Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-196"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.24.2-196"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, we are bringing to the final debate this report on Turkey at a special moment. This report is preceding the European Commission’s progress report, and therefore provides a unique opportunity to influence and enrich the stance of the European Commission.
A last major point: Cyprus. It was agreed at the start of negotiations that there would be no formal recognition ceremony by Turkey of Cyprus but that there would be an Ankara Protocol as a kind of normalisation of relations. The protocol was signed, the Council asked for it to be implemented before the end of 2006, and it is now a matter of credibility – also for the credibility of our institutions – that Turkey fulfils its commitments and implements a protocol before the end of 2006. As a Parliament, we also make it very clear that we want to see more efforts in the northern part of the island in terms of trade regulation. But once again, Turkey cannot just sign up to this: it should do what it promised to do.
I shall finish with one last point – I shall try to make it short. There was a vast majority in the committee for the basic line of the report and I thank the Members for it because with it we are giving an important signal. There was unease, however, because of an amendment on the Armenian genocide. Allow me in two sentences to make my position clear. In paragraph 50 of the report, as rapporteur I tried to put forward a position that is both strong but also realistic. It says that recognition as such is formally not a criterion, but for a country on its road to Europe it is indispensable to come to terms with its past and therefore we want committees, research, open discussion. I think that is a line that is strong but fair and beyond criticism.
I know that, with an amendment from Mrs De Keyser, another text has been voted in as well. It is of course the responsibility of every Member of Parliament to vote as he or she pleases, but if you ask for my opinion, the text in paragraph 50 is the best text and the one that takes us the furthest.
I have been speaking for too long. I want to thank Members once again for their support up till now and I just want to say that I hope, as the rapporteur for Turkish accession, that this signal – a tough but fair signal – will be perceived by Turkish politicians and the Turkish public as an encouragement to restart the reform process, to vigorously support those people who want it, so that I as rapporteur can be more positive in my next report than I have been here today.
This does not mean, however, that there would be so much need to influence the Commission on this point, because the report as I have presented it to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and as I present it now here in this sitting, has been prepared in very good cooperation with the European Commission and with Commissioner Rehn himself. I also think of Mr Rehn’s words when I presented the report in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, words of welcome which were very clear.
The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the report by a large majority: 54 votes to 6. The report has been described as fair but tough: fair because it is based on facts and is constructive; tough because, unfortunately, there is reason for criticism of at least a strong push from Parliament.
The basic conclusion of the report is that we, as the European Parliament, regret that there is a slowdown in reforms. We had expected at the start of the negotiations in 2004, when we made a decision, that the impressive reforms of 2002-2004 would continue. Unfortunately they have slowed down. That is not to say that nothing has happened. I compliment the Turkish politicians on their ninth package of legislative reforms and the many proposals that were adopted by Parliament. I also compliment the Turkish officials for their professional work in the negotiations so that the first chapter could be provisionally closed.
So why then is there criticism? Because we would have liked to have seen more progress in the mainstream of further political reforms. I will mention a few vital areas. Firstly, on freedom of expression, we as a Parliament have already criticised some parts of the new penal code. Although it was a big improvement, some articles raised doubts – Article 301, first and foremost. Some people have been set free. However, the reconfirmation of the sentence of Mr Hrant Dink proves, as Ali Birand, the famous journalist, also stated so clearly, that Article 301 has to be changed or repealed. I ask the Turkish Government and the Turkish people to see the need for this. It is important for the freedom of the Turkish people, it is important for the image of Turkey in Europe and the wider world.
Second, a lot needs to be done as regards freedom of religion. I was in Turkey a few weeks ago. Until recently, monasteries and churches have been taken away, and the new proposed law on foundation, as the Commissioner said, is not good enough. So please let this stop. Give back the properties to the religious minorities and change the proposal of the law on foundation so that if they cannot be given back, then at least there is a good compensation for the minority churches.
Also, the training of clergy must resume. Since 1971 seminaries are closed, and for a country that wants to be European, it is very important that it should be as easy to build a Christian church in Turkey as it is to build a Turkish mosque in the rest of the European Union.
We said we want priority for these reforms because that is the European spirit. We ask it as a Parliament, and Turkey signed, in the revised accession partnership, a commitment to achieve the short-term priorities before the end of 2007, and then we as a Parliament asked Turkey to do what was agreed.
A third situation that worries us is the situation in the south-east. We strongly condemn the PKK and any terrorism. We strongly condemn it – there is never any excuse for terrorism; but at the same time we ask Turkey to try to find peaceful interlocutors, try to find a political way and invest in the social and economic development of the south-east."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples