Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.3.2-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, may I start, on behalf of my group, by warmly congratulating the two rapporteurs on their reports. A report on Turkey is no easy task because there are always so many contradictory developments. There have been positive developments, such as the new minister for Europe, such as the new special secretariat-general for European affairs attached to the prime minister's office, but there have also been regrettable shortcomings as far as Turkey's preparations for accession are concerned. Nothing has been done about abolishing the death penalty, and very little has been done to set minority and human rights on a solid legal basis, even if a few UN conventions have been signed.
It does not augur well that a person who offers no unconditional guarantee that more will be done about human rights has been elected as chairman of the human rights committee in parliament. The same goes for the Kurdish question. There have been a few vaguely positive signs here. Reports in the Kurdish language may be allowed on television and radio and a certain degree of recognition of the Kurdish culture could follow. On the other hand, a number of mayors have been arrested and the Hadep party have trouble in Kurdish areas in the south-east.
Surely these contradictions alone illustrate the struggle within Turkey itself between progressive forces and reactionary forces, which simply have no interest in moving towards Europe. And that is a pity. The Commissioner is quite right. We must and we should do everything we can to support and back the positive, progressive forces within Turkey.
I should like here, quite openly, to touch on the so-called Armenian question. At a meeting which I, unfortunately, was unable to attend, my group decided by a majority to support Amendment No 25. As far as the content is concerned, there is little to say against this motion. Unfortunately, however, a number of people are using the motions on Armenia and the massacre of the Armenians as a pretext to question, in a roundabout way, the very notion of Turkey's joining the European Union. I think that is wrong and I think it is dangerous. Nonetheless, I would urge Turkey to take this issue seriously, whatever the outcome of the vote. We all have to come to terms with our own history and with the actions of our antecedent countries and states openly and honestly. I think that Turkey should take a fresh approach and that it and Armenia should commission their historians to analyse what happened in order to uncover, explain, take a clear stand on and clearly admit what happened.
I think that would be the best way out of this tricky situation, because it is far easier to undertake this sort of analysis yourself than it is to impose it from outside. In this sense I should like to revert to what the Commissioner said. He said that it was in our strategic interest to anchor Turkey solidly and permanently in the European community of values – I think those were his words. That is what is at stake here and Turkey too should acknowledge it. Even if Parliament is critical and even if Parliament is perhaps more critical than the Council and the Commission can ever be, we trust that Turkey will choose this way forward and will become a member of the European Union just as soon as it has put its house in order."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples