Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-01-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040401.2.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate is a very good opportunity to review the interim scoreboard on the progress Turkey has made in its efforts to bring about reform. I would like to begin with very warm thanks to Mr Oostlander for a balanced and expert report, with the conclusions of which I can largely agree.
Let me return to the subject of Turkey. It has played a very constructive and cooperative role in the negotiations in Switzerland, one to which I very much want to pay tribute. Let me just add that, at the end of this year, a decision will have to be taken as to whether Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen criteria, which are decisive. If it is decided that it does, then – as was unanimously decided at the European Council in Copenhagen in December 2002 – negotiations on its accession are to be commenced without delay. On this, the Commission will present its report in the autumn, and, like all its predecessors, this report will be fair and objective.
As Mr Oostlander’s report shows, the process of modernising Turkey’s political system and of bringing it in line with the EU’s standards is far advanced. The European Parliament has always played an important part in reminding Turkey of its commitments, as a democratic state, to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms. In the stage that now lies ahead of us, much will depend on Turkey’s own ability to show that it fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria not only in law, but also in practice.
These criteria, far from being devised for Turkey, apply generally and in the same way to all the candidates there have been to date, and to all that there will be. I can assure you that the Commission will, in its autumn report, and just as we have done in past years, put forward a thorough, objective and fair analysis.
We can see that the Turkish Government has, in recent years, been very determined in setting in motion changes intended to make Turkey a full democracy under the rule of law, in which human and minority rights are respected. I think we may conclude, on the basis of the results from Turkey’s latest elections last Sunday, that this drive towards reform has put down deep roots in Turkish society. This is something in which we should rejoice, for without the European Union, this process would not have got off the ground. The Helsinki strategy gave Turkey definite prospects. The conditions under which it can exercise its membership option are defined in clear and unambiguous terms. The Copenhagen criteria apply, unchanged and in full, to Turkey as they do to all the other candidate countries. That has made for a lack of ambiguity in our relations with Turkey, and the accession partnerships that we have developed as instruments of cooperation have proved their worth remarkably well in the endeavour to advance the reform process.
In the progress reports, we have paid tribute to the extent and importance of what has been achieved, but we have also consistently addressed deficiencies and weakness in clear and unmistakeable terms. As part of its reform process, Turkey has brought in new legislation to improve the human rights situation, to provide increased protection from torture and mistreatment, to extend freedom of expression and of the press, to reinforce the freedoms of association and of assembly, as well as the right to demonstrate, to extend cultural rights, to underpin the equality of the sexes, entrench democracy and change the relationship between the armed forces and civil society.
Turkey has also signed several core international conventions, and this clearly indicates that the country is on course for change, as is also shown, above all, by the change in its political climate. Turkey’s civil society is gaining in strength and becoming better-organised; non-governmental organisations are consulted when legislation is prepared, one example being the new code of criminal law. The reform process has given public debate in Turkey a new mood of openness and freedom. Issues such as the role of the armed forces in politics, the use of the Kurdish language, the use of torture and mistreatment, or the role of women in society are now talked about openly. When, four years ago, I started working with Turkey, I could not even use the word ‘Kurdish’ in my dialogues with the Turkish Government. I mention that as just one small example.
A public debate is underway on whether or not to endow the country with a modern constitution containing the fundamental values on which the European Union is founded. This repositioning of Turkey represents a triumph for our ‘zero tolerance’ policy on matters of democracy, the rule of law and human and minority rights, and it is for that very reason that we have to remind ourselves where we have found deficiencies and weaknesses. Let me briefly list the areas to which the Commission referred: the need to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and improve their working practices, the need for an overall framework for the exercise of fundamental rights, which must be clarified in such a way that every relic of the authoritarianism inherited from the past is done away with. There is, furthermore, the need to correct relations between the civil and armed forces, and there is concern about the position of the internal exiles in the south-east of the country, and about how they can return to their villages. Another very important issue, I think, is that of freedom of religion.
Amending laws and changing the legal system, though, is not enough. We want these changes to be implemented in practice – not merely on an
basis, but systematically and effectively. Although there has been noticeable progress recently, I have to say that we are constantly receiving reports that demonstrate that the reform process is being only reluctantly accepted in the Turkish corridors of power, and so I urgently appeal to the Turkish Government to do everything possible to get these reforms implemented.
This leads me to mention the case of Leyla Zana, which is an example of how the spirit of reform has not yet been internalised by all the country’s executive and legislative institutions. The case against her does not appear to be in accord with the principles of the presumption of innocence and the right to defence counsel.
I came here straight from Switzerland, where the negotiations on a final solution to the Cyprus problem came to an end early this morning, and I would like to use this opportunity to bring Parliament, before any other institution, up to date on how things stand. As you are aware, we would prefer – as we always have done – to welcome a united Cyprus into membership on 1 May. During our time in Switzerland, we have come very, very close to achieving this, and the process has been far from being a failure. Two options were provided for from the very outset: either an agreement would be signed right there in Switzerland or, alternatively, the Secretary-General of the United Nations would present a final plan, the decision on which would be taken by both communities in Cyprus in a democratic referendum on 24 April.
It is the second option that has been chosen, it having emerged that not all the parties were able to sign an agreement. I must make it clear, though, that the sides drew together in remarkable ways, and I believe that we have now reached a point at which strong political leadership is called for. Here and now, I appeal to the leadership of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to do all they can to persuade the people on the island that the plan we have now represents the best and fairest solution that can be achieved. The choice is not between one plan and another; it is between this plan and no solution at all. I do not believe, either, that any new opportunity to address the issue will present itself in the near future. One cannot fail to note, with the utmost admiration, the efforts made by the UN Secretary-General, whose proposal takes full account of the European Union’s demands. The new state, the new Cyprus, that this is intended to bring to birth, will be a country capable of speaking with one voice and of playing its proper part on the international stage without being obstructive. It will be a country with structures strong enough to implement Community law, and one founded upon the same principles as the European Union. As regards the need to adapt Kofi Annan’s proposal in line with Community law, it has been agreed that these adjustments are to be made without recourse to permanent derogations from the
. All institutions are united in the common desire that there should no longer be any permanent derogations from the
and that we have achieved. I therefore believe it would be a good thing if the European Parliament, too, were to make its will perfectly clear, so that the political parties and forces involved might realise that they have a responsibility to accept the offer that is now on the table, that has been the product of very careful, very laborious and very sympathetic discussions. Let me again stress that it would be wrong to describe the process as having failed. What has in fact happened is that a second option, envisaged from the very start, has been shown to be feasible and preferable. We will now get working on making it a reality."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples