Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.9.3-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, firstly I would like to extend warm thanks to the Council Presidency, to the acting President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Seixas da Costa, and to Commissioner Verheugen, for their statements on Cyprus. I welcome with open arms the fact that both underlined the European Union’s desire to try harder to resolve the Cyprus question.
As for the Cypriots, Greek as well as Turkish Cypriots, it is to be hoped that we will be able to pour considerable resources into the planned measures for bicommunal cooperation that Commissioner Verheugen mentioned earlier, so as to achieve the goal of bringing the two ethnic communities together again. My final question to Commissioner Verheugen is as follows: has there been any sign that there is more chance now of bicommunal contact being established on Cyprus than there was at the time of Luxembourg? There was no chance whatsoever of it happening at that time because Denkta� vetoed it.
For we all know that it is unacceptable that this island has been divided since 1974 and that approximately 38% of Cyprus has been occupied by Turkey for more than 26 years. In the past, any attempt to resolve the Cyprus question by peaceful means foundered on the entrenched attitude of the Turkish side, the Turkish Cypriot leadership that is. But as you yourself made clear, we have just entered the year 2000 and may find that we are facing a new situation, possibly with new opportunities.
First of all there are the United Nations’ new activities, which have already been mentioned, then there are the new activities to be undertaken by the US government, and there is clear rapprochement between Turkey and Greece. In particular, however, as I see it, we ought to be able to expect a breakthrough following the Council decisions taken in Helsinki. The Union admitted Turkey to the circle of applicant countries in Helsinki. At the same time, it was decided that the accession of Cyprus to the Union would not be made conditional on the resolution of the Cyprus question, which, as Mr Poos said, was actually already the clear position of the Union and also Parliament, and this was confirmed in various resolutions.
Therefore, Helsinki has left Turkey in no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that it has no right of veto regarding the accession of Cyprus, and that the further deepening of its relations with the European Union are closely bound up with the resolution of the Cyprus question. It is therefore very much to be hoped that smart politicians in Ankara will recognise the opportunities that ending the Turkish occupation of Cyprus would also bring for Turkey itself. I sincerely hope that– as someone here said – this window of opportunity will be opened very wide indeed and that representatives of the Council and of the Commission will continue to work to this end with the Turkish government. Unlike Mrs Frassoni, I do not believe that the Cyprus question is just about different communities of people, rather it is quite fundamentally about Turkish politics.
I think we can assume that, where Cyprus is concerned, the EU accession process is irreversible. And we all hope that it will be a united Cyprus that joins. Hence another request for clarification from you, Mr President-in-Office of the Council: you have spoken of involvement on the Turkish Cypriot side. Has there been any indication that the Turkish Cypriot side intends to accept the offer made by the Cypriot government or by the European Commission, or that it intends to take up this offer to join the talks?
Secondly, I welcome with open arms the fact that this week, on the basis of the Brok report – and thank you very much for this report, Mr Brok – we also intend to concern ourselves with the financial aspects of the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta. For it is absolutely crucial that, when the financial protocols with Cyprus and Malta expire, we make financial aid available for countries to adapt to the
. Both countries are very far from being the poorest of the applicant countries. Nevertheless, it is in fact crucial for Malta and Cyprus to make headway on the adaptation front. Cyprus expects to have to spend around EUR 850 million – which corresponds to almost 12% of their own GNP – on adaptation activities between 1999 and 2002. Consequently, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy has pronounced itself in favour of increasing the EUR 95 million that has been set aside. And I very much hope that we will genuinely have opportunities to increase this amount."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples