Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-248"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.24.2-248"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for the work he has done. It is obviously an important contribution. It is an extremely interesting assessment that will undoubtedly help to sustain the Commission report of 8 November. Even though we do not necessarily agree on everything contained in the report, I believe that it is important for Parliament to take up this issue and to clarify our own point of view by means of its contribution.
The Commission has always been clear on this issue. Turkey’s relations with Armenia must improve, starting with the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening up of the land border, which is currently closed. The prospect of Turkey’s joining the EU must lead to an improvement in bilateral relations and to reconciliation, including in relation to the past. We obviously expect Turkey to treat this issue as an integral part of a free and open public debate in which it must be possible to exchange all points of view.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there you have the response from the Commission and my impressions after having followed this extremely interesting debate. I am, of course, going to feed matters back to Mr Rehn, who is more familiar with these issues than I. Be in no doubt whatsoever that your contribution to the report of 8 November will be welcomed.
The debate that has just taken place has, I believe, well and truly brought to light the issues involved in Turkey’s accession process, which began almost one year ago. The Commission will, of course, take account of this debate when it presents its own report on 8 November. That report will, as always, be rigorous, objective and uncompromising. It will be based on a wide range of information sources, including both official government data and the analyses of Turkish and other non-governmental organisations, or even of large international institutions. It will also take into account the reports drafted by the committees of your Parliament, as well as the Bozkurt report.
I should like, Mr Toubon, with all of the respect that I owe you and that I have for you, to reassure you. This will not be a children’s story. The Commission is not wont, moreover, to do what you are suddenly accusing it of. Nor indeed is its aim, even if it were to please you, to produce a report that is unilateral and unsubtle or incomplete.
It is therefore important to always bear in mind the issues involved in this project. The decision taken on 3 October 2005 certainly reflects the desire to fulfil our commitments, but it also conveys a powerful mutual interest. I heard someone say in this Chamber just now that Turkey had more to gain in this instance than Europe. I am not at all convinced about that. I believe that Turkey obviously needs Europe in order to continue becoming modern and democratic and supporting the development of its economy, but I believe that Europe also needs Turkey at its side, as a focal point for peace, stability, democracy and prosperity.
Current events, as someone also said, are enough to demonstrate each day the strategic value of this exercise. Whether we are talking about Iran, Iraq, the Middle East in general, the dialogue between civilisations or the energy crisis, Turkey always seems to be a key country, a vital asset to Europe. That does not, of course, in any way exempt Turkey from the obligations that any accession candidate must fulfil, and the European Union will make sure of that. In doing so, it will not set itself up, either, as a teacher who tyrannically delivers his lessons.
Let us remember that it was Turkey that presented itself as a candidate. It took that step. It therefore agreed to face up to the difficulties of European integration, because it saw in that the key to its own future and to that of its people. It is on this account that Turkey must now stay strong in pursuing and strengthening the reform process that it has itself courageously begun. We, for our part, are obviously going to continue encouraging it along these lines, and we shall not stop doing so. Turkey aspires to join Europe. I believe that we should give it its chance; one that must be fair, that stems from clear and transparent rules that are established at the outset and that will not change, either, according to the mood of the day.
I should like to add something. I often have the feeling, and not only in this Chamber, that, when we debate this matter, it is as though we were evaluating Turkey for accession today, when that will actually take place tomorrow. It goes without saying that Turkey will not join tomorrow and that the process is likely to last for some time yet. This is therefore only an interim evaluation. Judgments are made in relation to progress and to advances - which sometimes take too long - and even to setbacks. It is quite clear that this is an evolutionary process. It is therefore very unfair to take a snapshot in time and just focus on that. That is not what accession is about. That does not correspond, I might add, to any enlargement process that we have known in the past. Why, then, should Turkey be treated any differently?
Now I come, before concluding in 20 seconds, to the Armenian issue. I should like all the same to point out – and I am very mindful of this point, as is Europe, because it comes under the duty to remember that is part of our legacy of values – that this issue is not, nor has ever been, a condition laid down by the European Council for the opening of negotiations or for accession itself, whether in the case of Turkey or of any other candidate country. Imposing this condition today would amount to moving the goalposts and would be very strongly felt in Turkey to be a ploy by the European Union to lay down new conditions with the aim of preventing Turkey’s accession at all costs.
It is, on the other hand, vital to ensure that freedom of expression, including on sensitive issues that are linked to Turkey’s past, is fully respected in that country. The experience of our own countries demonstrates that the debate on the past, however distressing it may be, always comes about as a result of an act of awareness within our societies and rarely, if ever, as a result of an order, of a diktat from outside. This entire debate is linked to the principle of reconciliation, which is one of the main driving forces of the European project."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples