President. – The next item is the joint debate on:

– the Council statement on the position of the European Union on developments concerning Cyprus;

– the report (A4-0029/2000) by Mr Brok, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the implementation of operations in the framework of the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta [COM(1999)0535 – C5-0308/1999 – 1999/0199(CNS)].

Mr Seixas da Costa has the floor on behalf of the Council.

  Seixas da Costa, Council. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, I would like to present to you certain information about the re-opening of the intra-Cyprus negotiations and recent developments in this area.

I think it will be obvious to everyone that the events in Helsinki at the end of last year and the new era in relations between the European Union and Turkey have created a new backdrop, at Community level, which we cannot ignore when it comes to relations between the two Cypriot communities.

At the beginning of December 1999, the first round of negotiations were held in New York, after an interruption of several years in negotiations between the Cypriot communities in the north and south of the island. These negotiations took the form of indirect discussions mediated by the UN special representative, Álvaro de Soto. A further round was held in January this year, starting on 31 January, and a third round is scheduled to start on 23 May in New York. There is a possibility, which has not yet been absolutely confirmed, that continuous and direct discussions may take place, with work continuing until September this year.

These discussions essentially cover four areas: security, the structure of government, territorial adjustments and issues relating to refugees and compensation, as a result of the situation following the partition of the island. However, agreement has also been reached on the possibility of including other issues, and the representative of the northern part of the island, Rauf Denktash, has suggested three new topics: sovereignty, confidence-building measures and the issue of lifting the embargo on products from the north of the island.

The discussions held so far have essentially resulted in two developments. The first is the possibility of opening up a direct information channel between the European Union and the north of the island, without this necessarily signifying recognition of this part of the island as a legal personality at international level, but as a means of facilitating adoption of the acquis communautaire with a view to eventual accession of the whole island, if a solution can, in the meantime, be found to the broader problem of the partition of the island.

The second development which we regard as important is the statement made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the end of the first day’s discussions to the effect that an overall settlement of the situation would involve recognition of the specific situation of the north of the island. This is the position of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and it will therefore have to form part of our future analysis.

Certain expectations exist about the third round of negotiations, in view of the proposed scenarios being prepared with the involvement of representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular in the areas of security and the constitutional structure, which it is envisaged will be presented at this round through the good offices of the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. This will take place after the election in the north of the island scheduled for 18 April.

Furthermore, the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union has decided, following the example of previous presidencies, to appoint a representative to establish contacts with the various parties involved in this issue. This representative has already contacted all these parties and has, in close cooperation with the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, been monitoring and assisting with the work of the various rounds. In particular, we intend that the European Union should maintain a constant profile on this issue, and of course all the more so since Cyprus is a candidate for membership of the European Union with negotiations at a fairly advanced stage. This naturally raises certain expectations and means that the role of the European Union is of some relevance in this context.

The approach that we have been following in these discussions, and our participation in them, essentially turns on taking advantage of a certain desire to alleviate the tensions that exist, based on a conviction – which appears to be widely shared – that it is necessary to continue to negotiate, and that continuing negotiations and maintaining their impetus also give rise to hopes that a definitive solution can be found.

There is also another important aspect which I referred to at the beginning of my statement, and this relates to Turkey’s role in helping the north of the island to prepare for accession. We believe that it is not only necessary to read the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council with some care and attention, but that we should also take advantage of the willingness of the Turkish authorities to help to resolve this situation.

I was able to talk to Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit about this issue when I visited Ankara myself, and although we are aware of the difficulties and sensitivity associated with Turkey’s particular approach to this question, I believe that there is a window of opportunity that we must not miss. This window of opportunity involves combining various factors, one of which – and let us be frank about this – is the nature of the relationship between Turkey and the European Union. This is key as regards the future of this issue.

On the other hand, we think it is important – and this is also linked with the way in which the European Union relates to the heart of this matter – that an exchange of information between the Commission and the Cypriots in the north of the island should be encouraged. This would not, let me make this quite clear, imply any kind of formal recognition. Nevertheless, we believe, and I think this is also how the Commission sees things, that the whole process of approximation with the acquis communautaire with a view to overall integration of the island in the European Union through accession at some point in the future implies involving the communities in the north of the island as soon as possible. It may also give the European Union access to data enabling it to justify accession, as part of its efforts to assess accession conditions.

Furthermore, this means that we in the Council – and I think that Parliament will join us in this – should encourage the Commission’s involvement in this undertaking. It is essential for us to send the Commission a message of confidence about its role in this area.

Lastly, I believe – and this is also the presidency’s intention – that we should continue to cooperate actively with the United Nations, given the skilful, intelligent and capable way in which the Secretary-General, and the UN organisation in general, have conducted these discussions, and in particular the way they have endeavoured to help to harmonise the two parties’ positions. As I said at the beginning, the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council last December have had a visible impact on the way the positions of the various parties to this process have developed. The Nicosia Government has expressed its satisfaction with the Helsinki conclusions, which open up the way to accession to the European Union without solving the partition of the island beforehand. Nevertheless, I have to say that the same authorities have expressed their concern about the pressure they may come under to resolve the issues raised by partition, which will evidently imply some concessions. This is related to developments in the sphere of displaced people and the possibility of a new arrangement regarding displaced people should a different solution be found for the island.

On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriots fear – and there is no point in trying to conceal this – that Turkey’s application for membership of the European Union may lead to greater flexibility in Ankara’s position on this. I believe that, despite the fears that may be felt by the two communities on the island, these points, which could be viewed in a negative light by the authorities on both sides, may in the end justify hopes of an ultimate solution.

It is very clear that this solution will involve one of the most important aspects of relations in this area at present, which is the extremely positive trend in relations between Athens and Ankara and the very important part played in these relations by the Greek Foreign Minister, Giorgios Papandreou, and the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ismail Cem. We believe that this has created the framework for a positive outcome. As far as we, the Council presidency, are concerned, we will continue to follow these developments very closely, and we will certainly cooperate with the Secretary-General and his personal representative on this matter. We will make the Community institutions aware of what we are able to do, and what is possible in general, as regards coordination, not just at political level but also as regards what the Commission itself can achieve in terms of its scope for managing the accession process. In particular, we will make known the flexibility that both parties have demonstrated on this issue.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate concerns an issue that is particularly important in two respects. Whilst in the first place, our discussion has to do with delivering financial aid to Cyprus and Malta, so as to enable them to play a full part in the pre-accession strategy, it is also concerned in no small way with the peace process in Cyprus, and thus with stability and security in the Mediterranean region.

Firstly, I would like to say a few words on the financial regulation for Cyprus and Malta, which the Commission put forward in October last year. I am exceptionally grateful to Mr Brok, the rapporteur, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for his report, which forms an excellent basis for our deliberations today. We need this instrument. It replaces the financial protocols that expired at the end of 1999. We need these instruments so as to be able to meet our financial commitments under the terms of the development strategy for Malta and Cyprus.

I am very grateful for the fact that Parliament is supporting the Commission in its efforts to adopt the draft regulation as quickly as possible. The Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets have put forward a series of proposed amendments. The Commission is able to adopt some of them. I would like to comment on two points that I know are very dear to Parliament’s heart.

First and foremost, we are talking about the financial package itself; i.e. how much money do we actually want to spend? The Commission will propose a package of EUR 95 million. The Council has also agreed on this figure. I am aware that Parliament would like it to be a larger amount and I fully understand why this is so. I can assure you that, as the competent Member of the Commission, I too would very much like to have more money for this purpose at my disposal.

But it is simply the case that we are unable to achieve consensus for a larger amount at the present time. At the end of the day, it is the budgetary authority that must establish the final amount.

The second important issue in this respect relates to the transfer of the financial means under line 7 of the budget. In fact this only appears to be a technical issue. It is very much a political issue. I myself have already said here, on another occasion, that I consider this to be the right approach. I believe I can safely say – notwithstanding the fact that the Commission has not reached a formal decision yet – that in principle the Commission is prepared to go along with this suggestion.

However, the aforementioned decision cannot be reached via this regulation; this can only be done under the terms of the scheduled revision of the Financial Perspective. This regulation, which covers the period from 2000 to 2004, affords both applicant countries access to technical and financial support for the implementation of the acquis communautaire, for involvement in Community programmes and certain of the Community’s institutions, and for extending the authority of their administration systems and courts

Of the proposed total amount of EUR 57 million, EUR 57 million are earmarked for Cyprus and EUR 38 million for Malta. In the case of Cyprus, the draft regulation also provides for the financing of measures intended to support reconciliation between the two ethnic groups, and in fact this accounts for a third of the total amount.

On behalf of the Commission, I would like to guarantee that the programming for the funds will take place in accordance with the priorities of the accession partnerships as early as in the course of the next few weeks.

Now just a few brief comments on how the Cyprus question has developed since the European Council in Helsinki. I wholeheartedly endorse the statement Under-Secretary of State, Mr Seixas da Costa, made here on behalf of the Portuguese Presidency. We are cooperating closely and to good effect on this issue. As far as Cyprus is concerned, it has always been the Union’s contention that the accession negotiations should benefit the efforts being made to find a solution to the political problem. Indeed we always supported this view, and I am quite convinced that it is appropriate for the negotiations on the resolution of the political problem to take place under the auspices of the United Nations. And we were always agreed that the solution should continue to have as its aim a bicommunal and bizonal federation.

It is still the European Union’s goal to admit a united Cyprus. The European Council in Helsinki reiterated that resolving the political conflict would facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. Nonetheless, as the presidency has just said, the Council has made it clear that this is not a pre-condition for the conclusion of negotiations.

Should it not have proved possible to find a political solution to the Cyprus question by the time the accession negotiations are concluded, then the Council, taking all the relevant factors into account, will take a decision on whether or not Cyprus should gain admittance to the Union. That is how matters stand on the political front.

The Helsinki European Council’s decision on how relations between the European Union and Turkey are to be framed in future has given the situation considerable impetus. I would emphasise that several political processes are running in tandem here and they are closely linked.

In the first place, this is all about the relationship between the EU and Turkey. It also concerns the further development of relations between Greece and Turkey, and the peace process in Cyprus.

There has already been talk of the ‘window of opportunity’, which has presented itself following Helsinki and on account of the détente between Greece and Turkey. And so what can we do to make use of this window of opportunity as far as Cyprus is concerned? I believe we must adopt an intelligent and cautious approach. If we set about this with too much gusto then we will raise expectations we cannot fulfil, and so I favour an intelligent, softly softly approach which is sensitive to the needs of the given situation. The first thing we are able, and want, to do is to step up dialogue and communication between the two communities on Cyprus. That is an ambition that finds favour with our Greek and Turkish partners.

Therefore, we want to give the so-called bicommunal activities renewed impetus, in particular those involving young people. We should also give more attention to making sure that the Turkish Cypriot community is better informed about the Union’s aims. I am absolutely convinced that, if the people were to have a better understanding of the Treaty, in fact a better understanding of what the European Union is all about and what its ambitions are, this could help to eliminate fear and prejudice. I will be going to Cyprus in mid-March, and I aim to do my bit towards convincing both communities of the benefits renewed cooperation will bring.

For our part, we have made funds available for this purpose in the new financial regulation. These funds are not inconsiderable. I believe it is very important for us to call upon both sides to at last break free from the shadows of the past and gradually develop a new form of cooperation and, ultimately, a new way of living together.

The talks held under the auspices of the United Nations took place in New York in December and in Geneva at the beginning of February. They will enter the third and perhaps crucial round in May. Negotiations should certainly continue until such time as a solution is reached, or at least until substantial progress has been made on the major issues that the presidency has just highlighted.

What should the Commission’s role be in this? It is interesting to observe how all those who are party to this process deem the European Union’s role to be of central importance. All the players are seeking contact and cooperation with us. They are well aware that the peace process and the adoption of our common accomplishments are inextricably linked and must not come into conflict with one another.

I have to say that I too prize cooperation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and his Special Representative on this issue extremely highly, and can tell you that it is progressing smoothly and in a spirit of trust.

One is therefore right to conclude that the resolution of the Cyprus question has gained renewed impetus since Helsinki. I would not wish to go very much further in my assessment at the present time. The Union’s decision to commence accession negotiations and to move them on apace, which is intended to act as a catalyst to resolving the political problem, still appears to me to be the right course of action. In any case, I can see no alternatives to this approach that are even remotely reasonable and therefore, it just remains for me to say that the Commission will stick to this line and play its part in attempting to resolve the political problem until the accession negotiations are concluded, using the accession negotiations themselves as an important instrument in the resolution of the conflict.

IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMID
Vice-President

  Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I am very grateful for the two announcements and statements that Commissioner Verheugen has already made on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation of measures within the framework of the pre-accession strategy.

There is no doubt that we must treat Malta and Cyprus as two candidates that must be accorded the same rights, politically, and also in terms of the pre-accession strategy, as the ten other States with whom we have commenced bilateral negotiations. I am sure that no one in this House doubts that it would be extraordinarily helpful in the process, if it were to prove possible to find a solution to the Cyprus question, and it is also clear that the European Union must play its part here. If the outcome of these negotiations were to be a united Cyprus of the kind outlined by the Commissioner, which was in a position to join the European Union, then we could count this a huge achievement.

On the other hand, we must also make it clear, of course, that there are other options, so as to avoid the possibility of creating something awkward that will ultimately land us in difficulties of the kind that will have us running into obstacles and remove our power to act in the overall enlargement process.

It is already clear from the various options that, in the context of the overall enlargement process, this will be one of the most delicate issues if not, ultimately, the most delicate issue, which we can perhaps expect to produce the most serious political difficulties.

I also consider it to be extremely important that this pre-accession strategy is being pursued in such a way that both communities in Cyprus are already being brought closer together. In comparison with the other applicant countries, Cyprus, like Malta, is a relatively rich country overall, but it must still be treated equally in some respects. We should turn this equal treatment of Cyprus to good account, so as to prevent the economic and social disparities between the Greek and the Turkish sectors becoming greater still and ultimately reducing the likelihood of unification even further. To my mind, that is why this pre-accession strategy has a special significance.

Therefore permit me very briefly to raise those points that Parliament deems important. I would like to thank the Commission for having adopted a clear stance with regard to categorisation within Category B7, insofar as it was able to in the previous decision-making process.

I hope that the Council will also take the necessary leap and submit these statements, for the European Parliament is well aware that this is a political issue. It follows from this that the pre-accession strategy will be homogeneous and even-handed in its approach, and we should also ensure that it is possible to quote total figures up until 2004, so as to guarantee a budget’s reliability, clarity and veracity in this respect as well. Owing to the manner in which this was handled hitherto, it cannot be brought into line with a normal budgetary process. I believe it is important that the European Parliament has made a positive contribution for this year nonetheless, because we do not want these countries to be disadvantaged in any way, and that is why we were prepared to make the necessary decisions for Budget 2000, but this can really only apply to this year. That is why it is important for the Council Presidency to draw up an appropriate statement, in the course of the deliberations over this report, which will enable us to transfer this issue to an orderly process, so as to end what to my mind is an unnecessary row.

I fully understand that problems of a mathematical nature may arise on account of Agenda 2000 and the funding that might be at our disposal. I would also like to state quite clearly that we could perhaps even discuss the figure of 130 million that was mentioned in my report. Parliament has also tabled an amendment for tomorrow based on a different amount, particularly as these countries are at a relatively advanced stage of development, as I said. However, these countries must be able to feel secure for the foreseeable future; they must know what is actually in store for them, and this must also be reflected in the European Parliament’s planning ability, as part of the budgetary authority.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I know that you are still full of good intentions regarding cooperation with the European Parliament. I hope that the Council as a whole will be of the same mind and that you will be able to give us the right answers to these questions.

  Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, we have listened to the statements by the Council and the Commission and I would like to make the following observations.

Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I appreciate the sensitivity with which you are addressing the issue and your effort to establish contact with the Turkish Cypriot side, but perhaps it would be more clear and more correct if the vocabulary you use did not leave one suspecting that you might be attempting some kind of indirect recognition, even though you stressed that this is not the case.

For example, I would not refer to the government of Nicosia. It is the Cypriot Government, Mr President-in-Office, not the government of Nicosia. That government has proposed a way in which the Turkish Cypriot side can take part, and I think it would be right for the Council and the Commission to urge the Turkish Cypriot side to take part institutionally in the framework of the negotiations conducted by the Republic of Cyprus.

On the other hand, the way that the issue of the end of the protocols and the pre-accession strategy has been addressed so far creates some doubts for us. I cannot understand why the two small countries must be treated differently, nor why a clash was necessary between the institutional bodies. Nor can I understand the pressure applied by Parliament to include the funds in Chapter 7 for the pre-accession strategy. How can the whole of the European Union treat, in this way, two small countries situated on its periphery? Not only are they countries which the European Union needs, but they are also countries which are fully qualified to operate within the Union and are already considered capable of participating in economic and monetary union.

As the Commissioner said, and I agree with him, it is a matter of political decision. This is a small political decision which would bring major benefits, especially in helping the two communities effectively to constitute one state, to achieve effective rapprochement – because the two communities were once close – and for the Republic of Cyprus, genuinely, to be rid of occupying forces.

  Poos (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, we are required under the advisory procedure to debate a proposal for a Council regulation on the implementation of operations within the framework of the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta. This proposal is similar to the proposal submitted for other candidate countries and, once it is implemented, will replace the financial protocols which have now expired.

Pre-accession instruments are designed to provide technical and financial support for efforts by candidate countries to meet the demands of the Community acquis. The Commission’s analysis has in fact shown that, although classified as high income countries by the World Bank, Cyprus and Malta have the same difficulties as the CEECs in transposing Community law due to their lack of administrative and judicial capacity. It was pointed out, during the discussion of Mr Brok’s excellent report in committee, that both countries can also benefit from the MEDA budget line for horizontal projects of regional interest. I would be grateful if the Commissioner could explicitly confirm that.

As far as Cyprus is concerned, part of the technical and financial aid provided for in the instruments will be used to bring the Greek and Turkish communities closer together and solve the problem of the partition of the island once and for all. The declarations made on the Cyprus question by the Council and the Commission were therefore most opportune and I should like to thank the President of the Council and Commissioner Verheugen.

Since 4 July 1990, when Cyprus applied to join the EU, the European Parliament has passed numerous resolutions calling for a political solution in accordance with international law and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations.

In April 1999, Parliament again reiterated its position that the accession of Cyprus should benefit the whole island, and help towards a political solution, but that accession should not be dependent upon such a solution. In other words, accession should not be held hostage to a political solution. The two processes are separate processes.

This unequivocal position on the part of the European Parliament gave rise to a certain degree of controversy. We must therefore welcome the fact that the Helsinki European Council put an end to the speculation and stated in its conclusions, and I quote, that “If no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Council’s decision on accession will be made without the above being a precondition”.

The position is clear and we must now hope that the improved climate surrounding relations between the European Union and Turkey and between Greece and Turkey will bear favourably on the Turkish Cypriot community and that it will withdraw its refusal to send representatives to the accession negotiations.

The presence of these representatives will not prejudge the final political solution in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, it will allow the interests of all concerned to be highlighted as and when Cyprus joins the European Union and prepares for a turning point in its history.

  Jensen (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President, I want to say that I share the other rapporteurs’ delight at the fact that better opportunities are now to be glimpsed for making further progress in Cyprus in the light of the improvement in relations between Turkey and the EU and between Turkey and Greece. However, I also think that we in the EU should be making a constructive contribution. I also think – as has already been mentioned – that there are certain problems with the financing arrangements, which we must solve. There is, of course, the question of pre-accession aid, and this belongs in category seven. Last year, Parliament made an exception by agreeing that this expenditure should be placed in category four, and the two applicant States are not therefore being treated on an equal footing with the applicant States from Central and Eastern Europe, as they, in fact, should be, according to the declarations from the Helsinki Summit. Resources should therefore be set aside from category seven, where a review of the financial perspectives must be carried out. This is the crux of the matter. The main point is that the money for Cyprus’s and Malta’s pre-accession aid should come from category seven and that there should be a review of the financial perspectives for, if the Council does not endorse this view, it is in reality acting in conflict with its own decisions in Helsinki in December. With regard to the amount which is quoted in the Brok report (EUR 130 million), I also want to say, on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, that we must negotiate our way towards finding a sum of money. The most important thing is that a multi-annual programme be guaranteed, and in the correct category, so that it might be possible to begin making plans where Cyprus and Malta are concerned.

  Frassoni (Verts/ALE). – (IT) Mr President, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance support the decision adopted by the European Council in Helsinki according to which the resolution of the conflict cannot be a prior condition for the accession of Cyprus to the European Union.

We should continue to exert strong pressure on the Government of Cyprus, but one section of the population cannot blackmail the wish of the majority. Besides, we have strong doubts as to how representative the government is of that part of the island is.

It is clear that the window of opportunity mentioned by the presidency should be exploited to the full. But we are also convinced that, despite improved relations between the Turkish and Greek populations, it is not enough. The conflict in Cyprus will only be resolved through improved relations between the two communities with a view to establishing a federation in the – we hope – not too distant future.

In particular, we should be working towards establishing genuine freedom of movement and resolving the problems of demilitarising and disarming the island.

The European Union should be taking a more decisive role that goes further than merely providing financial support, although that is important, by promoting and guaranteeing reconciliation between the two communities through the setting up of fora and confidence-building programmes.

I must say that Alex Langer's presence here in the European Parliament is sadly missed. His efforts to build peace should serve as an example, to all of us, on how peaceful coexistence can be achieved.

  Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, the reference to dialogue between the two Cypriot communities under the aegis of the UNO reminds us of the fact that, 26 years after the invasion of the island by the Turkish army, nearly 40% of the territory is still occupied by 35 000 soldiers, heavy weaponry is still being used and over 50 000 colonists are still present, in total violation of the resolutions by the Security Council of the United Nations on this matter.

What can the European Union do, without interfering in internal affairs in Cyprus, to promote a fair and viable solution to this drastic problem in a country which has been associated with the European Community for nearly 30 years and which is due to join the Union within the next few years?

I have listened to the somewhat equivocal talk and silences on the part of the Council which, in my view, need clarifying. I think that we need, first and foremost, to bear the main point of reference for any international community in such cases in mind, i.e. the resolutions of the United Nations. The Security Council feels that the solution to the Cypriot problem should be sought within the framework of a two-zone, twin-community federation, in other words a single state, as Mr Verheugen mentioned, consisting of two local administrations elected by the two communities. Cyprus should be one sovereign state, with a single international personality and single citizenship and this state should be demilitarised. The international community has thus indicated that it rejects any act accomplished by force.

Secondly, the European Union stands to gain, in my view, by minimising the scope for interpretation of the position laid down by the Helsinki European Council. The solution to the Cypriot problem cannot be a precondition to Cyprus’s accession to the Union, as Mr Poos has reminded us. If it were, Turkey would have a sort of right of veto over the accession of Cyprus to the European Union, which is, of course, unacceptable.

Thirdly, we must not, in turn, allow the position taken by the Helsinki European Council to temper our efforts to resolve the Cypriot question before Cyprus joins the Union. From this point of view, the other decision taken at Helsinki, namely to grant Turkey candidate status, gives the Fifteen new responsibilities as well as new possibilities and its dialogue with Ankara can and, in my view, should, include a determination to ensure that Turkey demonstrates a constructive attitude towards dialogue between the two Cypriot communities which respects international law and which will ultimately lead to a united Cyprus and peace in the eastern Mediterranean.

  Belder (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, there is a general consensus of opinion that financial aid to Cyprus and Malta is important. The big question, however, is from what budget heading should this aid be financed?

The Council and Commission have suggested deleting the protocols under category 4. This is in line with the budget order issued by Parliament in December last. The rapporteur is now making reference to this and proposes classing Cyprus and Malta under category 7. The Committee on Budgetary Control has even suggested postponing approval of the Brok report until the Council agrees to increase the financial ceilings for category 7. This is an extremely risky strategy. In fact, the financial protocols cannot go ahead without a vote in Parliament. Cyprus and Malta will thus become the victims of a political game between the Council and Parliament regarding the height of the ceilings. Moreover, what is the real significance of financial ceilings if they are increased for every new action? I would therefore advocate that the EUR 15 million in category 4 be dropped, in line with the Commission’s proposal. A multiannual budget of the Commission later on in the year, may give a decisive answer regarding credits for the coming years.

  Villiers (PPE-DE). – Mr President, all over the world work is being done to resolve long-standing conflicts and bring together communities divided by history and by old tribal enmities and hatreds. Now is the time to devote our time and energy to aiding Cypriots from both sides of the "green line" in finding a solution to a conflict which has lasted for far too long.

We all know that special care is needed to ensure that Cyprus is brought successfully into the European Union, and the decisions taken at Helsinki give an added dimension to this debate, with the acceptance of Turkey as a candidate country. I hope that the decisions taken at Helsinki lead to progress on the Cyprus issue. I hope this signals a new era of hope for Cyprus. I hope that Turkey begins to play a constructive role in the Cyprus issue. I am delighted to hear the words of support from the Council and the Commission for the UN and the work it is doing in encouraging proximity talks between the two communities to encourage reconciliation and the rebuilding of trust between the two communities in Cyprus. I very much welcome the Commission's support for that bizonal, bicommunal, federal Cyprus for which the UN has campaigned for so long and which both the Greek Cypriot side and the Turkish Cypriot side should be working hard to bring about. I welcome the renewed warmth in relations between the Greek Government and the Turkish Government. I hope that has an encouraging effect on the Cyprus talks. I hope that the accession money available to assist Cyprus is used partly to promote that reconciliation and rebuilding of trust and that both sides of the divided communities in Cyprus accept and use that money in the spirit in which it is given.

We all, throughout the European institutions – in Parliament, the Council and the Commission – should be doing our best to aid Cyprus in its quest to reach a peaceful solution which brings together these two communities which have been divided for too many years.

  Rothe (PSE). – (DE) 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.

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 acquis communautaire. 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.

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.

  Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Verheugen, the regulation on accession aid is not exactly an advertisement for coherent work on the part of the Commission. Rather, the way in which these aid measures have been cobbled together smacks of amateurism to me. This applies both in terms of the substance and the financial aspect. In my view, it will hardly enable us to present the accession activities conducted by the Union to the citizens of Cyprus and Malta as evidence of the fact that it is worth their while joining. As Vaclav Havel rightly said today, the European Union will be judged on its political qualities according to what it can do for the individual. As far as the citizens are concerned, it is what a regulation can do for them that matters. We will not exactly win any awards with this regulation as far as that is concerned. It is makeshift and contains heteronomous paragraphs, which is no way to set a shining example. The quality of an aid package is assessed according to the following criteria: is it decentralised, is it transparent, is it accessible to the citizens and does it work?

Nonetheless, as far as the divided island of Cyprus is concerned, overall, this pre-accession strategy is bound up with a major political challenge. In my view, it is the task of the European Union to employ all instruments, including this one, so as to contribute towards resolving the conflict on the island by political means.

I must take this opportunity to say that it is precisely the amendment submitted by the European Parliament that is so important to me in this respect. Both the Commission and the Council have been making very optimistic speeches here today as well. I am delighted that we are all heading in the same direction in this respect. I believe it would truly be preferable to secure a peaceful resolution to the problems in Cyprus before admitting this country to the European Union.

  Alyssandrakis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the view of the Greek Communist Party is that the main problem of Cyprus is not its accession to the European Union but the occupation of 40% of its territory by Turkey, which has continued for 26 years. Regardless of the national origin of each Cypriot, the future of the Cypriot people must involve the unity of that small country. The only acceptable solution that guarantees the future, that leaves no room for foreign interventions, like those that led to all the problems of the last fifty years, is a unified and federal Cyprus in accordance with the resolutions of the UN’s Security Council. The key to solving the Cyprus problem is in the hands of the Turkish Government, which supports and encourages the intransigence of the Turkish Cypriot leader Raouf Denkta�.

For its part, the European Union, with its hypocritical professions of interest in freedom and human rights, has never been moved by the drama of the Cypriot people, by the problem of Greek and Turkish Cypriot refugees, by the enforced change of the population composition in the north of Cyprus, or by the wholesale settlement of colonists by Turkey in the occupied areas. Even in this Chamber, the Council’s representative referred to the north of Cyprus and not to the occupied territories.

The recent Helsinki decision to grant Turkey accession country status, even though it has made not the slightest concession over the issue of its occupation of Cyprus, for example, by reducing its military presence there or giving back Ammokhostos, is clearly encouraging Turkey’s intransigence. It is not by chance that, immediately after Helsinki, the Turkish Prime Minister, Bulent Ecevit, stated that the Cyprus issue had been resolved in 1974. Encouraging Turkish intransigence certainly does not help to bring the two communities closer together in the intimate talks under the aegis of the UN Secretary General.

On their course towards accession, the people of Cyprus have already lost a great deal, but stand to lose even more. The application of the acquis communautaire has created serious problems for the Cypriot economy, especially in agriculture. It entails the liquidation of the public sector, and it dislocates and destroys the developed system of social solidarity that exists in Cyprus.

  Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, I beg your pardon, but the French interpreter made a small error, on the most sensitive word in the debate, during the translation of what Mr Alyssandrakis just said. I just want to ensure that there is no ambiguity. Mr Alyssandrakis was translated as saying “the confederate solution would be best”. Obviously, he said “the federal solution would be best”. It is a most important point and needs to be clarified, Mr President.

  President. – Thank you very much for the clarification Mr Wurtz.

  Farage (EDD). – Mr President, Malta and Cyprus are very different from the countries of mainland Europe. The Maltese in particular have been very good at surviving in hostile geographical and geopolitical environments. Their success has relied in great part on their enterprise, their dynamism and their flexibility. Malta has vibrant light and heavy industry, growing financial services, good agriculture, magnificent tourism and an amazing range of employment opportunities, all of this on an island virtually barren of natural resources. I am certain, therefore, that an island such as Malta, with its population of 340 000 cannot accommodate the rigidities of the economic and legal structures of the mainland which has a population a thousand times greater.

Thus, when I look at this proposed instrument I do not see a measure to bring two peoples into the fold of Mother Europe. The situation is more akin to a black hole in space, sucking in masses so powerfully that not even light escapes. We should not be bribing these island peoples to cooperate in their own destruction, giving them money to absorb laws which are as alien to their culture as a black hole is to Mother Earth. The EU should leave Cyprus and Malta alone. It seems to me that the only people in Malta that want this are the political class, and I shall be keeping my fingers crossed that once again the Maltese people are the winners.

  Souladakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, this is one of the few occasions when, from what the speakers have said in this Parliament, from all sides of the House, there is clearly the greatest convergence of views on the Cyprus issue and, of course, on the pre-accession process for Cyprus and Malta. This means that we are all aware of the political dimension of the Cyprus problem. At the same time, however, it means that both the Council and the Commission have a very strong mandate, so that the strength of opinion expressed by all the European parties, and all the peoples, can empower their political ability to address the problem.

Helsinki was an historic event, an historic turning-point and an historic new reference point. If, for any reason, the balance achieved there should be considered by some to be a point of departure for new negotiations anywhere else, if some people destabilise this totality of facts and equilibrium by their attitude, they will be making a tragic mistake. Conditions are ripe. What is needed from the European Commission, the Council and everyone else, is a quiet determination, a quiet determination to continue the accession negotiations on both Cyprus and Malta without guile, granted that in the last analysis they are the most mature of all the countries seeking accession, so that this determination can act as a signal to anyone whose view may differ from the view we all agree about. To this end, the Brok report is a good instrument and it is really a bit distressing that, because this is a joint debate, it is politically overshadowed by the political position of the Council and the Commission and we cannot therefore say more about this good report.

In any event, the outcome is in your hands. The outcome is in our hands to the extent that we are providing you with decisions, to the extent that we are providing you with options. Now, as regards the Brok report, Cyprus and Malta are the last of the Mediterranean islands, and, unless I am mistaken, the last islands anywhere in Europe which have not acceded to the European Union. This has a certain semiological value because the Mediterranean and its islands – and I too come from an island – are the area which most of those who come from northern Europe for their summer holidays get to see, as well as the people who live there. From that standpoint, Aphrodite’s island, as Cyprus is known, and the pirates’ island, as we islanders say of Malta with great affection, are two jewels which should be welcomed into the European Union without delay. They have healthy economies, high-level economic relations, and in the final analysis they constitute a testing ground for the European Union’s political will.

In conclusion, since I do not think I need to say much, given the unanimity that exists here, I just want to make one brief remark to the President-in-Office. I think that there are some peculiarities in his position. I hope there has been an interpretation error, and that he will clarify the matter in his follow-up speech.

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, I am the last of the speakers and for that reason I should like to put a question to Mr Seixas da Costa and to Mr Verheugen, if Mr Verheugen will kindly put on his headphones and if he is interested in hearing all the speakers.

Granted, it is an issue concerning two communities, but it is not mainly an issue concerning two communities. As many speakers have said, we have a state of occupation; occupation by a country applying for membership of the European Union – Turkey – of part of another country that is also applying for membership. There are 40 000 troops and a modern-day Berlin Wall in Nicosia nowadays. We cannot predict what will happen purely on the basis of the talks between Mr Denkta� and the President of the Republic of Cyprus.

The question I want to put to Mr Seixas da Costa mainly, but to Mr Verheugen as well, is what issues will the Council be raising with the Turkish Government, bearing in mind the Association Council too, in connection with this matter? What issues will it raise concerning the withdrawal of troops and the Turkish Government’s contribution towards resolving the Cyprus issue?

I remind you that, in a recent decision by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the Turkish Government was censured. Not Mr Denkta�, not something with no legal existence, the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’, but the Turkish

Government, for its appropriation of Greek estates.

I ask you: what issues are to be raised at the Association Council concerning Turkey’s contribution towards resolving the Cyprus issue?

  Seixas da Costa, Council. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened to your comments very carefully, and in particular to the rather emotional comments about Cyprus, especially in defence of the present legal situation in Cyprus, which the European Union specifically acknowledges by recognising the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Mr Wurtz, in no way can it be said that the Council is maintaining an ambiguous silence about this issue: the Council assumes total responsibility for its interpretation of the situation in Cyprus. Moreover, it was this situation and this interpretation which led the Council to take the decision it took in Luxembourg at the end of 1997, when it decided to take the first steps in the accession process for the Republic of Cyprus to join the European Union.

I hope that honourable Members will realise that, regardless of the more or less emotional statements made about issues of this kind, the day-to-day reality of international negotiations normally forces governments to adopt a somewhat more flexible stance – and when I say governments I mean all governments. In fact we need more emotional statements to remind us that all these issues have a human side. But we also need to be aware that it is by virtue of rational political stances, and flexibility in negotiations, that we are able to find solutions to the major disputes which have ultimately led to many tragedies in history.

Regardless of who is to blame – and we are not here to apportion blame, the relevant United Nations resolutions in this area are clear enough – I believe that we should take advantage of the opportunities that the new situation is opening up, in more of a rational way and less of an emotional one. The European Council in Helsinki had the courage to take certain decisions, and I believe that various aspects of these decisions have already recognised the real value of these opportunities which, as I said at the beginning of my first speech, represent a window of opportunity. We will not achieve concrete results during this stage of negotiations, which is a delicate and sensitive phase, by exploiting tensions. No, we should continue to make progress by working discreetly to support the special representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations with his remit. The European Union’s position on this is crystal clear, and I do not think it is worthwhile second-guessing particular phrases in the Council’s conclusions or in any other statement. We do not play at political correctness in this House: we are concerned with fairness at international level and with concrete statements on this issue consistently defined by the Council over a period of time, and which the European Commission has also followed carefully, attentively and pragmatically.

So when we talk now about the need to involve the Northern Cyprus community in exchanges of information, particularly with a view to the eventual accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union, we need to be aware that we are trying to find practical formulas that will enable us to overcome the obstacles standing in the way of a political solution. We are not trying to deceive anyone and we are in no way trying to use practical solutions to create a model implying political recognition. I believe that, over time, the Council of the European Union has clearly demonstrated that this is not how it sees this issue. Decisions have been taken by the Council with a great sense of responsibility. We believe that Helsinki was very clear in this respect. The authorities of the Republic of Cyprus itself have clearly recognised that our relations with them regarding their accession to the European Union have been positive. There is no point in second-guessing or trying to second-guess our intentions.

  Verheugen, Commission – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you all very much indeed for this debate, which all in all I have found to be encouraging and supportive, and it has also shown that there is a great deal of support in this House for the policy of the Member States and that of the Commission. However, I would be more than pleased to elucidate a few points as requested.

I will turn firstly to matters pertaining to headings 4 and 7. It is quite simple: a special heading, namely, the famous heading 7, was created in Berlin, as part of the large Agenda 2000 package, for the applicant countries of Eastern and Central Europe, which are currently undergoing a process of transformation, and for these countries alone. Malta, Cyprus and Turkey were not provided for at this stage. Mrs Schroedter described this as a lack of coherence. She ought perhaps to take some time to ask the erstwhile President-in-Office of the Council, who is not exactly a stranger to you, how this presumed lack of coherence has come about. I have had a little to do with this too.

I do not believe this to be the case. The reason for this decision was, rather, that we wanted to have a special instrument for the Eastern and Central European States which, like Malta and Cyprus, are involved in the accession process, but under different conditions.

Nevertheless, I have said that I understand the arguments that people have been putting forward here and the Commission will endeavour to take account of these aspirations, but since this is all about Agenda 2000 and the Financial Perspective, we will not be able to do this without amending this Financial Perspective. Hitherto this has been out of the question of course. By way of clarification: if we transfer it across from heading 4 to heading 7 then this will have no effect on the overall balance of the budget. If we do this, then heading 7 would be increased accordingly but heading 4 would be decreased by the same amount. The idea that heading 7 could be added to in this way and heading 4 left alone, is not workable. Parliament is no more able than anyone else to spend money that it has not got, at least not until we have a printing machine installed in the basement that we can use to print euro notes!

As for the peace process in Cyprus and how it is linked with the accession negotiations, I would reiterate that there has always been a direct connection between the two. The Commission and the Council have long endeavoured to encourage the two communities in Cyprus to undertake joint projects. So far, as you know, this has proved unsuccessful, and I have been asked if there have been any signs to the contrary. Mrs Rothe, I would put it this way: I am convinced that there has been a distinct improvement in the framework conditions for reaching agreements of this kind. I do not have confirmation of this at present, and nor do I expect it, since we have not yet held direct talks. These will take place at a later date.

The framework conditions have changed in that the Helsinki decisions made a whole range of things possible that were not possible hitherto, and, above all, in that the political strategies employed by the parties concerned have changed beyond recognition. I have always believed that the old line – i.e. not to admit Cyprus under any circumstances until the political conflict has been resolved – has a weak point in that it does not provide the Turkish community on Cyprus with a convincing incentive to properly involve themselves, for, with this strategy, the Turkish community would not need to do anything but sit back and wait. There would then be no question of Cyprus acceding to the Union. As matters stand, Turkey has to take seriously the fact that there is a risk of Cyprus being integrated into the European Union, and this would provide opportunities for prosperity and security for the Greek community whilst the Turkish community, whose level of prosperity is already far lower, would fall even further behind. Therefore, it is my firm belief that, since Helsinki, there has been far greater incentive to link the accession process with the resolution of the conflict. Indeed that was the idea behind it. After only a few weeks, Mrs Rothe, it is still too early to deliver a verdict on this, but in any case, I have no grounds for assuming that the new line will fail. As yet, we have no grounds for saying that we will actually succeed, but one thing I can say quite clearly is that the conditions that need to be in place for us to take a step forwards have improved considerably.

Finally, of course, the Cyprus question has a role in the discussions with Turkey. I met the Turkish Foreign Minister in Brussels a few weeks ago and naturally I asked if Turkey could take a positive and constructive stance in relation to this issue. I would just make one point: we cannot be 100% sure – I am not at any rate – that one only has to press a button in Ankara to set the wheels in motion in Cyprus. It is very far from being that simple, rather we are going to have to make concentrated efforts, during talks with both communities, to encourage them to reach an understanding. That is what we intend to do: the necessary measures and programmes are in place.

I must make it clear to you that we need this financial regulation, the one that has yet to be decided on here, before we can even get started. The financial regulation is the legal framework we need to tackle the priorities established under the terms of the accession partnerships with Malta and Cyprus. I cannot start anything while there is no regulation in place, because I lack the legal basis for doing so. If the lamented lack of coherence should happen to have something to do with this point, then I am bound to say that this regulation is a legal framework and nothing more than that. This legal framework is fleshed out in the priorities set by the accession partnerships that were adopted by the Commission and the Council last year and are now being implemented in the corresponding programmes and project management. On the contrary, I would say that, although many areas of European policy leave something to be desired in terms of coherence, in this instance I would claim, on behalf of the Commission and the Council, that we have developed a very clear, transparent and coherent policy.

  Brok (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, now that the Commissioner has explained to us, in an extremely coherent manner, that the erstwhile President-in-Office of the Council and his Minister of State for Europe bore responsibility for the lack of coherence, perhaps you could help the Commissioner and ourselves, so as to enable us to take this decision.

It would be helpful if you could give a positive answer to my questions on the Financial Perspective up until 2004 and on heading B7, or if you could at least confirm that the Portuguese Council Presidency intends to make efforts of this kind to make good the aforementioned lack of coherence, which is something the Commissioner will also seek to achieve on the part of the Commission.

  Seixas da Costa, Council. – (PT) Mr President, I am sure that the issue raised by my friend Elmar Brok will be considered by the Council. I feel that the criticism made of the previous presidency is not appropriate. I believe that the work done by the previous presidency in defining the financial outlook was excellent, regardless of who was involved in that work. In any case, the question that this raises is an important one and the Council will not fail to support the proposals that the Commission has presented in this respect.

  President. – Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as I understood it, Mr Brok was actually referring to an earlier presidency still.

  Poos (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I asked Commissioner Verheugen a specific question about the financing instrument MEDA but he has not provided an answer. I would urge him to do so for his answer will determine the way in which we decide to vote on the various proposed amendments we have before us.

  Verheugen, Commission – (DE) Forgive me Mr Poos. There was a lack of clarity at precisely the point at which you put the question to me. This is how matters stand with regard to MEDA: Malta and Cyprus can take part in the national programmes, but not in the country-specific ones, because the incomes are too high.

  President. – Thank you very much Commissioner Verheugen.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President