which has illegally occupied Cyprus for 30 years in violation of over 130 UN Security Council resolutions will withdraw its illegal forces and colonists or return the territory it illegally occupies when this agreement is enacted ?
How does Mr Annan feel about the fact that his plan denies 100,000 Greek Cypriot refugees their right to return and to immediate full and effective compensation paid by the aggressor and illegal occupier where as all Turkish Cypriot will have their property reinstated should they wish. Does he believe this adheres to the principles of non-discrimination, fairness, equality and justice ?
Does Mr Annan have any kind of regard for the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the resolutions of the organization he purports to represent or does he hold them all equally in contempt ?
Does Mr Annan believe that dispossessed owners should be compensated for loss of enjoyment of their property and loss of income from that property in accordance to the judgments of the ECHR ?
“3. All areas will subject to return to the Republic of Cyprus to its satisfaction before the constitutional, governmental and institutional changes foreseen by agreement can take effect. Properties shall immediately be reinstated to all dispossessed owners on the basis of ownership in accordance with the law without delay or deliberation”
“a. All dispossessed owners will have their property reinstated and their rights relating to that property fully respected. The Republic of Turkey being the culpable party as judged by the European Court of Human Rights including the cases Loizidou vs. Turkey, Cyprus vs. Turkey, will be judged liable to pay immediate full and effective compensation to the dispossessed owners for the loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, the loss of value of their properties compared to comparable properties in the areas not under illegal Turkish occupation, the loss of income from their properties, the full restoration costs for properties which have been allowed to deteriorate or have been destroyed, looted or vandalised, including the cost of recovering items including antiquates that have been looted, the demolition costs pertaining to structures of that have been built illegally, the cost of restoring the land to its original state, and all other costs incurred by the dispossessed owners in relation to realising their property rights. In the case of non-payment or refusal to pay by Turkey the Cyprus government will take all necessary action against Turkey including seeking to have Turkey’s international assets frozen and then seized to make payment possible.”