Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-01-Speech-3-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991201.10.3-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, although the two regulations being debated here today have in fact nothing to do with the debates which will be held in the General Council next Monday and in the European Council in Helsinki a few days later, I am of course aware of the fact that the political context and timing cannot be ignored here and that we must naturally discuss the overall problem of relations between the European Union and Turkey in conjunction with these two regulations and that is what most speakers have done here this evening.
I should like at this point to appeal again most urgently to Turkey to do so as quickly as possible. It is not just a symbolic gesture. The death penalty is something so final, something so final and so barbaric that we in Europe cannot sanction it. Turkey knows full well that the abolition of capital punishment must be one of the first hurdles on the road which I referred to.
So I would be most grateful if you would vote in favour of the rapporteur’s report and uphold an old commitment which Europe entered into towards Turkey. We too are not always in the most credible position, including vis-à-vis Turkey. I always find it very difficult to demand something of a country, to make demands on a country to which we have made promises which we have not honoured. A vote in favour of the two regulations would considerably improve our moral position in relation to Turkey and I consider that most important at this stage.
The ideas developed by the European Parliament in the form of the amendments tabled during the discussions tally fully, for the most part, with the Commission and I shall support most of them. There are only a few minor points on which I cannot accept the proposed amendments as they stand and that is where the institutional balance is affected. You must and you will understand that the Commission must take care to ensure that the distribution of roles is not changed, that the tasks are allocated as stated in the Treaties and that responsibilities cannot be mixed. But I think that there is overall agreement on the matter itself. I again expressly offer to provide the European Parliament with comprehensive information in advance on specific action taken and on the projects which are developed and implemented jointly with Turkey on the basis of the funding regulations, thereby guaranteeing the involvement of the European Parliament in the development of relations with Turkey at all times.
I do not know this evening what the decision will be in Helsinki next week, but I am firmly convinced that the decision which the European Parliament has to take on these two regulations will impact on the outcome of future discussions and on the decision taken by the European Council in a week’s time.
I am most grateful for the debate which has been held here because it was a highly factual debate which made very valuable and important points, especially for the attention of Turkey, because Turkey will have to gauge the political mood which prevails in Europe towards its application to join the European Union. Firstly, however, I would like to extend my most sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Morillon, for the two reports which he has submitted and to express my appreciation to him and to Mr McMillan-Scott and Mr Schwaiger for their contributions.
I think the report is so important because the European Parliament subscribes in it to the view that the European strategy represents a suitable way of extending relations between the European Union and Turkey and that financial support is needed in order to implement the strategy.
Allow me to take this opportunity to explain once again the change in strategy towards Turkey, and I certainly do not take what Mr Brie said as a reproach. If a new Commission is not to be allowed to change the position of previous Commissions which it considers wrong, then we have no further need of a Commission. We could use robots which just keep on applying whatever was said once at some time in the past. I think that Mr Brie of all people will understand that you are not always willing to be arrested for something which your predecessors did. Otherwise we could have an interesting debate on your own predecessors, couldn’t we?
I just wanted to make that clear. What the change involves is something quite different. The fact is that we must recognise that our previous strategies towards Turkey have not had any visible success. We can hold endless discussions as to the reason, but the fact remains that the findings made here, that progress in Turkey is unsatisfactory, are correct. So the question which arises is: can we do anything to change this? The proposal made by the Commission, and which I hope Helsinki will support, is to set a parallel process in motion so that the two processes dovetail. On the one hand, we want to bring Turkey into the European Union using precisely the instruments used to bring other candidates in and, on the other, we want to see, in parallel, a fundamental change in Turkey itself. I repeat, a fundamental change. I can report from my discussions with the Turkish Prime Minister and from several meetings with the Turkish Foreign Secretary over the last few days that the Turkish Government is fully aware of the need for this fundamental change in the political, economic, social and cultural areas. More than that, I am convinced that the present Turkish Government and the parliamentary majority behind it also want this fundamental change.
At some point now we must break the vicious circle. There is no sense in saying: once Turkey has already done certain things, then maybe we will say yes, because then Turkey will give the standard response: as Europe does not keep its promises, we have no clear European prospects and we cannot therefore negotiate the risk-strewn path to reform.
We could carry on like this for years and nothing would change, which is why the attempt being made now is reasonable, bodes well and is under our control at all times. That is important because we do not of course want to bring a country into the European Union which, we must one day admit, will not meet the political criteria. For the rest, it is wrong to say that there have been no interesting developments in Turkey recently. I would like to quote just three. As far as foreign policy is concerned, there is no question that we are witnessing a rapprochement between Greece and Turkey which we would have considered impossible six months ago. That is not only thanks to the contribution of the Greek Government, which I have a very high opinion of and hold in great esteem; it is also thanks to the Turkish Government. I would like to mention just one of the minor consequences of this rapprochement: when Greek and Turkish journalists work together to stop the propaganda which we have followed for years in the main media in their countries and to stop people from being wrongly informed about what is happening in their neighbouring country, then I call that very real progress indeed.
The second point is that we shall probably witness the passing of a very important law on human rights in Turkey before Helsinki. For the first time in the history of Turkey, there will be a law which allows members of the civil service, i.e. officials, to be brought to trial for violating human rights. For example, people allegedly responsible for torture will be brought to trial. We take that for granted in our countries, but for Turkey it is unprecedented.
The third point I would like to make is that the Turkish Minister responsible for European integration and human rights – an interesting remit, but one which goes well together – has officially stated, following the upholding of the death sentence by the Court of Appeal, that it is not in Turkey’s interest to carry out this death sentence. Without wishing to betray confidentiality, I can go so far as to say here that my impression is that, while the proceedings in Strasbourg are under way, the Turkish Government does not want, under any circumstances, to take a decision on the execution; their strategy is rather to use the time gained by the proceedings in Strasbourg to abolish capital punishment in Turkey."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples