Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.3.2-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, on 13 December 1999, the Helsinki European Council decided to grant Turkey the status of applicant country for accession to the European Union and to set up an accession partnership and a single financial framework in order to help Turkey’s application progress in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria.
This is the spirit in which the preparatory work for this report was carried out within the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and I should like, at this point, to thank all my fellow members for the contribution they made towards finalising this report, which, like the Commission, concludes that Turkey does not currently fulfil the Copenhagen criteria.
We must applaud the remarkable efforts Turkey has made, since the Helsinki decision, in devising a programme to develop its judicial framework in order to meet EU demands in a more satisfactory manner, with particular regard to human rights. One example is the report drawn up under the responsibility of Mr Demirok, Secretary of the Turkish Supreme Coordination Council for Human Rights, who has proposed a very wide-ranging raft of reforms to the Constitution. However, we must also note and acknowledge that an awareness of the importance of these reforms has caused considerable upheavals in the various political parties and in Turkish public opinion. Turkish citizens are realising that Turkey’s accession to the EU will require not only the ‘painless’ revision of their institutions but also a partial renunciation of sovereignty, to which they remain jealously attached, and a radical change in habits and outlook.
This is why Parliament has proposed the setting up of a Europe-Turkey Forum involving expert representatives of the Turkish community and appointed MEPs who would consider in depth the issues involved. Turkish accession is too important a matter for the future of the Union and of Turkey itself for a decision to be taken in smoke-filled back rooms or behind closed doors. Lengthy debates will be needed, both in the European Parliament and in the national parliaments, and that is why it is generally accepted that the road will be long and difficult.
The establishment of the Forum proposed by the European Parliament should allow us to overcome the initial obstacles encountered on this road. The European Parliament will have to tell its Turkish partners very clearly in the debates in that Forum that they need have no fear of any European desire to interfere in their internal affairs and that, on the contrary, it is proposing a contract, the precise details of which are being thrashed out, in the accession partnership, Commissioner, and, of course, in the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It will be up to the Turks to accept it or refuse it.
As matters stand, it is also up to the European Parliament to tell the Turkish people that there are, today, at least three conditions for accession which Turkey must meet. Firstly, the need for identity must be respected: this need has been demonstrated particularly clearly in Europe by its citizens who wish to preserve their origins in the face of the ineluctable progress of globalisation. Aware that its diversity constitutes its wealth, Europe is determined to recognise this need for identity, and that is why it insists on the rights and also the obligations of minorities. It is in this spirit that it is prepared to help Turkey find a solution to the Kurdish problem in particular. The second problem, which will clearly have to be solved as soon as possible, concerns Cyprus. It is hard to understand today how it can remain divided by a wall, while in many other places, notably in Berlin and Sarajevo, and even more recently, between North and South Korea, such walls have crumbled over the past decade. Finally, since the fight against terrorism may now be deemed to be over, the influence of the Turkish army in the drawing up of political decisions should be gradually reduced.
I spoke of the three preconditions. In 1987, Parliament acknowledged the Armenian genocide. There are some people who would like to make the Turkish Government’s acknowledgement of this genocide a further condition for accession. This would run counter to the spirit and the letter of the process defined in Copenhagen for all candidate countries. I have suffered too much, alongside all the communities of Bosnia-Herzegovina, from the tragic consequences of the systematic resurrection of former atrocities to believe that a peaceful and stable future can be built except by ceasing to stir up the embers of past resentments."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples