IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting opened at 15.05)

  President. – I declare resumed the session adjourned on Thursday, 15 March 2012.

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you to rise from your seats. We have heard to our great distress about the dreadful murders in Montauban and Toulouse. Three children, three soldiers and a teacher were murdered in a cruel and cowardly manner. Our sympathy and our thoughts go out to the parents, families and friends of the victims.

It is certainly difficult for all of us to find the right words to say about this appalling crime. I have seldom come across a more abhorrent act than this one and I am sure that the same is true for you. This is the type of crime which affects all of us. Of course, it has the greatest impact on the parents and the brothers and sisters of the victims. The most dreadful thing that can ever happen to parents is losing their children. We had the sad duty of discussing this subject in Strasbourg just a few weeks ago. Losing your children in this way is even more horrific.

We live in a world where cruel and cowardly murderers are more and more often taking upon themselves the right to decide who should live and who should die. They are also using the lives of innocent children as a tool for spreading their crazy, allegedly political opinions. This is why it affects us all. Nevertheless, in a situation like the one in which we and the French people find ourselves, in which the city of Toulouse and the Jewish community find themselves, in which the Islamic community finds itself, we are all required, ladies and gentlemen, despite our anger and our grief, to uphold our values. These are the values of mutual respect and tolerance. It is precisely these values that the cowardly murderers are targeting. We must not respond with anger, but instead we must have the determination to say, across all the political boundaries which separate us, that on one point we stand together, which is that respect for and tolerance of others, regardless of their skin colour, their religion, their gender or their political convictions, form the basis for our civilised society. Therefore, I believe that we should not only commemorate the people who died and express our grief, but also in our grief and our solidarity with the victims we should demonstrate our determination to defend these values in Europe.

(The House observed a minute’s silence)

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, we are very pleased to welcome today to the gallery of this House Mr Ahmet Şık, a Turkish journalist who has been unjustly imprisoned for more than a year. His trial is still going on, but Mr Şık is free.

This House has repeatedly expressed its concern with regard to the problem of pre-trial detention, in particular in the case of Mr Şık. I am pleased, Mr Şık, to be able to welcome you today as a free man to this Parliament, which has fought so hard for your release. A very warm welcome to the European Parliament!

(Applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, I am also pleased to welcome the members of a delegation from the Tanzanian Parliament. The delegation is now seated in the VIP gallery. The ladies and gentlemen from Tanzania are visiting the European Parliament this week as part of a study trip organised by the Office for Promotion of Parliamentary Democracy. I wish you a very warm welcome!

(Applause)

  President. − The final draft agenda for this part-session, as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting on Thursday 15 March in accordance with Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed.

Following discussions with the groups, I would like to propose to the House the following changes to the final draft agenda:

Wednesday :

The report (A7-0061/2012 ) by Mr Lambsdorff on the European Endowment for Democracy adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs will not be debated and will be entered directly on the voting list on Thursday.

Thursday :

The Committee on Legal Affairs has adopted four reports by Mr Rapkay on the defence of the immunity of Mr De Magistris. These reports will be entered directly on the voting list.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE ). – (IT) Mr President, just to ask whether tomorrow we can take the roll-call vote on the report on the immunity of Mr De Magistris.

  President. − Mr Silvestris, if you want a roll-call vote, we would be grateful if your group would request one. Then we can hold a roll-call vote.

(The order of business was thus established)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the enlargement report for Serbia.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council . − Mr President, on behalf of the Danish Presidency of the Council it is a great pleasure to address this Parliament once again, this time to review the integration progress of Serbia. First of all, let me restate that the Presidency very much appreciates Parliament’s active engagement with the EU enlargement process. Your active and constructive contribution to the general debate on enlargement and to Serbia’s integration process in particular is a precious political asset to us. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank rapporteur Kacin for his work.

I would like to underline that the EU approach is rigorous but fair, delivering on its commitments against clear requirements. This was the case with Croatia when we successfully concluded accession negotiations, and this was the case with Serbia when the European Council decided to grant candidate status to the country.

These achievements show that the political drive behind the EU enlargement process policy continues to promote positive change and sustainable reforms. This process has over many years been a decisive positive factor for peace, security and prosperity throughout Europe. On behalf of the Danish Presidency and the Member States, I would like to welcome the work of this Parliament, and in particular Mr Jelko Kacin’s continuous commitment and positive contribution to the endeavour of advancing the enlargement policy of the European Union. The significance of Parliament’s work in particular to maintain the support of EU citizens for further enlargement must be underlined. I can assure you that we will pay particular attention to the views of the European Parliament in this regard.

The European Council granted Serbia candidate country status on 1 March this year. I visited Belgrade as part of this process, both before and immediately after the decision was taken, and I can say that it was met with great appreciation by the President and the people of Serbia. We welcome the fact that Serbia and Kosovo reached agreement on regional cooperation and the implementation of the integrated management for crossing points, the IBM. We are aware that there are temporary difficulties in implementing the Regional Cooperation Agreement, and we are working to restore the situation and bring all parties back together.

What is of the utmost importance for Serbia now is to continue its good work on the EU reform agenda and to continue to actively implement the agreements reached within the framework of the EU-facilitated Belgrade-Priština dialogue. Maintaining good relations with all its neighbours will bring stability to Serbia and to the whole region. This remains a very important part of the integration process of Serbia.

It is clear from the opinion of the European Commission of October 2011 that Serbia has progressed towards fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria and the conditions of the Stabilisation and Association Process, and important steps have been taken towards establishing a functioning market economy and achieving macro-economic stability. However, as is reflected in your resolution, Serbia needs to make further efforts to maintain the necessary degree of compliance with the membership criteria, with particular attention to the rule of law.

Let me end by recalling that regional cooperation and good neighbourhood relations are key to progress in the Western Balkans region. We therefore encourage Belgrade to continue its active engagement in regional cooperation, and from the Presidency’s point of view we are also looking forward to close cooperation with Parliament and the Commission, and with Commissioner Füle, in this regard.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to participate in today’s debate on the European integration process of Serbia, not least because Serbia was granted candidate status by the European Council at the beginning of the month.

I am most grateful to the rapporteur, Mr Jelko Kacin, for having outlined comprehensively and accurately the many achievements, as well as the challenges, lying ahead of Serbia. That Serbia was granted candidate status is due firstly to the determination and vision of the Serbian leadership; secondly, to the priority given by all Serbian state institutions to the EU reform agenda; and thirdly, to their increasing efficiency in adopting and implementing key reforms, notably under the political criteria.

At the pinnacle of these achievements were the significant and consistent efforts of President Tadić to deliver on cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and to foster a new spirit of cooperation and reconciliation in the region, including by effectively engaging in the Belgrade/Priština dialogue.

We have now arrived at a major turning point in our relations with Serbia. Along with the forthcoming entry into force of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, these relations have been brought to a much higher level. I am confident that this will generate a new impetus for reforms and a new wind of change within all Serbian institutions. Ultimately, this gives a far better prospect to Serbian citizens who are eager to live in a country where democracy and the rule of law prevail while its economy recovers and develops in the best possible environment.

2011 was an important year for Serbia, a year of demanding challenges. 2012 will be equally paramount, as Serbia is eager to open accession negotiations. Qualifying for that major step will be the first task of the incoming government after the elections on 6 May.

There is serious work ahead for Serbia if the Commission is to recommend opening accession negotiations in its next progress report. Firstly, Serbia is expected to deliver on the key priority: making further progress towards a visible and sustainable improvement in its relations with Kosovo. This means in particular that Serbia needs to implement – and stick to the letter and spirit of – all agreements reached to date in the dialogue with Priština. Secondly, we will need to see the momentum of reforms continuing in order to confirm that Serbia sufficiently fulfils the political criteria.

We are determined to continue our engagement with Serbia. As long as the objective and criteria are clearly defined, I have strong faith in Serbia’s capacity to mobilise itself and achieve the necessary additional progress to move towards accession negotiations. This will allow the negotiation process to push reforms and tackle even the most difficult challenges which lie ahead.

I am convinced that, with our joint support, Serbia will continue to embrace its European future. This will give a positive message to the whole region in order to consolidate peace and foster economic prosperity in the Western Balkans.

Thank you very much for your attention.

  Jelko Kacin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SL) Mr President, today we are debating Serbia’s progress in the negotiations for accession to the European Union for the first time since it was granted candidate status.

This is a major breakthrough for Serbia and the entire region. For Serbian citizens, the prospect of EU membership has finally become tangible. I must stress that it is important to maintain this positive momentum.

I hope that the electoral campaign for parliamentary elections in Serbia will not affect the dialogue with Priština and implementation of agreements reached.

Implementation of the Agreement on joint border control is very important. I welcome the Serbian authorities’ commitment to ensure freedom of movement on the Serbian side of the border.

I welcome even more the cooperation of the Serbian leadership with Eulex and KFOR and the more than obvious progress following the incidents in the north of Kosovo in recent years.

I believe that Serbia is prepared for accession negotiations. It has a European Integration Office and the most competent administration in the region. If, after the elections, the new government shows commitment to the implementation of reforms and regional cooperation, we will need to start negotiations as soon as possible.

At the same time, Serbian authorities should step up the fight against systemic corruption. The interests of political parties and private interests are still intertwined and it appears that Serbia has yet to make a start on these issues.

Reforms of the justice system should remove doubts about any political pressures on the courts and prosecution authorities.

I would like to mention how much Verica Barać, former head of the Serbian Council for the Fight against Corruption, did for Serbia. Sadly, Ms Barać died nine days ago.

I wish Serbian leaders could show as much will and energy in combating corruption and promoting the rule of law as Verica Barać did, a woman who stood alone in this fight on too many occasions.

Nonetheless, she has shown that independent institutions in Serbia are able to do their job effectively and professionally. In the fight against corruption, the political will of the relevant executive power is very important.

The resolution on Serbia’s progress, on which we will be voting tomorrow, provides a message of encouragement and constructive criticism.

I firmly believe that, once the negotiations start, Serbia will make faster progress. However, it is for the leadership in Belgrade to put its money where its mouth is.

  György Schöpflin, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, my congratulations to Mr Kacin. This is a thorough and cogent report. Cooperation has been very good.

Serbia has been granted candidate status, and at the same time – this is important – elections are to be held in early May. So this report can serve as a guide for the next Serbian Government in its stance towards Europe. A great deal has been done to make Serbian accession feasible, and the country should receive due credit for all these efforts. However, as the report makes clear, this does not mean that all is done and dusted: far from it. There are many areas where the Serbian system of government – and, for that matter, governance – demand a major overhaul before they meet the EU criteria.

One of these areas is very serious. This is where legal provision is used, indeed abused, to eliminate competition and to stultify the market in favour of insiders. It is all the worse that this practice is undertaken in the name of the fight against organised crime.

Then there is Kosovo. All candidate countries have to come to terms with their neighbours, whatever the antecedents. This means that Serbia has to confront Kosovo’s independence and abandon illusions that somehow, one day, Kosovo will again be a part of the Serbian State. It will not, however hard that may be to accept.

Thirdly, while Serbia has taken a number of steps in the direction of providing equal status for its non-Serbian minorities, its citizenship concept is not yet sufficiently inclusive to provide full rights to some non-Serbian groups, notably the Romanian speakers of the Timok Valley and the Bulgarian minority. The model – the good model developed in Vojvodina – of all minority councils should be extended to the rest of the country. The next government will have plenty on its plate.

  Maria Eleni Koppa, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (EL) Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I too should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Kacin, on his report and to express my satisfaction that Serbia has been granted the status of candidate country.

There are two main reasons for that: firstly, because it serves as acknowledgment of the efforts made by this country towards European integration and, secondly because, in the present economic crisis and general struggle towards enlargement, this step provides practical proof that the policy of enlargement is alive and well and that the European Union intends to honour its commitment to integrate all the countries in the Western Balkans.

I congratulate the Serbian people and the Serbian leadership on the important steps made and would encourage them to continue their efforts to modernise their society and administration and to come to terms with and assimilate its past mistakes. We believe that President Tadic deserves particular congratulations for his political action, for the reconciliations in the area of the Former Yugoslavia and his firm commitment to bring Serbia into Europe. This contribution was recognised yesterday when Serbia was awarded the Council of Europe North-South Prize. The recognition conferred on him is an honour for the entire country.

The agreements achieved within the framework of the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina give cause to hope that the situation will be smoothed over for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the area. The application of the agreements and continuing dialogue are crucial. Everyone involved, especially the European Union, has a responsibility to contribute to its successful continuation. A peaceful solution to differences and reconciliation between nations are principles based on the European approach. Anyone wanting to join the European Union must bear that in mind.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group . – (DE) Mr President, I would also like to start by expressing my thanks to the rapporteur. He has produced a very good draft and together we have turned it into an excellent report. I would like to thank him for his cooperation. The report is good because it is balanced. It recognises the progress that Serbia has made in recent months and years, but is not afraid to raise controversial issues wherever this is necessary. The many important advances made have already been mentioned, including cooperation with the UN tribunal, reforms relating to the rule of law and the economy, and, with some hesitation, readiness to compromise in the case of Kosovo.

However, Kosovo is one key area where the debit side heavily outweighs the credit side. The most recent agreements on integrated border management are an important step forward and they have smoothed the path towards candidate status. However, what has been agreed must be put into practice. Belgrade has not yet signed the agreement on border management, despite the fact that political approval was given a month ago. We in the European Parliament must send a clear signal to Belgrade. Agreements that have been concluded must be complied with and implemented, regardless of whether or not an election campaign is underway. This is what Serbia will be judged on.

The situation will soon become more concrete when the question of starting accession negotiations is raised. I hope that this will happen as soon as possible. However, the requirement for this is that the criteria specified by the European Commission are met and this applies, most importantly, to relations with Kosovo.

Serbia is faced with other challenges, in particular with regard to combating corruption, protecting the rights of minorities and judicial reform. Ms Cornelissen will have more to say about this later. Clearly it is in the hands of the Serbians to speed up the process of moving closer to Europe. We will take a critical look at the problems, but we will always be fair, because our joint objective is to ensure that Serbia becomes a member of the European family.

  Mirosław Piotrowski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, the European Union, ignoring the serious financial crisis that is consuming it, is continuing the enlargement process. It is directing its attention particularly on the Balkans.

During the March part-session in Strasbourg, we heard opposing views about Macedonia, and today the Committee on Foreign Affairs has submitted to Parliament a motion for a resolution on the European integration process of Serbia. We read in the report that this country has made clear progress in the areas of democratic and legislative reform. It is difficult to agree fully with some of the clauses in the resolution since, on the one hand, as for example in paragraph 30, the Serbian authorities are generally criticised for a ‘lack of political will demonstrated during the course of the preparations for the Pride Parade scheduled for 2 October 2011’, and then, on the other hand, in this same paragraph, there is uncalled for interference in freedom of speech, denying the right of Orthodox clergy, among others, to express opinions in line with their convictions.

While of course condemning any extremist attitudes in that country, we must remember that the issue of tolerance that is raised in this report should also apply to the Christians who have been criticised, and Parliament’s overly importunate statements could upset the entire integration process.

  Miloslav Ransdorf, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (CS) Mr President, I would like to say that the idea that stability is indivisible constitutes one of the values of the European Union, and by helping Serbia become integrated into the family of European nations, we will actually be assisting European stability. I would also like to say that Serbia is the central economy of the Balkans, and the integration of Serbia will stabilise the Balkans as a region.

Thirdly, I would like to stress that we will be helping to defuse chauvinism through the integration of the Balkans and the stabilisation of Serbia as the central country of the region. Chauvinism is the enemy of European integration and the enemy of stability.

With regard to what Professor Schöpflin said, I would like to say openly here that Vojvodina, for example, which he mentioned here as a cautionary example, is actually an example of tolerance, as it is home to many ethnic communities, and even the small Czech or Slovak community enjoys the benefit of its own schools and its own media access. It is therefore not true that there would be discrimination in Vojvodina.

Serbia has recently begun a courageous fight against organised crime, as well as a very ambitious reform of the judiciary. It has, in a short space of time, removed 1 600 judges who had links to organised crime. In my opinion, we should support this effort.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE ). – (RO) Mr President, I wish to begin by emphasising that I have always supported Serbia’s accession. I strongly believe that the whole EU accession process is to the advantage of the citizens of this country, who are ultimately the main beneficiaries of the political and economic reforms required for compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.

However, accession means full observance of these criteria, including the essential criterion regarding the protection of persons belonging to minorities. In this respect, I want to draw particular attention to the situation of ethnic Romanians living in north-eastern Serbia, which, unfortunately, has not improved at all. Issues such as access to education, religious services and mass-media in Romanian language or use of Romanian language in local government are still problematic, while intimidating actions against ethnic Romanians living in Timoc Valley carry on as well.

These matters are not new and have been raised repeatedly, but, despite guarantees offered by Serbian authorities, including during debates in our Parliament, the implementation of European standards with regard to the protection of national minorities is still poor. Moreover, despite commitments made by Serbia before the European Council meeting in March, when the Joint Commission Protocol on National Minorities was signed with Romania, there are indications that the implementation of these rules is not a priority for Serbia. Therefore, I want to welcome the European Commission’s decision to monitor the implementation of legislation on minorities in Serbia. I hope this will finally lead to real changes in the situation of the Romanian minority, which will only accelerate Serbia’s European course.

  Libor Rouček (S&D ). - (CS) Mr President, enlargement policy has been one of the most successful EU policies of recent years. Enlargement policy has secured peace, stability, cooperation and prosperity in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. I believe it is our common aim to bring this successful idea to completion in the Western Balkans. Croatia has successfully completed the negotiation process, and, provided all goes well, will become a full member in July next year.

We are talking about Serbia today. Serbia is a key country for the entire Western Balkan region, from a political, strategic, historical, economic and cultural perspective.

It is very pleasing to hear and read the positive reports coming from Belgrade and from Serbia. It is entirely possible that the first half of 2012 will, in the future, be regarded as a period of historical importance, marking a key breakthrough in the integration of Serbia. From this perspective, the February meeting with Pristina on the representation of Kosovo in regional groupings is of fundamental significance. The granting of candidate status is, of course, also of fundamental significance.

We must keep up the tempo, however, which means that the Commission must enable Serbia to begin membership talks as soon as possible. The Serbs will also have to fulfil their domestic obligations of course, which means continuing with the internal reform process and the approximation of European law, as well as the normalisation of relations with Kosovo.

This is the main substance of the report. We, as social democrats, support this report, and wish the Serbs much success on the path to the European Union.

  Stanimir Ilchev (ALDE ). – (BG) Mr President, the report we are discussing today has many merits because its author, Mr Kacin, is a great authority on the Western Balkans and the situation in Serbia. The report also contains the wonderful news about the new status of the Serbian state. This status is well-deserved because Serbian society has made, and continues to make great efforts toward reforms.

It will come as no surprise then if we stress very often today the dialogue between Belgrade and Priština. This will be a prism through which we will assess Serbian policy for a long time – to see whether it is sensible and beneficial.

Another important prism for judging domestic policy is the policy on minorities. The idea for a change expressed by the rapporteur in paragraph 2 is extremely important. We will now have a chance to fight for the rights of all minorities as part of European standards, and not as part of the law of former Yugoslavia.

It would be logical for us to expect quick progress in this area. Is it that difficult, for example, for prayers to God to be said in Bulgarian in Bulgarian churches? Is it necessary to impose the Serbian naming system, through administrative pressure, on newborn Bulgarian children? Is it acceptable to hinder the Bulgarians in Bosilegradsko and Pirotsko from celebrating their holidays?

There is no alternative but to quickly change the old stereotypes. It is imperative, and it will be very important to Serbia’s progress.

  Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE ). – Mr President, we welcome the major steps that Serbia has taken to gain candidate status, notably the capture of Mladić and Hadžić and the constructive resumption of the dialogue with Kosovo – although Serbia still has quite a lot to prove in that regard.

The negotiations should start as soon as possible so that Serbia can start working even harder on sustainable and profound reform, starting with Chapters 23 and 24. We expect Serbia to remedy the huge flaws in its review of the judiciary. While its initiative to start carrying out this review is commendable, taking the initiative is really not enough. They do not seem to realise that the execution of the process is at least as important, and the way this has been done now reflects badly on them.

We expect Serbia to improve the position of ethnic minorities so that they will have a good future in Serbia and will not feel they need to ask for asylum in the EU. We expect Serbia to combat extremism, xenophobia and homophobia so that this coming October the people of Belgrade can walk freely and safely in a Gay Pride parade. I will be there too.

We also expect Serbia to continue fighting corruption and organised crime.

We expect Serbia to do all this not only because it bring accession closer and is popular in the polls (or not), but mainly because it means a brighter future for all Serbians.

  Adam Bielan (ECR ). – (PL) Mr President, after the recent signing of an accession treaty with Croatia, the granting of candidate country status to Serbia is another step in the strategy of enlargement into the Balkans. The Republic of Serbia has shown its full commitment to Union membership for several years, which has included attempts to compensate for and clarify the unfortunate events of the last two decades as well as improvements in relations with its neighbours. I am definitely in favour of starting accession negotiations as quickly as possible in order to speed up the integration process as much as possible. Extending the visa-free scheme would be an excellent tool to increase cooperation with all Member States.

Experience to date has shown that enlargement policy brings long-lasting benefits to all of the Union. The enlargements in 2004 and 2007 strengthened the Union’s ability to deal with the subsequent crisis. As the largest integrated economic area in the world, it now generates over 30% of global GDP. Internal trade in goods and services has brought about an increase in the average income of citizens and has reduced unemployment. I believe that the inclusion of additional countries will help to increase prosperity in European societies. Greater stability and security throughout the continent is a benefit of every enlargement that has been insufficiently recognised.

  Alojz Peterle. (PPE ). – (SL) Mr President, I am very pleased that, in this report, we have welcomed the progress made by Serbia with regard to reforms and the agreement with Kosovo. With what it has achieved, it has met the conditions for being granted the status of candidate country.

This progress not only signifies an extremely important formal step for Serbia, it is also proof that Serbia is implementing its European ambitions whilst pursuing better relations with its neighbours.

This fact forms a basis for confidence in the enhanced dynamics of the accession process as well as in the consistent implementation of what has already been agreed.

Now it is very important that Serbia continues its process of democratic transition in a spirit of respect for diversity, the rule of law, a social market economy and other European standards.

The introduction of these standards will mean less corruption, fairer privatisation, more justice and respect for various identities and minorities, as well as more women in positions of responsibility.

This would also enhance the importance and effectiveness of Serbia as a very important player in a region in which the past tends to overshadow the desire for peaceful coexistence and closer cooperation

I sincerely congratulate Serbia on the progress achieved and on its candidate status, and I hope it will not have to wait long for the negotiations to open.

I also congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Kacin, and the shadow rapporteurs for a job well done.

IN THE CHAIR: JACEK PROTASIEWICZ
Vice-President

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D ). - (BG) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to congratulate the people of Serbia for receiving candidate country status at the last European Council. The decision is well-deserved recognition of the reforms implemented in the country.

The authorities in Serbia are steadfastly maintaining their European course and carrying out their commitments and promises in spite of the difficult political and economic situation. This is reflected in the report of the European Parliament.

The European Union is continuing its work on the enlargement process despite the economic problems, debt crisis and pressure on the single currency. Placed in the context of the progress of most countries from the region which are on the road to the EU, this step for Serbia demonstrates the Union’s sustained commitment to the Western Balkans, made in 2003.

Serbia needs timely, unequivocal support for the pro-European political forces, given the upcoming parliamentary elections at the beginning of May. I believe that Parliament’s report provides such support. The next, and perhaps most important test for the country will be the start of membership negotiations, which will, in practice, make its European integration irreversible. The European Parliament will work towards this.

  Andrey Kovachev (PPE ). – (BG) Mr President, Europe, in particular South-East Europe, needs a democratic Serbia, and the European Union must work towards a political environment that supports the process of democratic reforms in Serbia so that the country can finally break with the communism, post-communism and, especially, the nationalism inherited from former Yugoslavia.

Such support for the democratic process is shown by giving Serbia candidate country status. As always, success depends largely on the will of the country itself. Serbia must make very difficult decisions on the road to its European future, and I believe that, with its current policy, the country is going in the right direction.

Topics such as the rights of all citizens, regardless of their ethnic origin, as well as resolving the problems with its neighbours, are also part of the process of moving closer to the European Union.

I would like to draw particular attention to the unfair position of an oft-forgotten minority in the economically underdeveloped part of Serbia – the Bulgarian minority. More investments and opportunities are needed in this region if young people are to remain there, along with the guarantee that teaching in schools is provided in their mother tongue and textbooks are available in Bulgarian.

Finally, I again urge colleagues from Serbia, the Serbian Assembly and the government, not to ignore the past, but to follow the example of all the countries to the east of Berlin and declassify the archives of the communist secret services from the time of former Yugoslavia, in the name of transparency and reconciliation. The shadows of the past cannot lead us to a democratic European future.

  Kinga Gál (PPE ). – (HU) Mr President, we noted with satisfaction that Serbia has been granted candidate status, with the next step being the commencement of accession negotiations. We know that this road will not be an easy one. There is a great deal of headway to be made, but every step taken towards conformity with the relevant criteria and the solidification of the rule of law will still in some way be for the benefit of Serbian citizens. An important aspect of the report – and here I must give thanks to Mr Schöpflin, and to the rapporteur, Mr Kacin, for his receptiveness and open-mindedness – is that by stressing the necessity of the protection of minority rights it accords proper weight and attention to the relevant Copenhagen criterion. I am particularly pleased that considerations important to the Hungarian community of Vojvodina could be incorporated in the text in the form of expectations towards Serbia which, if complied with, can promote the welfare of these communities in their homeland and give them access to equal opportunities. It is important for Serbia not to repeat the mistakes of others by considering the interests of these national communities only temporarily, with a view to obtaining accession, and even then only in theory, but to ensure that these efforts have a practical impact on the everyday lives of the citizens concerned. Our obligation continues to be to monitor these processes.

  László Tőkés (PPE ). – (HU) Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Kacin on his enlargement report. I would like to highlight in particular the criteria for the protection of minorities included in the document. Compliance with the Copenhagen criteria and the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon was an essential prerequisite of the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs’ finally granting Serbia candidate status on 1 March. The consistency shown by the European Council in respect of the protection of minorities in Serbia, including the Romanians and the Vlachs, could serve as a lesson to Slovakia and Romania, both of whom suffer from a minority policy deficit.

The Council conclusions, as well as the motion for a resolution on Serbia itself, serve the reinforcement of collective minority rights, in no small part by requiring the continuous monitoring of Serbia’s minority policy. We Hungarians support Serbia’s accession to the European Union, but at the same time we demand justice for the mass murders committed against minorities in the past, as well as community rights and autonomy for our Hungarian community that exists in the country to this day. In respect of the protection of Hungarians living in Serbia we follow the example of Romania, who firmly stood up for the Romanians of Timočka Krajina.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE ). – (PT) Mr President, I should basically like to say that we are very pleased to note that steps have been made towards Serbia’s inclusion in the European Union. This is very important because the experience of countries like Portugal, Spain and Greece, which were countries that lived through dictatorships and had a range of very serious problems, is the experience that European integration was how democracy was consolidated. Serbia too, therefore, deserves this opportunity.

In any case, I should now like to raise an issue a little different to that raised by my fellow Members. I am aware of and enthusiastically welcome the concern for minorities, but we must not forget the Serb majority: it is crucial that the Serbs themselves play a part, a full part, in the European Union. This cannot be forgotten. There can be no peace in the Balkans without Serbia, so however much we stress the rights of minorities, which must be respected, we cannot forget the Serb majority, their identity and their right to be full European citizens, the same as any others, with their own country and their own national pride.

  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that at a time of crisis in Europe – because the debate in this House by all the groups regarding the agreement of 1 March has shown that the Community is in crisis – it is very significant that a country such as Serbia should be given the status of candidate for EU membership.

I believe that it is a key moment, and I agree with the representatives of the Commission and of the Council, and with the rapporteur, that Serbia has taken many steps forward but must continue to solve problems and find uniformity with Europe.

I believe this is a time of stability and a time of security for Europe and that the new relationship that Serbia is beginning to establish with Kosovo gives great hope not only to Italy, because its borders are closer, more adjacent, but also to all of Europe, which I believe has an interest in peace as a whole being guaranteed. I believe that we need to monitor behaviour, but I think all of us should be pleased about this rapprochement .

  Eduard Kukan (PPE ). - (SK) Mr President, I applaud the fine work of the rapporteur, Jelek Kacin. The result is a report that objectively reflects the situation in Serbia, and Serbia’s relations with the EU. Serbia has deservedly achieved the status of candidate country. It now has an opportunity to exploit its own potential and join the frontrunners for European integration. I would therefore like to cheer on our Serbian colleagues. Candidate status is, after all, just the beginning of a difficult and lengthy task.

I am pleased that the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo is continuing. Dialogue and agreements must contribute to better relations and to the gradual removal of anomalies between the partners. The implementation of agreements in good faith, mutual respect for partners in dialogue and avoidance of unnecessary tension are also important. Serbia has some hard work to do. A convinced pro-European orientation will be required from the politicians who are able to reform the country and move ahead. Serbia has the potential to manage this process successfully, and it also has our full support in this.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Csaba Sógor (PPE ). – (HU) Mr President, the countries of the Western Balkans all chose to walk the path of European integration. It is from this process that the inhabitants of the region hope to see an improvement in their living standards, as well as an economic upturn and the settlement of ethnic tensions. The citizens of Serbia, whether Serbs or Hungarians, Roma or Romanians, Albanians or Croats, all hope for this as well. Yet if the EU does not pay sufficient attention to addressing minority issues, these future EU citizens will find themselves disappointed in us. The best way to treat interethnic tensions is through the granting of political autonomy. For Serbia’s province of Vojvodina, too, this is the way of the future.

For a long time, this also seemed to be the right solution in the case of Kosovo, but the time for settlement within state borders ran out. I ask the Commission and the Member States to not allow countries in the region that follow the path of accession to lose their European perspective. To this end we should pay attention to their problems even if it means involvement in the settlement of interethnic relations.

  Franz Obermayr (NI ). – (DE) Mr President, despite the fact that for Serbia the path to full membership will be a long and tough one, candidate status represents a significant step forward, particularly for a country that only 13 years ago was the target of NATO attacks. Serbia is culturally, historically and geographically a European country in every respect. In addition, Serbia and Belgrade have proved over the last year that they are able to fulfil the accession criteria.

As a result of the visa liberalisation which was introduced in December 2009, a growing number of asylum seekers has been arriving in the EU. Unfortunately, the relaxation of visa requirements is being used for the purposes of trafficking in false asylum seekers. It is true that the majority of the asylum seekers are members of the ethnic minorities. However, Serbia itself is also a destination for asylum seekers. Therefore, as part of the accession negotiations, the EU must call for the establishment of an efficient asylum system in Serbia and must give this system its support.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D ). – (HU) Mr President, the fact that the European Council granted Serbia candidate status before the country’s parliamentary elections in May was of utmost importance. The Community has acknowledged Serbia’s efforts towards compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. The progress of Serbia’s integration has great significance to and a crucial role in ensuring the stability of the entire Balkan region. The system for the protection of minorities that has been established in Serbia is highly important. Many EU Member States would be proud to have a minority protection system such as the one Serbia has set up, but I must remind our Serbian friends that such a system also requires sufficient funding. As regards Kosovo, I implore the Commission and the Council not to impose impossible conditions on Serbia. In order for progress to be made in respect of the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo, both parties, not just Serbia but the Albanians of Kosovo, too, must make appropriate concessions.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI ). - Mr President, we are not only opposed to the UK’s membership of the EU, we are opposed to the institution itself, which is intentionally destructive of national identities and sovereignties. We would therefore urge all countries, including Serbia, to decide against membership.

The EU’s interference in Serbian internal affairs is to be deprecated. Encouraging Serbia to embrace neo-liberal globalist economic policies is not in Serbia’s interest. Attempts to foist social liberalism on a socially conservative society like that of Serbia have led to violence, inevitable repression and resentment. The true purpose of such measures is not to protect the real interests of sexual minorities, but to politicise them and generate friction with their neighbours.

Furthermore, it is in the UK’s interest to oppose enlargement, especially the entry of relatively poor countries, the inclusion of which will lead to greater net contributions from the donor countries and mass migration from the newly admitted states.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE ). – (RO) Mr President, the evaluation made by the European Commission in October regarding Serbia’s advancement on the European path should build on the fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria, the protection of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities being an important part thereof.

Regarding the situation of Romanian minorities throughout Serbia, I do not think that we are dealing with a bilateral situation, but with one related to the fulfilment of political criteria. Building upon the principle of self-identification, Serbia needs to implement the legislation on minorities coherently, that is, throughout its territory, and consistently, that is, for all minorities. It is necessary to ensure access to education, religious services, mass-media and public administration in Romanian for all those who identify themselves as Romanians.

The implementation of recommendations agreed by Romania and the Republic of Serbia in the Protocol of 1 March this year on national minorities should be an assessment criterion for the European Commission’s report in October.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI ). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I know of at least two groups of people who would not recognise the country we are discussing here today. One of them are the Hungarians living in Serbia, who must continuously and regularly endure the gravest human rights violations, including physical abuse, for so much as using the Hungarian language, their mother tongue. The other group are the members of the European Council, who had conducted a similar debate and adopted a decision in which they found Serbia guilty of serious human rights violations, namely violations against indigenous national minorities. It seems that we now coyly avoid this subject and refrain from mentioning it. My time is short so I would just like to highlight the ethnic cleansing that is taking place, that is, the forceful settlement of refugees of war among the Hungarian population in Vojvodina, as well as the language rights infringements I already mentioned. I would also like to call for territorial autonomy for Hungarians in the same fashion as it was granted to South Tyrol.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE ). - Mr President, having personally witnessed the recent history of the Balkans as a foreign news correspondent, I cannot underline strongly enough the huge importance of this process for stability and understanding in that region. This is not just an opportunity but a duty for us. It is incumbent upon us to do what we can to silence the remaining voices of chauvinism and intolerant nationalism in Serbia. However, we would be foolish to repeat the somewhat lax approach to this round of enlargement that we witnessed in the previous round. Therefore I will be voting for amendments that require strict fulfilment of the most important preconditions for membership, including that of ensuring the protection of minorities.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE ). - (PL) Mr President, the last few months have been particularly important for the future of the Western Balkans. This area, which until recently was a source of constant worry for Europe, is slowly beginning to stabilise. Again one sees how effective the Union’s enlargement policy can be. Even the possibility of membership results in the states in this area making enormous efforts to adapt their legislation and economies to the rules in force in the European Union. Of course this is done with greater or lesser success, but one has to appreciate the enormous determination shown to overcome problems.

This is particularly true in the case of Serbia. This country, which has experienced years of war, economic sanctions and ineffective and autocratic regimes, is entering a period of positive developments. The very fact that it was possible to reach a compromise on relations with Kosovo shows the determination of Serbian politicians to follow the European path. For this reason, Belgrade should feel our strong support and should see that we appreciate the efforts that are being made. This is particularly important now, when the economic crisis is impacting on society in Serbia and when there is growing frustration and discouragement. We cannot leave Serbia alone with its problems. We should take special interest in the development of young people in Serbia.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me thank you for this rich debate, which has demonstrated the continuing support of the House for the European Union integration process of Serbia.

I have heard a lot of statements on a number of issues, some of which have been mentioned repeatedly. However, when I heard the expression ‘ethnic cleansing’ I looked round, just to make sure that the country we were talking about was Serbia and the year we were talking about was 2012. As the Commission and the Council have declared, we intend to monitor closely the protection of minorities in Serbia and work hand in hand with the relevant international and European stakeholders, in particular the OSCE and especially its High Commissioner for National Minorities, and the Council of Europe. The Commission will report on these issues in the next progress report, to be issued in October 2012.

I have taken good note of your wish to see Serbia move rapidly to the next step, the opening of accession negotiations. I fully subscribe to this objective, provided the criteria are fulfilled. We will therefore, as always, carefully monitor and assess how Serbia fulfils the particular criteria, in particular the state of play in the key areas of democratic institutions, judicial reform, the fight against corruption and organised crime, human rights and the protection of minorities.

Regarding the key priority – the improvement of relations with Kosovo – we will be looking at several aspects: the implementation in good faith of agreements (as already mentioned), progress on outstanding issues such as telecommunications and energy, and active cooperation with EULEX to enable it to exercise its function throughout Kosovo. It should also be clear that new controversial issues should be avoided – for instance, Serbia needs to refrain from holding local elections in Kosovo.

I am glad you agree with the merits of the new approach for Chapters 23 and 24, which will in time also be applicable to Serbia. I sincerely hope, as you do, that, on the basis of the strong foundations laid by Serbia in order to achieve candidate status, we will open another very dynamic phase in the next stage of our relations with Serbia.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, Mr Kacin, EU enlargement is a success story for the EU and for Europe and, after this excellent debate, I look forward to continuing our enhanced cooperation with the European Parliament during our Presidency, not only with regard to Serbia’s integration process, but in respect of all the countries with an EU perspective.

Serbia has been granted EU candidate status as a result of its positive reform efforts in many different areas. It has carried out important reforms in a short space of time, particularly in the areas of the rule of law and fundamental rights, and it has cooperated with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in an entirely satisfactory way and engaged intensively in regional cooperation. Progress in the Belgrade-Priština dialogue will be very significant, not only for Serbia and Kosovo, but for the region as a whole, and the recent breakthrough is an example to be followed. It is pragmatic solutions, not inflexible attitudes, that are crucial when difficult conflicts are to be resolved.

There is a continuing need for progress both internally within Serbia and externally, for example in relations between Belgrade and Priština. Progress in relation to EU integration is, as we all know, based on merit. How much progress Serbia has made next will be assessed in connection with the Commission’s progress report in the autumn. It is my hope that we will be able to initiate accession negotiations with Serbia as soon as possible.

During the discussions today we have touched on a number of the areas in which reforms are required. I will just highlight a few key problems. It is vital that the efforts to combat corruption and organised crime continue. Serbia has made huge strides in combating organised crime and has worked well and actively with its neighbouring countries, which has resulted in a number of significant arrests. There is no doubt that effective cooperation with neighbouring countries is important in view of the cross-border nature of organised crime. The Serbian authorities have done some important work in this area, and I hope the authorities will take the success in combating organised crime as inspiration to also make an extra effort to combat corruption, which is an area where there is still a great deal of work to be done.

With regard to the economy, there is a need to implement structural reforms in order to promote productivity, limit the state budget deficit and alleviate the effects of the international economic crisis, particularly for the most vulnerable sections of society. In this regard, it is a positive step that the Serbian Government has taken important initiatives to promote conditions for growth for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the enormous amount of effort that Serbia has made in contributing to regional reconciliation. Over the last four years, the government, with President Tadić at the helm, has made a vital contribution to healing the wounds left by the acts of war in the 1990s. In so doing, the country has played its part in enabling the whole of the Western Balkans to look forward to a brighter future. This is obviously something that we in the EU should recognise and support, and at the same time, we in Parliament, the Commission and the Council are doing everything we can to encourage Serbia to remain on the path of reform so that the negotiations with the EU can get underway more quickly.

  President. - I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ submitted pursuant to Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 29 March 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE ), in writing. – (HU) I welcome the Commission’s enlargement report on Serbia, as it offers a detailed and comprehensive account of the progress made by Serbia so far. Furthermore, I would like to point out that on 1 March Serbia was granted official candidate status, which demonstrates the EU’s commitment to the country’s prospects as part of the European Union. I welcome all the steps and numerous efforts undertaken by Serbia to ensure the country’s compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria. Stabilising the county is of prime importance not only to guaranteeing the safety of the Western Balkan region, but also for EU security policy reasons. I would like to stress that Serbia’s future progress in the process of integration will greatly depend on the timely resolution of any remaining internal and foreign policy and economic issues, including the matter of minorities, and the maintenance of a good neighbourhood policy and regional cooperation. I am of the opinion that the changes and reforms implemented by the country so far point in the right direction, and as regards the remaining measures the EU must provide all necessary means.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD ), in writing. – (PL) Coming from a country that just a decade or so ago was in a similar position to Serbia today, I fully understand how our Slavonic friends from that country, which lies on the Danube, now feel. Serbia is a country that stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the construction of European civilisation, sharing the same Christian beliefs and, on more than one occasion, having to shed blood for those beliefs. Like Poles, they too remember the decisive Battle of Vienna against the Ottoman Empire. Serbs are proud of their sacrifices during the Battle of Kosovo.

Today, Serbia is a modern state that has made enormous political, economic and social progress. The 1990s, a tragic period for Balkan states, are now in the past. In the 21st century, Serbia is fast developing into a democratic and open country that has become a regional leader. I therefore fully support the report encouraging the European Council to begin negotiations, at a time which is so important for Serbia, before the elections that, let us hope, will finally demonstrate that Serbian society too is looking to Europe. I would also call on the European Union, when it takes steps to accept Serbia into the Union, to accord full respect to its traditions, its cultural heritage and the values rooted deep in the society of our Serbian brothers.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D ), in writing. – (HU) The European Union’s granting of candidate status to Serbia in March this year represents a major success for the country. This achievement required Belgrade to show the necessary willingness to compromise and agree on a range of matters of importance with Pristina. These agreements are meant to make the everyday lives of citizens on both sides of the country border easier. The dialogue must go on, and the agreements signed must be implemented as soon as possible. Belgrade’s approximation to the European Union is good news for the Hungarian population of Vojvodina, and for Hungary whose fundamental interest lies in being surrounded by democratic countries governed by the rule of law and possessing developed market economies. The progress of the accession processes of Serbia and other countries in the Western Balkans depends not only on the European Union’s ability to strictly enforce the application of its own values and norms in the candidate countries but also on its ability to consistently make its own Member States conform to them. Belgrade must exert stronger pressure than ever on dissident Serb factions both in Kosovo and in Bosnia in order to reconcile the parties involved and normalise the situation. I am confident that the upcoming Serbian elections will see a strengthening of democratic forces that have a friendly attitude towards Europe, enabling Serbia to take the next step in the process of EU accession.

  Jiří Havel (S&D ), in writing. - (CS) The granting of candidate status to Serbia is undoubtedly an important step. It has undeniable significance in the context of the further development of the Balkans, and must therefore be welcomed. It will now be important to exploit this positive impetus, particularly in Serbia itself. In order to avoid candidate status losing its impact, accession talks should start without delay. There is no justification for any further delay here. We know that Serbia is now at least as well prepared for such talks as Croatia was in the autumn of 2005. It is highly desirable to make as many members of the Serbian public as possible aware of our common political will - in May parliamentary elections will be held there. The Kosovo question, however, still remains open. The Czech Social Democratic Party is, in European politics, on the side of those that disagree with its unilateral declaration of independence. I personally consider it an error to make the integration of Serbia into Europe conditional on its relations with Kosovo. For the same reason, I feel embarrassed about the fact that the European Commission will begin scheduling a ‘feasibility study’ on Kosovo, aimed at assessing the possibility of drawing up a stabilisation and association agreement. I am nevertheless aware of the fact that this is a political price which must be paid at the moment, in order to escape the gridlock. However, only time will tell what actual benefit there may be for us in this.

  Iosif Matula (PPE ), in writing . – (RO) I support the enlargement of the European Union by the accession of Western Balkan countries and, implicitly, that of Serbia, provided that they put into practice the Copenhagen criteria. Just as Romania had to meet strict principles regarding the rights of minorities, and currently stands as an example in this respect, Serbia too will have to align to the European model in this area if it wishes to join the EU.

I am referring to the situation of national minorities in general and of the Romanian minority in particular, regardless of the different names under which the latter is found or of the number of citizens more or less formally recognised. Ethnic Romanians demand, above all, education, religious services and mass-media in their mother tongue, which are normal rights in a democracy. Unfortunately, they are consistently denied these requests and problems have lingered on for years, as Serbian authorities have not adopted yet the EU practice regarding the treatment of national minorities. In these circumstances, until this issue is adequately settled, I believe it is useful that the European Commission monitors the implementation of European standards concerning minority rights in Serbia.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI ), in writing . – (DE) It should be clear that the EU is not the only option open to Serbia and that it is all too easy to forget the country’s long-established links with Russia. The mood of crisis in the European Union and the fear of further coercion with regard to the Kosovo question have led to the Serbs being less than enthusiastic about their country’s status as a candidate for accession. Quite apart from the fact that Kosovo’s independence represents a breach of United Nations Resolution 1244, which is why the newly established country is not recognised by all EU Member States, the EU is taking too lightly the fears of the Kosovo Serbs that they will be pushed into a corner by the oppressive Albanian majority. By ignoring the people who are affected by this issue, we are going against European values. Kosovo represents a threat to the stability of the Balkans. It is an artificial state created as a result of pressure from the United States and it could not survive without generous funding from Brussels. This region, which declared its independence in breach of international law and contrary to UN Resolution 1244, certainly cannot join the EU in its current form.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE ), in writing. – Serbia’s reform progress is to be welcomed and further encouraged, especially in light of the upcoming elections in Serbia. Much still needs to be done to implement the obligations and agreements undertaken by Serbia – especially as regards improving the business environment. The recent experiences of foreign investors in Serbia are very discouraging. Winners of privatisation tenders invested tens of millions, but were challenged by public institutions and forced to leave. Dubious decisions by Serbian institutions are now being contested internationally. The Commission must monitor very closely the progress committed to in December 2011 and February 2012 and report back at the end of this year. Another issue is reconciliation with the Communist past. This process is moving forward in many former Communist block countries, but not in Serbia. Serbia was the first country in the region to adopt its Lustration Law, but later annulled it as infringing the Constitution. I cannot see how truth and justice can infringe the Constitution of a democratic state? I call on Serbia to adopt the necessary legislation and open up its communist-times archives to its citizens as well as to other countries without further delay.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE ), in writing. – On 1 March 2012, the EU countries decided to give Serbia the status of official candidate for EU membership. I welcome this decision as I welcome the economic, social and political efforts made by Serbia under the leadership of President Boris Tadić, who has proved to have a strong pro-European influence on his country. The upcoming elections on 6 May will hopefully give place to a Serbian Parliament which will keep on following the country’s current line towards EU integration. Relations with Pristina remain a sensitive issue in the region but the dialogue is progressing considering the recentness of Kosovo’s independence. Moreover, it is important to remember that, to this day, five EU countries have still not recognised the state of Kosovo for fear of independence willingness in their own country. We should keep in mind that the question of Kosovo’s status concerns the whole EU and not only Serbia. Finally, I would like to congratulate the Romanian Government, which has come to a compromise with the Serbian State on the matter of Bulgarian and Romanian minorities’ rights in Serbia. Compromises will indeed be necessary; Serbia is the largest ex-Yugoslav republic and it is undeniable that the future of the Western Balkans lies in the EU.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D ), in writing. – Only 15 years ago, such a debate on Serbia’s candidacy for EU membership would have been unthinkable. The nucleus of a war-broken federal state, Serbia was marginalized within the ‘New Europe’. Everything which had happened there was a tragedy both for the former Yugoslav peoples, including the Serbs, and for the entire continent. After the break-away of Slovenia and Croatia, war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and bombing took place over the separation of Kosovo. However, the last separation – Montenegro – took place peacefully, reflecting the maturity and courage of the new Serbian leadership, and primarily of President Tadić. Indeed, the current Serb leadership has taken decisive steps which have made this debate possible: it has captured two long-sought war criminals, Karadžić and Mladić, and has handled properly the independence of Kosovo. That was all possible because it understood that the only chance for Serbia was to cut loose from the past and concentrate on the future – a future which engaged the country inevitably on the path to EU integration. That has been correctly understood by Serbia and I am confident that this country will fulfil the ensuing obligations, including by helping to maintain stability in a very sensitive and important area of the continent.

  Anna Záborská (PPE ), in writing. - (SK) The start of accession talks with the EU was a historic moment for Serbia. It was the first step on the path away from the legacy of Tito's communist regime. The talks - and above all the clear prospect of Serbia’s future membership in the EU - are key to achieving lasting stability in the war-torn Balkans. The possibility of obtaining a European passport in the foreseeable future - along with open access to the single market for labour, goods and services - also has a motivating effect on Serbian minorities living in surrounding countries. For Serbs living outside Serbia, it is also a convincing argument in favour of constructively seeking a method of co-existence built not on conflict, but on mutual respect and compromise. It would be naive if we were to convince ourselves that the prospect of EU membership will eliminate all conflicts in the Balkans once and for all. Many of them have been dragging on for centuries, and will take years to overcome, and possibly decades. I firmly believe, however, that the opening of the accession talks will create the necessary space for this.

  President. - The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the enlargement report for Kosovo.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, on Kosovo I can state clearly that I am optimistic about the situation as it has developed since the submission of the 2011 progress report by the Commission. The Council conclusions of 28 February this year also reflect the very considerable efforts made by both Serbia and Kosovo in the EU-facilitated dialogue.

As you know, last December the Council welcomed Kosovo’s commitment to the European agenda, including through its sustained efforts in areas such as visas, trade and the judicial system, as well as the establishment of the National Council for European Integration. The Council also welcomed the improved integration of Serbs south of the Ibar River.

At the same time, the Council noted the limited progress achieved with regard to the reform agenda in a year marked by elections, and it urged Kosovo to take the necessary steps to address the shortcomings identified in the electoral process.

Kosovo was also encouraged to improve the budgetary situation, in close cooperation with the IMF. The Council noted the need for major efforts on the part of the authorities, particularly to strengthen public administration reform and consolidate the rule of law. Evidence was needed to demonstrate that organised crime and corruption are being tackled and that progress is being made in pursuing judicial reform and protecting freedom of expression. The Council also invited Kosovo to launch an inclusive and long-term agenda for northern Kosovo.

In addition to these requirements, the Council emphasised the crucial importance of the EU-facilitated Belgrade/Priština dialogue as a process of equal importance for both Serbia and Kosovo. The Council called on both parties to engage constructively on the full range of issues, from freedom of movement of persons to customs and from the cadastre to the implementation of the integrated management for crossing points, the IBM.

This call was certainly heard in both Belgrade and Priština. Progress was made over the subsequent months, and considerable political courage was demonstrated in both capitals. These are very positive developments, which demonstrate the power of the enlargement process to promote reform.

Equally important is the fact that the EU has responded to these efforts. The visa dialogue was launched in January 2012. Furthermore, the Commission intends to launch a structured dialogue on the rule of law and a feasibility study for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and Kosovo. These are important incentives.

I think we all agree that Kosovo’s future lies within the European Union. Solid implementation of the agreements reached between Belgrade and Priština will bring Serbia and Kosovo further on their path towards the EU.

On the other hand, many challenges lie ahead for the leadership in Kosovo, not least on the domestic agenda. Here the EU is also ready to assist. I very much hope that more resources will be put in place on the ground to support the initiatives from Brussels and from the new EUSR/Head of Delegation, who has been in place for only a few weeks.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am grateful for your kind invitation to participate in your discussion on Kosovo. I am also grateful for your support for the Commission’s work on Kosovo, as confirmed by the report we will debate here today, and I am very grateful for the excellent work of your rapporteur, Ms Lunacek, in preparing this well-balanced report and ensuring broad support for it.

I have just returned from Kosovo. On Tuesday I had the pleasure of attending the very first meeting of Kosovo’s Council for European Integration. The Council was set up by Kosovo’s President Jahjaga in order to establish a forum for discussion and guidance on Kosovo’s path to Europe.

In my speech to the Council for European Integration, I emphasised that it was essential that the Council reflect and be supported by all sides of the political spectrum in Kosovo. The Council needs to build as broad and inclusive a consensus across society as possible. Only with the support and engagement of all political forces and communities will Kosovo be able to make the efforts at reform required to move successfully towards Europe. European integration requires the support and commitment of Kosovo society as a whole. By its very nature, European integration is and needs to be inclusive.

Honourable Members, what can we do to support Kosovo on its way towards closer integration? The General Affairs Council of 28 February confirmed the Commission’s intention to launch a feasibility study for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Kosovo. This marks the beginning of a new stage in the European Union’s relationship with Kosovo. The Council’s endorsement firmly anchors Kosovo in the European Union’s policy framework for the Western Balkans. It marks a crucial step towards the establishment of contractual relations with Kosovo.

The objective of the feasibility study is to provide a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of Kosovo’s readiness to negotiate and eventually implement a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, which forms the legal basis of the European Union’s relations with the countries of the Western Balkans and a stepping stone towards membership. The study will focus on the political, economic and legal aspects of Kosovo’s readiness for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement. My visit to Kosovo yesterday marked the start of our work.

The launch of the feasibility study was another, additional key element in the European Union’s already ambitious agenda for Kosovo. Let me mention some of the key elements of this agenda. First, I hope that we will be able to issue the visa liberalisation roadmap for Kosovo later in the spring. Second, we will shortly resubmit our proposal for a framework agreement allowing Kosovo to participate in European Union programmes. Third, on 30 May, I will launch the structured dialogue on the rule of law. Fourth, we will support Kosovo’s bid for membership of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, once Kosovo chooses to submit its application. Fifth, we are ready to support an inclusive and long-term agenda for the north of Kosovo.

Let me conclude by reaffirming the European Union’s commitment to Kosovo. The last few weeks have shown that these are not just empty words but are backed up by concrete action. The Commission is fully engaged with Kosovo. 2012 should be a year of opportunity, and I trust I can count on Parliament’s support to turn this opportunity into reality.

  Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, my report this year aims to send a strong signal to the citizens of Kosovo that the future of independent Kosovo lies in the European Union. This report acknowledges the work the European Union has been doing over the last months and years, and these important steps forward regarding the Republic of Kosovo – be it the launching of the visa dialogue and the fact that the roadmap, as Commissioner Füle has now confirmed, is to be delivered this spring, or the fact that the dialogue between Priština and Belgrade, between Kosovo and Serbia – have led to some positive results. This needs to continue after the Serbian elections.

What are these results? Regional cooperation, where Kosovo can now participate on its own account in international and regional organisations, and the agreement on border management which, for the first time, constitutes a bilateral agreement between the two states. Nevertheless, I would also call on Serbia to sign the agreement, as it has promised. In addition, with his visit yesterday, Commissioner Füle launched the feasibility study, as we have already said, which is the first step for the further progress of Kosovo and towards the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

My report also calls on the five recalcitrant Member States of the European Union to recognise Kosovo, because this would make the EU’s efforts even more effective.

Nevertheless, there are still challenges in Kosovo itself: the fight against corruption and organised crime, building up a functioning economy and social developments, so that people can feel the desire, the need and the will to work in their own country and to build it up. There must be electoral and constitutional reforms, and all the perpetrators of electoral fraud in the last elections must be brought to justice. The rule of law and media freedom: there are still things to be done.

Regarding the north, my report calls on the Government in Priština to reach out to the Serbs in the north and for the Serbs in the north to implement the Ahtisaari Plan, because it would provide municipalities with wide-ranging autonomy. It also calls on Serbia to refrain from holding local elections in the north, which would violate international law and would not be in line with Resolution 1244, and to stop supporting perilous structures.

I hope my report will find broad support, even as regards the amendments that I had to table because the first vote was two months ago now, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and many things have happened since, as I have tried to relate.

  Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the PPE Group . – (DE) Mr President, this year it is 100 years since the royal Serbian army occupied Kosovo during the first Balkan war. The events of that time are documented in reports by the Carnegie Foundation and the Austrian Social Democrat Leo Freundlich. The occupation was followed by 86 years of oppression and finally by the Milošević regime’s attempt at genocide. For the last 12 years, the Kosovans have had the opportunity to establish a democratic European state. They have encountered serious problems, but they have also achieved a great deal. Our job today is to recognise this and to help them to make further progress.

I want to be quite clear about this. I am in favour of Serbia joining the European Union. For this reason, I was in Serbia only last Sunday. However, I am also calling for justice for Kosovo. Serbia has candidate status, but Kosovo not yet been recognised by five EU Member States. This situation must change. Kosovo has guaranteed the rights of minorities and has reserved seats for them in the Kosovan Parliament in accordance with the Ahtisaari plan and the Kosovan constitution. After the Serbian elections, there is a risk that the Albanians in the Preševo Valley will not be represented by a single member in the Serbian Parliament. In contrast, the deputy prime minister and the vice-president of the Kosovan Parliament are both Serbs. This is why I genuinely believe that we need to keep a sense of proportion and let common sense prevail. We must establish the same clear conditions for both sides as they move towards joining the European Union.

There are nine agreements in place between Priština and Belgrade. Of these nine agreements the most important have not been signed and only two have been partially implemented. The others have not. We want to see action and not just promises and empty words. Action should be taken before the Serbian elections. We do not want to find measures once again being blocked after the elections are over. Of course, we do not want Kosovo to be divided or the status question to be reopened. Instead, we want a new European democracy to be allowed to develop.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri, on behalf of the S&D Group . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Ms Lunacek has done a great job.

I think that the process of consolidation of democracy in Kosovo is a very important factor. Our goal now is to encourage the government authorities in Priština and all the political forces represented in Parliament to persevere in the area of democratic reforms, reforms that are capable of modernising the country and opening a new phase in the political, civil, and economic life of Kosovo. There are still many shortcomings to address – earlier, the Council mentioned them – and they must be addressed with vigour and determination, and first and foremost they must be addressed by the Kosovo authorities with the consistency required.

Admittedly, the situation is evolving. We can only welcome the historic agreement reached between Belgrade and Priština on inclusive regional cooperation and on the representation of Kosovo in regional forums. This may seriously promote stability throughout the Western Balkan region and is therefore of great importance for the European Union as well. It is in this context – as Commissioner Füle reminded us – that we welcome the fact that the Commission has initiated a feasibility study for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and Kosovo.

We must now persevere on this path, because this path may not only bring peace and make the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo more profitable, and may bring these countries even closer to the EU, but also because it may help overcome the prejudices towards Kosovo on the part of those countries that have still not recognised the existence of Kosovo itself. There is thus a task that must be performed by Europe, but first and foremost a task that the Kosovar authorities must fully carry out in order to achieve these goals.

  Jelko Kacin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to congratulate Madam Lunacek on a good and well-balanced report. At long last, Kosovo’s citizens receive some good news from Brussels. A feasibility study has begun, as well as work on visa liberalisation. We need to ensure that these processes bear fruit in the near future. Kosovo is the last country in the region whose citizens need visas for travelling in the Schengen area. We need to do our part in order to put an end to this predicament as soon as possible.

Kosovo has engaged in a dialogue with Serbia in good faith, and we should welcome their constructive approach. Dialogue with Belgrade is in the very best interests of Kosovo, its citizens and the economy. Both sides should continue the dialogue and implement the agreements fully.

What Kosovo urgently needs in addition is a dialogue between the Serbian community in the north of Kosovo and ethnic Serbians living to the south of the Ibar river. Serbian culture has a strong presence in Kosovo. The gap that has been opening between these two parts of the Serbian community weakens it and makes the life of ethnic Serbians in Kosovo more difficult. At the same time, Priština needs to reach out in good faith to the Serbian community in the north and encourage their integration in a wider Kosovo. Belgrade needs to dispel ideas that the Serbian-dominated north will in some way remain a de facto part of Serbia proper. This will be difficult as long as certain Member States do not change their position regarding the independence of Kosovo.

This is our part of the job if we seek stability in the region and coherence in our foreign policy. But what is of the utmost importance for Kosovo’s future is that Priština needs to engage in a dialogue with itself. Systemic corruption and organised crime are a plague on the Kosovo economy and the rule of law. Much more needs to be done in this battle, where concrete results will make it possible for Kosovo to have a Stabilisation and Association Agreement soon. The political will of Kosovo’s leaders will be crucial in these efforts.

  Charalampos Angourakis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, the motion for a resolution promotes the imperialist policy of the European Union and the ambitions of the monopolies in the Western Balkans. This is a time of serious capitalist crisis and acute imperialist competition for markets and spheres of influence. The motion for a resolution supports the imposition of capitalist restructurings, the plundering of natural wealth in Kosovo, escalating unemployment and poverty. It insultingly condemns the inhabitants of north Kosovo opposed to the EU and NATO occupying forces.

The European Union is seeking to perpetuate the presence of its KFOR and EULEX forces and the biggest US base outside the US. It is trying to impose recognition of a NATO and EU protectorate born of the dirty war against the Yugoslav people, openly coercing the Serbian people to accept the breakup of the country in order to start EU accession negotiations. It is opening the gates wide to an escalation in ethnic conflicts, the fomentation of secession movements and the redrawing of borders. This is creating the risk of widespread war breaking out.

We are against the presence of foreign troops in the Balkans; we are in favour of a Europe of peace and friendship between nations which can only rise from the ashes of the European Union.

  Fiorello Provera, on behalf of the EFD Group . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Kosovo is a country with enormous structural problems, as highlighted by the report itself. Chronic and widespread corruption, a judicial system that does not respond to the needs of a democratic country, a highly inefficient public administration, a serious lack of media freedom, insufficient protection of minorities even as regards cultural and religious traditions. Furthermore, the economy is very weak and environmental protection is neglected. On top of all this, crime syndicates are widespread, trafficking arms, people and drugs, as verified by international investigations and reported by authoritative media organisations.

In 2010, the Council of Europe also denounced the involvement of Prime Minister Thaçi in organ smuggling and other criminal activities. All of this shows that we are a long way from any suggestion of possible integration, even though we have a duty to accompany Kosovo in its social and democratic development.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Bernd Posselt (PPE ), blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Provera whether he knows that Mr Marty from the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly was unable to provide a single piece of evidence in support of his claim that organ trafficking was taking place when he was called before Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. Of course this needs to be investigated. However, there is no proof at all and I would just like to know whether Mr Provera is aware of this.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD ), blue-card answer . – (IT) I know that the Council of Europe accusation mentions President Thaçi by name 27 times, and that this news was also reported by the BBC. I am not the courts and it is not up to me to verify any judicial accountability. However, the Council of Europe’s accusation is a very serious one, made by an authoritative council, which I think deserves some consideration.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE ). - (PL) Mr President – I am proud to say that this is the first time I have been able to address my friend of many years as ‘Mr President’ – Commissioner, I would like to say that the report prepared by the rapporteur is a good, balanced report that is worthy of support. It is evidence of the rapporteur’s high level of commitment and extensive knowledge of what is happening in Kosovo.

Clearly Kosovo is not an easy subject, it is not a simple issue and this is and will continue to be for many years a significant challenge for the European Union and for the international community at large, because it is not just ourselves who are involved in the reconstruction, in assisting with the reconstruction of this country and in reforms in this country. It should be pointed out that the report quite rightly emphasises just how much Kosovo has already done to build a normal state organisation, to repair, or rather to build from scratch, a legal system and also to create the various institutions that the country requires. I would, however, like to draw attention to one general issue, namely that what happens in Kosovo, Kosovo’s success, is also an example for other countries. It is an example of the effectiveness of European Union policy and an example that will be important for other Balkan states and for the whole West Balkan region.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D ). – (ES) Mr President, for a not insignificant part of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the European Union’s constructive yet distinctive stance on Kosovo’s independence has impacted very positively on the progress currently being made: it has strengthened Europe’s commitment to Serbia and has contributed to the stability of the region as a whole.

If the European Union had positioned itself en bloc alongside one of the parties, many of the achievements and the significant advances that have been mentioned here many times would not have been possible, from the bilateral dialogue to the dialogue between the European Union and the two parties.

That is why we believe that the appeal made in the report urging Member States that have not yet recognised Kosovo to do so, is inappropriate. We do not feel any of the points that could be interpreted as implicit recognition of Kosovo to be appropriate either.

We believe that this debate should focus more on the problems affecting Kosovo, such as corruption, organised crime, the economic situation and institution-building, rather than on the debate about whether or not to recognise Kosovo.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE ). - Mr President, my thanks to the rapporteur for her work. Kosovo is facing a year of challenges and opportunities. I appreciate and fully support the agenda prepared by the Commission and the Council for this year: moving on with the feasibility study, the visa liberalisation dialogue and the EU programmes constitutes concrete and ambitious steps which are urgently needed for Kosovo now.

The EU needs to invest in this agenda to be credible. We should also expect concrete and tangible results from the Kosovo authorities, especially reforms in the judiciary and in public administration, but most importantly in strengthening the rule of law and in the fight against corruption and organised crime. I would also like to encourage Kosovo to continue the dialogue with Serbia in order to bring concrete results for Kosovars and normalise relations between Kosovo and Serbia. I also believe that both the people’s representatives in the Kosovo Assembly and we in the European Parliament should be regularly informed of this process and its results.

Finally, Kosovo has lots of hard work ahead, but I am sure this will improve life in Kosovo and bring it first closer to the EU and finally into the EU itself.

  Tanja Fajon (S&D ). - (SL) Mr President, I would like to thank Ms Lunacek for the work she has done and the support she has given to a country which is the only one in the region not to have any contractual relationships with the Union and which is one of the most isolated countries in this part of Europe, because its citizens can still see no light at the end of the visa-free tunnel.

The abolition of visas will be especially important for young people. When Kosovo receives a timetable for the abolition of visas in the spring, we will have to ensure that the process is a rapid one and help the authorities, who will have their work cut out.

We also need to increase Kosovo’s dialogue with Serbia, once agreement has been reached on Kosovo’s regional representation and joint border management. Only full recognition of Kosovo will bring life back to normal.

I am pleased that the Commission has launched a feasibility study, which will be a step towards Kosovo’s closer ties with the Union. Young people need prospects for the future, they need jobs.

We need to strengthen European consciousness amongst young people, and strengthen the fight against corruption and organised crime, not only in Kosovo, but in all the countries of the Western Balkans. Above all, we have to be honest, on both sides.

  Knut Fleckenstein (S&D ). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the talks between Belgrade and Priština here in Brussels were an initial success. I would like to say that this took a lot of courage on the part of Prime Minister Thaçi and President Tadić. We should recognise their courage because this is the first step in the right direction and a requirement for further positive developments. Now it is our job to show the people of Kosovo that we are serious. This is why we are supporting Ms Malmström in her commitment to visa liberalisation and why we are supporting you, Mr Füle, concerning the feasibility study for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement. You can rely on our solidarity, if you take action in this area.

However, there is one thing that we should make clear, which applied in the past and will still apply in the future. Both sides must be aware that they can only make progress towards joining the EU together and in parallel. Neither side will be able to achieve this at the expense of the other. We will not tolerate that.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank Ms Lunacek and congratulate her on her work. We are facing great challenges and great opportunities for Kosovo and I think that the proposed agenda set out today by the Council goes in this direction, so we have to give it our support.

There is no doubt great optimism following the considerable efforts and the great progress made by Kosovo in recent years. When we think what the situation was like a few years ago, ten, or fifteen years ago, we can understand just how many significant steps forward have been taken. Today, we need to encourage the Government in Priština, but we need to encourage all of the democratic political forces to persevere with the reform process, to promote the European agenda and reforms of visas, trade and the justice system. This is the path that lies ahead in order to achieve two goals: to improve the level of democracy in Kosovo, so that the lives of Kosovars can be improved and Kosovo brought closer to Europe, and secondly to enable Kosovo to become part of Europe. A young European democracy has to have strong and unstinting backing from Europe.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE ). - Mr President, the Catalan Liberal Party that I represent fully supports the process of Kosovo’s accession to the EU.

I would like to remind you that, while we in this Parliament are discussing the enlargement of the EU, there are five European countries that have not yet recognised Kosovo as a new independent state. One of these countries is Spain. I would like to call on all the European institutions to maintain pressure on Spain to recognise Kosovo’s independence. The EU cannot accept this incredible democratic deficit within its membership.

I also welcome the fact that Montenegro is making steps towards European integration after its independence in 2006. I thank the European Union for being always respectful towards freedom and democracy.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL ). – (PT) Mr President, we have said so from the start and the reality is bearing it out: the unilateral declaration of independence by the Serbian province of Kosovo was an extremely serious event and set a dangerous precedent in international law, with unforeseeable consequences for the stability of borders, particularly on the European continent.

It was a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Accords, as well as an illegal decision under the core principles of international law.

Reality has shown that the artificial creation of a pseudo-state under supervised sovereignty – whatever that might be – has been anything but sovereign. What it is, in fact, is a protectorate that was created and imposed using aggression and military occupation by the United States, by NATO and by the European Union, and that is maintained by KFOR, backed up by the European Union’s EULEX mission.

The sole purpose of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence was to use the politics of fait accompli to perpetuate the political, economic and military domination of this extremely important region of Europe by the United States and the major powers of the European Union.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD ). - (SK) Mr President, I respect the opinion of the European Council which, in 2003, promised all Western Balkan countries that they could become EU members. In my opinion, however, fulfilling this promise in relation to the current administration of Hashim Thaci makes a mockery of the principles of humanity and justice on which we base the co-existence of peoples in the Union. The report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe points to the serious crimes committed by the Drenica group against Serbs in particular, but also against uncooperative Albanians in this province. Witnesses to these crimes are still being terrorised and murdered, which shows that the work of the EU mission for the rule of law in Kosovo has fallen short, and that the mission cannot, in a mafia-infested environment, document the crimes of the Kosovo Liberation Army with complete objectivity. I firmly believe that unless there is a thorough investigation of all the allegations made by the Council of Europe, we can have no right to legitimise through joint negotiations a regime led by people under investigation for serious crimes.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE ). – (ES) Mr President, I was and I am a supporter of Kosovo. During the Milosevic era I was in the refugee camps in Kukes, Elbasan, Stankovic, and so on. I welcomed many members of the Kosovo Liberation Army to my own city and offered them my solidarity.

However, Mr President, Kosovo today has problems of corruption, control of the media, organised crime, and of government with room for improvement. In my opinion, Mr President, Kosovo does not today meet any of the necessary conditions either for being in the European Union or for being an independent country.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE ). – (HU) Mr President, the 1990s resounded with the demands for autonomy voiced by Kosovo’s Albanians and now, Kosovo has become an independent country recognised by the majority of EU Member States. The road between these two stages, however, was a difficult one lined with bloody conflict and a vast number of victims, and also cost two decades wasted in terms of economic development. When the Serbian leadership rejected Kosovo’s autonomy it perhaps did not even suspect that this meant the first step towards secession. So, too, did the international community perhaps not suspect that in not taking the peaceful protests led by Ibrahim Rugova seriously, it was contributing to the eruption of violence and armed conflict. In regions with populations of mixed ethnicities, including the Western Balkans, enabling the self-governance of the various indigenous national minority communities is the principal requisite of social peace. This is the lesson we were taught by the not-too-distant history of Kosovo. The EU must pay attention to the voices of minorities, even more than it has done in the past.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE ). – (ES) Mr President, Spain does not recognise Kosovo as a country, nor does it support its progressive integration into the Union, despite the International Court of Justice’s opinion of 22 July 2010 that its declaration of independence was not in breach of international law.

Kosovo was a country before Serb troops overran it in 1912, and it was one of the parts of the former Yugoslavia most devastated by the Milosevic genocide. Spain should change its position out of respect for international legality, out of solidarity with the victims of Serb colonialism and in recognition of the pacifism of Ibrahim Rugova.

I believe that the only reason for its position is the fear of acknowledging that it too contains nations whose inhabitants rightfully aspire to a different status. Spain must understand that, in the 21st century, the true foundation of sovereignty is the free and democratically expressed will of the people. In this regard, Commissioner, what is your opinion on this issue, following all your efforts to integrate Kosovo?

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am grateful for this opportunity to exchange views with you today on the European Union’s commitment to Kosovo. I am also grateful for your encouragement and support for the Commission’s initiatives to bring Kosovo closer to Europe and for our work on the feasibility study for Kosovo in particular.

Over the next couple of months we will prepare an in-depth analysis of Kosovo’s preparedness to negotiate and conclude a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union. Such an agreement would confirm Kosovo’s joining the rest of the Western Balkans in their shared endeavour to one day share and be part of our zone of stability, security and prosperity.

My visit to Kosovo this week marked the start of a new phase, one of hard work and serious reform. Turning from words to a process based on substance and content is the right way to address the many challenges the people of Kosovo face. The Commission will be ready to support Kosovo in this. Kosovo’s recent agreement on regional cooperation with Serbia, despite its teething problems, should help the European Union to engage more deeply.

I ask for your continued support in passing this message on and strengthening engagement with Kosovo’s Parliament. Let us work together towards this common objective of bringing Kosovo and the region closer to Europe and helping to bring lasting security and prosperity to the Western Balkans.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, thank you for the debate here in Parliament today concerning Kosovo’s EU perspective. I would particularly like to thank Ms Lunacek for her strong commitment to Kosovo and to Kosovo’s EU integration process. The EU has unequivocally committed itself to the European perspective for Kosovo, and it will continue to support Kosovo with a strong presence, via EULEX for example, but the primary responsibility for progress lies, of course, with Kosovo’s leaders.

Kosovo is facing huge challenges, and a great deal has been achieved in just a few years. However, we must also recognise that some quite exceptional circumstances apply in the case of such a young country. Kosovo has made good progress in establishing improved public infrastructure, which will make it easier to initiate the necessary reforms, but the path towards the EU will be a long and tough one, based on hard work and the country’s own merits. Croatia’s accession to the EU and the most recent granting of candidate status to Serbia demonstrate, however, that EU orientation is entirely possible for those countries that do the work required of them. This will also be a source of motivation for the other countries of the Western Balkans, including Kosovo.

During the discussions today we have touched on a number of areas in which reforms are required. I will just mention a few key problems. I share the concern over the limited progress made by Kosovo in general with regard to the political criteria, particularly in the area of combating corruption.

Corruption is a very serious problem in Kosovo, and the follow-up in corruption cases could be better, as only a limited number of high-level cases have resulted in prosecution. An extra effort ought to be made in the future by the authorities in Kosovo in this regard.

It is also vital that further steps are taken to combat organised crime. Additional legislation must be adopted in this area, and this legislation must be implemented effectively. It is also important for these initiatives to be implemented in cooperation with the neighbouring countries, as organised crime does not respect national borders. In general, there is a definite need for reform and development of the judicial system in Kosovo, and this is an area in which the EU is providing active support.

With regard to the economy, there is a considerable need to implement structural reforms, which will enable Kosovo to develop into a properly functioning market economy. There is still a long way to go in this regard.

In other words, the challenges are huge, but the EU has a particular obligation to support Europe’s youngest state, so that, by means of further reforms, it can take the necessary steps towards further EU orientation. Kosovo’s leaders are aware of this and want to make an extra effort to live up to expectations, and the government in Priština has shown, through the EU-facilitated dialogue with Belgrade, that it is prepared to work in a pragmatic way to find solutions, even in difficult matters.

It is important for Kosovo to continue on this course, and in this regard it is my hope that the government in Priština will set to work in a pragmatic way and renew its efforts to set an inclusive and long-term agenda for the future of northern Kosovo. In this regard, the Danish Presidency is looking forward to continuing its close cooperation with Parliament and the Commission.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

  President. − As a conclusion to the debate, I have received a motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ pursuant to Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 29 March 2012.

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the enlargement report for Turkey.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, on behalf of the Danish Presidency, I would like to thank Parliament, and in particular Mrs Ria Oomen-Ruijten for her work. The motion for a resolution highlights a number of significant issues and concerns, and comes at an important point in EU-Turkey relations.

Turkey is more to Europe than a candidate country. It is also an essential strategic ally, playing a key regional role. As such, it has a privileged relationship with a number of crucial actors in the region. Turkey is also an important and growing economic player. Turkey and the EU have an obvious mutual interest in upholding strong ties with each other. Only in this way can we contribute to containing and overcoming tensions in our neighbouring regions.

The EU-Turkey relationship is a close one and goes back several decades. This clearly not only illustrates our many shared interests; it also demonstrates the power of the enlargement process to give impetus to political and economic reform in Turkey.

We can all see that the accession negotiations are not advancing as quickly as we would like. However, if the opportunity for progress in negotiations arises, the Danish Presidency stands ready to seize it. We will do our utmost to facilitate progress, but needless to say, this will require additional significant efforts from the Turkish side.

We will also act in support of the Commission’s positive agenda. We must not lose sight of Turkey’s and the EU’s mutual interest in deepening our relations, in spite of the challenges encountered in the formal accession talks. It is clear that the positive agenda should be a complement to the negotiations and not a substitute for them. As stated by the Council last December, Turkey’s contribution to the EU will only be fully effective in the context of an actual negotiation process that makes progress. Work on the actual content of this agenda is still at an early stage, but we are following and supporting developments with great interest.

As far as the reforms in Turkey are concerned, I will begin with a few words about constitutional reform. Preparing a new constitution is now well under way. The process is an opportunity to address a number of important issues. It has to take place in a broad and inclusive way, and in a spirit of constructiveness and compromise. We very much welcome initial steps towards ensuring this. Much of the work on this key reform is of direct relevance for the enlargement negotiations with Turkey.

While constitutional reform is important, further progress by Turkey in other areas is required. As noted both in your resolution and in the Council conclusions of December, some very important issues have to be addressed. However, further progress is needed on issues such as fundamental rights and freedoms. I would especially like to highlight freedom of expression. We have witnessed a large number of cases brought against writers and journalists, and although there have been some positive developments, such as the recent liberation from prison of four journalists, the high number of cases against writers and journalists raises serious concerns, which need to be addressed.

Let me now turn to the one unresolved issue which has a direct bearing on both the negotiations and, more widely, on EU-Turkey relations. The Council notes with deep regret that Turkey – despite our repeated calls – has so far failed to fulfil its obligation under the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement. The EU position on this has not changed, and in the absence of progress in the full non-discriminatory implementation of the Protocol, the EU will maintain its measures from 2006, which will continue to affect overall progress in the negotiations. We also continue to expect Turkey to make progress towards normalising its relations with the Republic of Cyprus without further delay.

I would like to recall that the Council has regretted statements by Turkey threatening to freeze relations with the EU Presidency during the second half of this year. The rotating presidency is a fundamental institutional feature of the EU provided for in the EU Treaty and must be fully respected – a position which I know is also included in your resolution.

In conclusion, the aim of the Presidency is to do our utmost to facilitate progress in the enlargement negotiations, to promote political and economic reform in Turkey and to strengthen the relationship between the EU and Turkey. This is a task that we can only realise with the support and cooperation of the Member States, the Commission, and not least this Parliament.

Let me also, on behalf of the Danish Presidency and the Member States, thank this Parliament, and in particular your rapporteur Ria Oomen-Ruijten, for your work on this issue. Your continued commitment to enlargement is vital to its success, as is your particular role in promoting popular support in the EU for this cause.

The resolution on Turkey and its endorsement in the plenary is indeed a forceful political and strategic message. I also believe that, in contacts with fellow parliamentarians from the Turkish Parliament, this House will be able to make an important and much-appreciated contribution to enhancing understanding of the EU, the values that we share and the way we work.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank the Parliament, and in particular, and with special appreciation, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten for her good and balanced report on Turkey. This debate and your resolution come at an important time for European Union-Turkey relations, and the draft resolution underlines a number of issues of great importance for the Commission.

Last Friday the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission Cathy Ashton and I met ministers Davutoğlu and Bağış and we had a very positive and open political dialogue. Once again, I realised that we have much more in common at strategic level than there are differences. We discussed our ever closer foreign-policy dialogue and progress related to the political criteria and agreed in particular to work concretely and constructively to make the positive agenda a reality.

The positive agenda is there to provide a realistic and feasible way of injecting new life into EU-Turkey relations in general, and into the accession process in particular, and I wish to thank you for your support as expressed in the resolution we are discussing today. Let me emphasise once again that this agenda exists to complement and not to replace the accession process.

The positive agenda means renewed efforts in a number of key areas, including support for political reforms in Turkey, such as the alignment with our acquis, a closer cooperation on visas and migration and a closer dialogue on foreign policy. All are highlighted in your resolution.

I am happy to tell you that since the Member States endorsed the positive agenda last December we have made very good progress in putting it into practice.

The Commission and Turkey have agreed to work on eight chapters, including the chapters on company law, on the information society and the media, on the judiciary and fundamental rights and on justice, freedom and security. We have also agreed to work on bringing the relevant Turkish legislation closer into line with the EU acquis.

Working groups will be set up for each chapter in May/June. The Commission services will use kick-off meetings to update the Turkish authorities on all developments regarding the acquis. And we will of course involve stakeholders, as appropriate, at further stages of the process.

Work continues also in other areas of the positive agenda. As regards energy for instance, Turkey and the Commission have agreed to set up a joint working group, which will develop a road map by May to identify concrete actions for intensified cooperation.

Turning now briefly to some recent developments in Turkey which are also reflected in the resolution: I have welcomed the overall consensus on the need for a new constitution – which emerged after the general elections last June.

The specific work launched by the Turkish Parliament to bring this process forward, including constructive collaboration between the four main political parties, has started. Obviously, the real test will come with the first discussions on the substance. Consensus through a democratic, participatory process with the broadest possible consultation is essential if this new constitution is to serve all Turkish citizens.

Let me in this context also refer explicitly to the conclusions of the most recent meeting of the reform monitoring group, held in Istanbul on 16 March. These conclusions list a large number of political reforms already underway or planned for the near future by the Turkish Government. I would like to single out the intention to table a fourth judicial reform package which envisages further reforms in the area of freedom of expression and the media. We hope that his package will address the outstanding core concern as regards freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. These issues are rightly highlighted as persistent concerns in the resolution you intend to adopt later. We hope that our cooperation with Turkey on these issues, notably as part of the positive agenda, will bring badly needed improvements in legislation and practice.

We will report in the 2012 Progress Reports on developments in trials and in investigations of alleged criminal networks, as we have done over the past years and as expressly requested in your resolution.

Let me in closing take this opportunity to raise the concerns increasingly being voiced by civil society in Turkey as regards recent developments relating to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is intimately linked to political debate in a country, and thus to the quality and maturity of a democracy. In a mature democracy, the majority respects and protects the views of minorities and their rights. In a mature democracy, dissenting voices are not ridiculed or pushed into self-censorship, but valued for their contribution to the democratic fabric of society. In the words of Voltaire: we can disapprove of what someone says, but we need to defend to the death his or her right to say it. If this right is not defended, democracy inevitably withers.

The resolution of this House gives a fair assessment of the important challenges that Turkey is taking on in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights. Only a mature domestic political debate, with full respect for dissenting voices, will ensure that these reforms deliver the democratic standards and practices the citizens of Turkey expect. Expect and deserve.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Wammen and also Commissioner Füle, for the warm words of support for the resolution. We have such a balanced resolution because we all worked on it together, so my thanks also to all the shadow rapporteurs.

We want to convey in this resolution the message of interdependence between the EU and Turkey. Turkey is a key country for the security and prosperity of the European Union. Turkey has enormous potential for economic growth and it has a strategic role as a corridor for the European Union’s energy supply. Complemented by the value of potential synergies between the EU and Turkey, the foreign policy and security policy can do a lot for us both.

I believe, however, that interdependence can only produce positive results when it is framed in a context of mutual commitment.

This requires efforts from both sides. For Turkey, this means concrete results in the reform process and also an improvement in bilateral relations with its neighbours. From the EU and its Member States, I expect renewed efforts to create the conditions for the opening of chapters. I fully support Mr Füle’s new positive agenda for EU-Turkey relations. It was initiated by him and we support it. We must now increase our cooperation through that, but that also means we must have more coordination in areas like foreign policy and the fight against terrorism. There is much to gain for both of us.

This resolution expresses our concern about freedoms: the deterioration of press freedom and freedom of expression in Turkey. I have just met Mr Ahmet Şık who was released from prison just this week. He came here to visit us in Parliament. In Turkey pre-trial detention lasts too long, legislation on terrorism is too wide-sweeping and these sorts of things do not fit in with a country which should have independent and all-over impartial justice. The long pre-detention happening now is, de facto, a punishment. So I ask my colleagues to look into that.

Turning to bilateral relations: bilateral relations continue to affect deeply the negotiation process. I call on the government to do something, to come up with positive steps.

We have not just reported on negative elements in this resolution. We have also highlighted positive developments and I would like to stress once again that we fully support the Parliament of Turkey in its obligation to draw up a new constitution with checks and balances which are important for a modern and prosperous Turkey.

  Raimon Obiols, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Madam President, our group believes that this motion for a resolution is clear and balanced. It was approved by a broad majority at committee stage, and that is a good sign. A good job has been done, based on a good draft by Ms Oomen-Ruijten, and I believe that all this is very positive. It is a contribution by Parliament to improving and boosting the relationship between the European Union and Turkey.

However, this should not stop us from saying that all this has taken place without any substantial progress being made in the negotiation process regarding Turkey’s accession to the European Union, despite the great changes taking place in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

In this context, the development of the positive programme proposed by Commissioner Füle, which is not intended to replace the negotiation process but rather to drive forward and improve bilateral relations, deserves our most decisive support.

To sum up, this report is positive in the way that it helps to improve the position, but it also fulfils our obligation to point out the negative aspects in our relationship with the country and its situation.

It focuses heavily on the positive programme, it calls for the opening of new negotiation chapters, it maintains a firm stance on defending freedom of expression and media pluralism and it expresses concern about the excessive use of antiterrorist legislation and the detention of journalists, politicians and activists. In short, I think it can help make the forthcoming period a positive one for relations between the Union and Turkey.

I would like to finish by congratulating the rapporteur, because I believe that she has done a good job.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (microphone off) ... strongly supports the report, and I agree that it is possible to be positive – but it is impossible to be optimistic. Turkey seems distracted by the other pressing priorities that it faces. Europe is clearly not ready to move forward the accession process, and the central problem is Cyprus. Because Cyprus is shortly to assume the Council Presidency, I think it is appropriate for us to spotlight that problem.

Nothing could be more intelligent and strategic than for the Cypriot Presidency to call the bluff of Turkey and to open Chapters 23 and 24 on rights and justice. Such a move would not be about power and pride and prejudice but about the people – about Greeks and Turks, Christian and Muslims – who could then look forward to a period of reconciliation in which they could live together in freedom, security and justice. I strongly insist that the Cypriot Presidency of the Council should be made aware of its responsibilities.

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I am very pleased with this report and I would like to take the opportunity to thank its rapporteur, Ms Oomen-Ruijten, who has carried out an extremely comprehensive job. I think that this report, as a whole, calls for and supports the democratic reforms and the protection of fundamental freedoms in Turkey. I believe that the messages that it sends are extremely clear and precise and that they are of course addressed to the authorities, but also to all the actors in the political arena and civil society to encourage them to become more involved in further strengthening the democratic State in Turkey.

The report does not fail to make clear our grave concerns regarding the way in which the law against terrorism has been applied, directly threatening freedom of expression and opinion, the right to hold demonstrations, the freedom of the press and we are asking for this law to be amended, particularly Articles 6 and 7. We also support and call for a thoroughgoing reform of the judicial system: citizens, all citizens in Turkey, must be able to trust an efficient, impartial and independent judicial system and we support any reform that works towards this end.

We have also looked at the Kurdish question and we are clearly of the view that education in one’s native language is a perfectly satisfactory proposal to provide a response to the Kurdish question that is political and not merely for reasons of security. I think that these strong messages are all more credible when we do not hold back on our demands in the Council, particularly to ensure true consistency and to enable the European Union to finally recover its ability to pioneer reforms in Turkey and to use leverage to promote them. We are asking for all these measures to be taken with a view to opening chapters 23 and 24. Our demands are also clear in the case of visas: we need a roadmap for the liberalisation of visas, as this situation in a country in the process of accession to the European Union is quite unique, and therefore totally discriminatory.

We want these essential messages to be heard in Turkey and I would not wish for the readership of this excellent report and its importance in relation to the current situation in Turkey to be diminished or detracted from by questionable statements. What is the purpose of the reference in this text to the secular integrity of the armed forces? We are delighted with the huge amount of work which has been achieved in Turkey over a number of years to ensure that the armed forces recover their place, under the control of the civil authorities, and for military expenditure to be brought under the oversight of the Court of Accounts. What is the purpose of this reference to the secular integrity of armed forces which have served NATO since 1952, which are one of its largest armed forces and the presence of which is being made conditional on this secular integrity? We know the nature of the armed forces of a secular, non-religious State. That is what we want for Turkey and I think that together we must delete those words.

As for the Ergenekon trial, lastly, it is not credible to cast doubt on all cases in the Ergenekon trial as we know, and the European Court of Human Rights reiterated this in December in a judgment, there are perfectly well-founded cases where arrests on the basis of accusations of crimes or criminal acts have been judged to be well founded by the European Court of Human Rights. We cannot let ourselves be suspicious of and rule out all the cases involved in the Ergenekon trial. My opinion is this: if we remove these two references, we will have the widest possible readership, which is extremely important, in Turkey, in society as a whole, and in its entire political and social fields.

(Applause)

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, first of all can I join in the congratulations to Ria Oomen-Ruijten. It is a good report. Of course there are many aspects of the report which we might have liked to see worded in a rather different way and I appreciate that there are strong feelings on the subject of Turkey on all sides of the House.

For my part, I have always been supportive of Turkish aspirations towards the European Union and I am particularly appreciative of Turkey’s role as a key ally over the years. But I have to ask, is the European Union being helpful enough? Is it sending a really positive message to Turkey? In particular, we see consistent obstruction from certain rather obvious quarters regarding Turkey’s European aspirations and status. This is unrealistic, it is unjust and it prevents progress. We make demands of Turkey but we should reciprocate with movement in Turkey’s direction. For example, Cyprus, which my good friend and colleague Mr Duff has mentioned: this should not feature in Turkey’s accession but we all know that it is in fact a factor. There are constant demands for Turkey to make unilateral concessions and in return she gets nothing.

The EU is supposed to have ended the isolation of Northern Cyprus. Whatever happened to that? By all means call for reductions in Turkish troop numbers in the north of Cyprus and for agreement to the Additional Protocol, but match this with opening trade through the ports and airports in Northern Cyprus. I have to say that the assumption of the EU Presidency by the Republic of Cyprus in the second half of this year would present a great opportunity for progress if there was real courage. If there is a genuine desire to reunite the island of Cyprus then the Turkish Cypriots need to feel they are actually welcome and respected in the island that they share.

I have to say we regret that some unhelpful amendments have been tabled to the resolution, but overall the resolution is balanced and reasonable and the ECR Group will support it.

(The speaker agreed to take four blue-card questions under Rule 149(8))

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD ), blue-card question. – Madam President, Mr Van Orden used the phrase ‘Turkey is a key ally’. Do you accept that a country can be a key ally without political union, Mr Van Orden?

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR ), blue-card answer. – Madam President, as my good friend and colleague knows full well, I am not overly enthusiastic about many aspects of the European Union, in particular political integration. But the fact is that Turkey does have an aspiration towards joining the European Union and I think Turkey’s strategic position is a very important one. Turkey has been an excellent ally for many years and we therefore need to meet her aspirations in a positive way. I have always said that, if we send negative signals to Turkey, we should not be surprised if she starts heading off in a rather different direction. Once or twice, in recent months and years, there have been one or two little indications that maybe there were feelers going out in different directions. We have to very careful about that.

So I would say that of course Turkey can be a good ally without being in the Union, because that is the situation at the moment. But we need to meet Turkey’s aspirations, and what she wishes is accession to the European Union. But I hope that by the time that happens – which I hope will not be too many decades distant – we will be talking about a very different European Union to the one that we have now, and a European Union that is heading in a rather different direction to the one that it is heading in at the moment.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE ), blue-card question. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Van Orden, you know that I am vehemently opposed to Turkey joining the EU and you once gave me the same answer which you have given today. If Turkey joins the EU, then the EU will become something quite different. What do you mean by this? What will the EU be like then?

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR ), blue-card answer. – Mr Posselt, I am delighted that you have asked that because there are certain Members who ascribe mischievous intentions to my support for Turkey. I would have to say that the whole question of the impact of Turkey on the European Union is not one of the major factors as to why we should be supporting European Union accession by Turkey. It is true that the European Union would inevitably be very different with a country like Turkey as a member. But, as I say, I hope that, by the time that comes about, the European Union will be very different to what it is today.

The European Union needs to get away from this course of insistence and obsession with political integration. What we need is a European Union of overlapping circles of engagement where, if there are those that want to push forward with intense integration, by all means let them. But others, including perhaps my own country, could be part of that Union without having to be intimately involved in that particular movement. So I hope it will be a very different European Union when Turkey joins and that Turkey will help that process.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D ), blue-card question . – (EL) Madam President, the report refers to Turkey, not to Cyprus. I should like Mr Van Orden, who appears to be cognisant with the Cyprus problem, to give us his opinion on the presence of the 700 000 immigrants in occupied Cyprus and the efforts being made by Turkey to ‘Turkify’ the occupied areas.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR ), blue-card answer. – Madam President, I have rather missed the point because actually there are significant references to Cyprus in a number of paragraphs of the resolution. Mr Mavronikolas, clearly you have not read it very carefully. I would ask you to read it carefully because it is very important that we get it right. There are references to Cyprus and indeed there are references to the Additional Protocol. But on the other hand it is saying that we should open ports as well. That is why I say it is a balanced resolution. There are many references to Cyprus in the resolution and I commend it to your reading.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D ), blue-card question . – (EL) Mr Van Orden, you said that the usual suspects are obstructing Turkey’s European aspirations. Who are the usual suspects? My country, Cyprus, has not vetoed its accession prospects. Who are the other suspects? Can you name them?

My second question is this: you say that Turkey is making unilateral concessions. What unilateral concessions has it made towards Cyprus? It does not even recognise Cyprus?

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR ), blue-card answer. – When I spoke I was trying to be polite, without referring to particular countries, but I seem to recall that in April 2004 the European Union agreed that the isolation of Northern Cyprus should be ended. A few weeks later the Republic of Cyprus joined the European Union and suddenly all that went off the agenda. I do not know whether this was coincidental. I sometimes get the impression that some of my very good friends and colleagues from Greece and the Republic of Cyprus are not as helpful as they might be.

When we talk about unilateral concessions, all the time we are making demands of Turkey, but it takes two to tango you know, and we have got to see some movement on the other side. Turkish friends say to me ‘when we make concessions, we never get anything in return’ or ‘when we offer to make concessions, we never get anything offered in return’. So I would say: open up Northern Cyprus, free the ports there, give them international access and then some of these other things might start flowing into place.

  Richard Howitt (S&D ). - Madam President, I wonder if you could ensure the smooth functioning of Parliament and the proper allocation of political priorities at the next part-session by allocating on the agenda a full 60 minutes of Question Time with Mr Van Orden because I enjoyed that last session so greatly.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR ). - (microphone off) ... support from a colleague in my own region of the United Kingdom, albeit from another political party. Thank you, Richard.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Madam President, it is true that the debate so far has moved me too to alter what I wanted to say slightly and to refer to Mr Van Orden’s deep regret about the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. I should like to say to him that the trouble I have gone to for the Turkish Cypriots exceed the trouble he has gone to for the Turkish Cypriots ten thousand times over and that their isolation, which is a fact, is due to the 40 000 Turkish troops there, who are occupying this part of Cyprus and who, merely by their presence, are imposing their will on the Turkish Cypriot population.

It does not take much effort to understand that: forty thousand troops among 100 000 Turkish Cypriots means one soldier outside every house. Just think about it: how can that be right? We are in favour of eliminating the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, which is due to the Turkish occupation.

If Mr Van Orden had come along this morning to the hearing organised by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, which was attended by dozens of Turkish Cypriots and representatives of large trade unions and Turkish Cypriot parties, he would have heard the anguished cries of Turkish Cypriots complaining that they number 100 000 among 500 000 Turks. How can this community declare its faith and will when it comes to developments in Cyprus? I do not think that it would take much argument to make someone understand that the Turkish Cypriot community is held captive by the occupation, far more captive, if you will, than the Greek Cypriot community.

That brings me to the report on which, there can be no doubt, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten has worked extremely hard. However, ultimately we cannot but find that this is a political balancing exercise which, in the final analysis, merely highlights the reality that exists in the eyes of Parliament. We have to go beyond wishful thinking when it comes to the problems of the Kurdish population in Turkey, of whom there are 10 million. Why does Turkey not give the rights you demand for the Turkish Cypriots – and I am the first to demand them – to the Turks also, Mr Van Orden? Why does it not apply them to its own people? You weep tears over abuse of the human rights of the Turkish Cypriots – and rightly so – but they are due to the fact that Turkey is not prepared to demonstrate that will. Turkey’s refusal to have contacts with the Presidency of the Republic of Cyprus in a few months’ time is not only an insult to Cyprus; it is an insult to us to, to our institutions, to the European Union itself and its modus operandi .

I should like to close by saying that we are in favour of the accession of Turkey; we demonstrated as much with our vote in favour of the opening of negotiations on the accession of Turkey. It was a very critical moment and Cyprus gave the go-ahead. However, Turkey needs to honour its undertakings, like every other country.

(The speaker agreed to reply to a ‘blue card’ question (Rule 149(8))

  Andrew Duff (ALDE ), blue-card question. – Madam President, can I ask my good colleague Takis Hadjigeorgiou, who is from the AKEL Party, which is at the centre of the Cypriot Government, what he expects of the Presidency of the Council. Does he agree that it is the duty of the Presidency of the Council to project the values and principles of the European Union and to complete that process of integration which is at present, so sadly, not applicable to the island of Cyprus?

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL ), blue-card answer . – (EL) Madam President, when Cyprus takes over the Presidency of the European Union, it will support all the values of the European Union. It has a duty to do so and it will do so.

However, I should like to take this opportunity to remind my equally good colleague Mr Duff, as he asked earlier why Cyprus should not examine the matter of opening chapters when it takes over the Presidency, that I personally asked Mr Bagis, when we met in Turkey, what Turkey intends to do if Cyprus shows that it is ready to open chapters and he replied: ‘We shall not open any chapters managed by Cyprus’. Is that acceptable conduct?

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group . – (NL) Madam President, the totally reprehensible Turkish television commercial featuring Adolf Hitler confirms my absolute determination to call you, Commissioner Füle, to account in this debate about the reality of anti-Semitism in Turkey, which is an accession candidate. I emphasise here the urgent call of the Turkish-Jewish scholar and publicist Rifat Bali, with whom I am in correspondence. This is what he wrote to me: ‘The EU should make it clear, in very strong terms, that the passive attitude of the Turkish Government and judiciary to anti-Semitic statements in the Turkish media is unacceptable. Such actions should be punished severely’.

I expect you, Commissioner Füle, to tackle Prime Minister Erdoğan immediately over this abject anti-Semitism. The leader of the Turkish Government is denying this dismal reality with the irrational argument that Islam does not allow anti-Semitism.

On behalf of the Protestant community – and that is my second point – I have three more urgent requests for the Commission. These action points for the Turkish Government are: a lot more permits and a generous policy on church construction, abolition of the separate mention of religion on identity cards, because that leads to numerous cases of discrimination against Turkish Christians and, finally, abolition of optional Islamic religious education from school curricula, because it makes Christian students a constant target of their teachers and classmates.

  Barry Madlener (NI ). - (NL) Madam President, the Commissioner and a devotee of Islam, Mr Füle, and Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten have totally lost their way. The situation in Turkey is not heading in the right direction. There are lots of journalists being held in prison and cartoonists are being taken to court. Freedom of expression is being increasingly limited under the Islamisation agenda of the AK Party.

Corruption is rising and illegal immigration via Turkey is continually increasing. The most outrageous thing, Madam President, is the fact that the illegal Turkish occupation of a part of Cyprus, an EU Member State, has continued for more than 35 years already. The Turkish Minister Barış is even threatening to annex Northern Cyprus and will soon be carrying out illegal gas drilling in Cyprus. This is a threat of war, pure and simple, which Turkey is addressing to Europe. This is unacceptable. Every year we see critical reports on Turkey, but this Parliament does nothing. Turkey is even rewarded with more than EUR 500 million taxpayers’ money from Europe.

The report by Ms Oomen-Ruijten is a joke. It does not contain a single sanction against Turkey. If the Turks boycott the EU during the Cypriot Presidency, Turkey need never again return to the negotiating table, as far as we are concerned.

( The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE ), blue-card question. – (NL) Madam President, I will not comment on the language used by Mr Madlener, but I do have a question for him. Does it not say in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you may love anyone regardless of their religion? Does your comment mean that you no longer support this declaration? Because if you do not, then it is you who has lost your way.

  Barry Madlener (NI ), blue-card answer. – (NL) Madam President, Ms Oomen-Ruijten knows that the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) wants to combat Islam in Europe. We do not want more islamisation. There is already enough Islam in Europe and a Turkish membership, which you seem so keen to bring about, would result in millions of Turks coming to Western Europe. That would be bad for the Netherlands and I believe it is would be bad for your constituency.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE ). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to focus on three points regarding Turkey’s accession to the European Union.

The first of these is its visa policy for third country nationals. Speaking two years ago in Parliament, I expressed my surprise that Turkey did not bring this policy into line with that of the European Union. According to the European Commission’s 2011 Progress Report, Turkey has recently signed visa waiver agreements with Sudan and Yemen. I have also been informed that Iranian, Libyan, Lebanese and Syrian nationals do not require visas either.

Last week, a very widely read Spanish newspaper claimed that Turkey’s visa exemption for some countries, together with its land border, which runs for thousands of kilometres, make the country a corridor of choice for organised crime.

In my opinion, Turkey should make a serious effort and progressively bring itself into line with the Union’s visa policy. It is part of the acquis. It should align itself with Europe rather than continuing on its current line, which takes it in the opposite direction, distancing it from European Union policy. It should progressively align itself, and I believe that the Commission should carefully monitor this matter.

Secondly, I think political dialogue between the European Union and Turkey should be closer. Turkey has recently become close to the Arab world. It occupies a very significant position in a region that is very close and very important to Europe, and which is undergoing major changes. Dialogue and cooperation between Brussels and Ankara would be very positive.

Lastly, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the range of reforms that Turkey has introduced, and I hope it pursues them with determination and strength, as the report that we will approve tomorrow calls on it to do.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D ). – (EL) Madam President, may I start by congratulating the rapporteur on yet another exceptional report. Turkey continues to send out contradictory messages about its intentions and its European ambitions. On the one hand, it has initiated dialogue on the new constitution, from which the heritage of the military regime will be expunged. On the other hand, it continues to persecute journalists and opposition intellectuals. Today over 100 journalists are still in gaol and Mr Erdogan himself recently stated that a book can be as dangerous as a bomb. Turkey takes every opportunity to maintain that it does not intend to abandon its European ambitions. However, it continues to threaten Member States with the use of violence and to insultingly maintain that it does not intend to have any contact whatsoever with the forthcoming Cypriot Presidency. If Turkey really wants accession, it must understand that this attitude will have consequences. Its accession negotiations have ground to a halt. It is therefore time for those who are to blame in Ankara to be called to account for what has not been done right and to assume responsibility. Accession is not an automatic procedure. It requires a constant commitment, proven through works and actions, not reversals. Turkey’s approach of one step forwards, two steps backwards is unacceptable.

  Metin Kazak (ALDE ). - (BG) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would also like to commend Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten for what has been achieved in the report which has had new elements added to it this year that are quite encouraging.

It is very important to highlight that Turkey is the only candidate country with such a strict visa regime. This is why I welcome the constructive approach of the rapporteur who urges the Council to give a mandate to the Commission to initiate dialogue on visas and set a road map for liberalisation of the visa regime after Turkey signs the readmission agreement. This will not only strengthen economic and trade relations between the European Union and Turkey, but is also a fundamental prerequisite for bringing its citizens closer to the EU.

I also welcome the call by the Commission to consider measures that would result in the opening of Chapter 24 on Justice and Home Affairs and Chapter 23 on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights. I believe that, if we really want the European perspective to continue to act as a catalyst for the political reforms in Turkey and to be a factor in discussing issues such as freedom of speech and the media, the Member States that are still opposed to this opening must reconsider their position.

I would also like to highlight the strengthening of the existing political dialogue between the EU and Turkey, as well as Turkey’s role as a source of inspiration for the democratisation of the Arab states.

At the same time, I regret that a balanced approach regarding Cyprus has still not been reached in the report. I am completely certain that we should not expect unilateral concessions from Turkey, but EU Member States, in particular the Republic of Cyprus, must also assume their responsibility, and the Council conclusions of 26 April 2004 to end the economic isolation of Turkish Cypriots must be implemented. I think that this is of key significance to reaching a compromise solution.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue- card question under Rule 149(8))

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD ), blue-card question. – (NL) It is nice to see, more than anyone else, a member of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who is very liberal and in favour of unlimited freedom of expression, put a blue-card question. Mr Kazak, can you tell us what it is, at this critical juncture, that makes the accession of the Republic of Turkey so attractive as regards freedom of expression and freedom of the media in the Arab world? Even the rapporteur has made the mistake of waving that light-heartedly away and thinking that we can permit it to happen. What does the Arab world think about Turkey as a model? Can you actually specify what it is that is so alluring about Turkey as a model for the democratisation of the Arab world, which is something we have been waiting for in vain.

  Metin Kazak (ALDE ), blue-card answer . – (BG) I believe that the answer to your question, Mr Belder, is in the paragraphs of Ms Ruijten’s draft report and in the statements of the Commission. Turkey’s role as an inspirer of the democratic changes in North Africa is indisputable, and you will agree that this model of a secular democratic state has inspired more than a few of the countries in the region. I think that this role must be supported and encouraged by the European Union, and Turkey should continue to serve as a mediator between the EU and these countries with regard to establishing a democratic model in them.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Charles Tannock (ECR ), blue-card question. – Mr Kazak, according to the interpretation you talked about the fact that Turkey was being demanded to make unilateral concessions and you accused Cyprus of not living up to its ‘commitments’ – the word in interpretation – towards the Turkish Cypriots in the north of the island. Is it not true that Turkey made a commitment under the Ankara Protocols to allow Cypriot-registered vessels to dock at Turkish ports and it has never actually fulfilled that commitment or allowed it to come to pass? Who is actually in breach of their commitments here, Turkey or the Republic of Cyprus?

  Metin Kazak (ALDE ), blue-card answer. – (BG) Mr Tannock, I agree that, with respect to meeting their commitments, both Turkey and the EU have not managed to achieve what they have actually committed to. However, my criticism concerns the fact that, in the draft report, only Turkey is accused of not fulfilling its commitments. Yet, once again, no criticisms, or rather self-criticisms of any kind have been allowed to be made in this report concerning the European Union’s failure to meet its commitments, publically made in the conclusions of 2004, to end the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots as a result of the referendum held in the same year under the conflict resolution plan, the so-called Kofi Annan Plan. This is what I mean.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI ), blue-card question. – (BG) Mr Kazak, I would like to ask you: do you not want to declare a conflict of interests when speaking about this report, given that you and your brother graduated from the Sorbonne at the expense of the Turkish Government?

  Metin Kazak (ALDE ), blue-card answer. – (BG) Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Stoyanov, this is a slanderous statement which you are repeating. I did not graduate in France at the expense of the Turkish Government. Just for the record, I was a student on a scholarship from the French Government and have nothing to do with the slanderous allegation you are making.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D ), blue-card question . – (EL) Madam President, Mr Kazak, can you name one gesture of goodwill and common trust that Turkey has made during the 40 years it has occupied and colonised Cyprus? One gesture of goodwill towards the Cypriot Government? Can you name one?

  Metin Kazak (ALDE ), blue-card answer. – (BG) Mr Mavronikolas, I can only tell you that the number of Turkish troops in Cyprus has significantly decreased between 1974 and now. At the same time, you know that almost no progress at all has been made with respect to the commitments made by the EU – both in terms of the Green Line and of the removal of the restrictions on Turkish Cypriots. Therefore, I believe that both countries, and I stress both countries, must really continue their efforts here in good faith, with the desire to achieve a lasting solution. This confrontation must end.

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE ). - Madam President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, on her good work. Many problems still remain unsolved in Turkey – press freedom, minority rights (especially those of transgender people and homosexuals), the environment and the Kurdish question, to mention just a few – and also in Cyprus, where a sustainable settlement needs to be reached and the isolation of the northern part brought to an end. Solving these issues will be very beneficial for Turkey and its citizens.

The accession process is an important incentive for change and reform in Turkey, as it is for other enlargement countries as well. However, this will only be an incentive as long as we are clear in our commitment to welcome Turkey as soon as it fulfils the Copenhagen criteria, just as we have done with other countries.

Our most important tool for change and reform is the accession negotiations. It is incomprehensible why we deprive ourselves of this tool by not opening the chapters on justice and fundamental rights as well as on home affairs, in which a lot of the problems I just mentioned – and a lot of the concerns raised in this House – are included. We should open them as soon as possible. We should be sincere in our wish to help Turkey solve those problems. Therefore, Chapters 23 and 24 should be opened as soon as possible so that we can welcome Turkey to the EU as soon as the criteria are fulfilled.

IN THE CHAIR: RAINER WIELAND
Vice-President

  Peter van Dalen (ECR ). - (NL) Madam President, there is a dark side to the film Fetih 1453, which is popular in Turkey. The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad explained its popularity through the mouth of a cinema goer who said: ‘It is a pity than in 1453 we did not massacre all Christians straight away, then they would not have been bothering us now’. Turkish nationalism is mingling with the dark side of Islam. We see this also in the course taken by the Erdoğan Government. It is becoming increasingly close to Hamas. Erdoğan is the great leader of the so-called Arab Spring, a spring which in Egypt has now led to the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador.

It is no coincidence that Aramaic monasteries have recently been the target of many legal actions over land ownership. Mr Erdoğan is firmly in the saddle and is busy extending his power base with his Islamist AK Party, including through these court cases. That is a dangerous cocktail of Turkish nationalism and the dark sides of Islam. Allowing Turkey into the EU would be a mistake of historic proportions. Good neighbourly relations are enough.

  Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL ). – (DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to say that in my opinion the sections in Ms Oomen-Ruijten’s report concerning the judiciary and constitutional reform are highly successful. I would like to congratulate her on these sections. However, I also believe that far too little attention has been paid to the subject of the situation of the Kurds in Turkey. As has been said several times, there are not only hundreds of journalists in prison, but also thousands of Kurds and in particular Kurdish politicians who are members of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP). Some of them are elected members of parliament.

This is not the way to resolve the conflict between the Turkish Government and the Kurds. It would be good to make our position on this subject clearer in the report. Together with some other Members, we have tabled amendments for tomorrow. I will be very pleased if there is majority support for these amendments. In my opinion, it will not help if we close our eyes to what is happening at this point. The EU must make itself clearly heard with regard to this issue.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD ). – (EL) Mr President, as the report emphasises, Turkey is, without doubt, an emerging economy, a highly populated country with a strategic role to play in stability and security in the East in general.

We trust that Turkey will get the messages contained in the report, which is entirely objective. However, I do not think that Turkey will manage to resolve its problems in the right way and with a Western attitude, despite its European ambitions. For example: it still has invasion and occupation troops in part of Cyprus, an EU Member State, in breach of UN resolutions. It is also threatening, in a most unbecoming manner, that if the Cyprus question is not resolved as it wants, it will break off all communication, both official and unofficial, with the forthcoming Cypriot Presidency. I consider this to be most disrespectful, especially towards the European Union and, if Turkey does so, further action must be stopped …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Andreas Mölzer (NI ). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Füle, Ms Oomen-Ruijten’s report is commendable in that it highlights the restrictions on the freedom of the media and of expression and the breaches of human rights in Turkey. However, overall it gives the impression that the EU and this Parliament are to a certain extent failing to face up to the reality of the situation in Turkey.

Despite its new constitution, Turkey is moving further and further away from Europe. In addition, the new constitution does not change the fact that the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Erdoğan, is becoming increasingly authoritarian. This move away from Europe is demonstrated by the growing Islamisation of the country, by the behaviour of Turkey regarding the question of the Armenian genocide and by Turkey’s arrogant attitude to the next holder of the Council Presidency, Cyprus. Overall it is clear that Turkey is distancing itself from Europe. However, it is still accepting pre-accession assistance. All of this should make us finally to admit that Turkey is not a European country and should never become a member of the European Union.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE ). - (PL) Mr President, this year I would like to focus on a very important issue raised in this report. I am speaking of journalists who are arrested under various pretexts, for example on the basis of anti-terrorist legislation, for allegedly disseminating the views and propaganda of terrorist organisations as, in the course of their work, they raised matters that Ankara finds inconvenient.

The Antiterrorism Act has an enormous impact on free speech by journalists. Under Articles 6 and 7 of this Act it is enough for a journalist to publish information about a Kurdish demonstration to find themselves in jail. Such arrests are a reality and, acting as the European Parliament, we must insist on court cases involving journalists being carried out transparently, under appropriate conditions and with due respect for the law. Unfortunately we still do not have precise data concerning the number of journalists arrested or the number of current court cases involving journalists. Work is continuing on constitutional reform and the criminal code. The repeal of existing regulations is not, however, a solution. Turkey must change the way it applies existing laws. Even the best legal regulations will not ensure justice and respect for human rights if they are not interpreted sensibly.

  Richard Howitt (S&D ). - Mr President, with other international observers I was prevented this year from observing the KCK trials in Diyarbakır and, had we been let through the door, we would have seen prosecutions taking place without the defence present and with the use of the Kurdish mother tongue prohibited. So it is right that we keep the pressure up for judicial reforms to show full respect for human rights. The release of jailed journalists, Nedim Şener and Ahmet Şık, shows that our criticisms are effective. Indeed I was honoured recently to meet the daughter of murdered Armenian-origin journalist Hrant Dink, to speak in support of her appeal against the findings that this was not an organised crime, and to hear from Etyen Mahçupyan, the proprietor of his newspaper at the time, that popular revulsion to his murder has eased attitudes in Turkey towards the Armenian question.

I have nothing but praise, on the other hand, for the help Turkey has given to the 17 000 Syrian refugees who have crossed its borders. I join with the Commissioner in welcoming the constitutional debate but ask him to join with me in asking that the submissions be republished on the website from which they were abruptly taken off.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD ), blue-card question. – Mr President, has Mr Howitt ever considered the impact on his constituents of giving 90 million Turkish citizens, including an oppressed Kurdish minority of approximately 15 million, the absolute right to live, work and settle in the United Kingdom, which will be the consequence of admitting Turkey as a member of the European Union? Have you ever considered that, Mr Howitt?

  Richard Howitt (S&D ), blue-card answer. – Mr President, a young Turkey with a growing skilled workforce and growing business can improve prosperity, not just for that country but for my country and my constituency. The honourable Member knows a few things about losing elections. Perhaps if Nicolas Sarkozy loses the election on 6 May there will be a fairer hearing for Turkey in the European Union.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE ). - (FI) Mr President, Turkish women have seen excellent success in the Volleyball Champions’ League, and the team is well on its way to the finals. Things are not going so well for Turkish journalists, however. Many have found themselves on their way to jail. Freedom of the media and speech are not established in Turkey. There is much to put right when it comes to human rights.

Despite the problems, it has to be acknowledged that Turkey has been an active and constructive foreign policy actor in its own region. The developments that have taken place are to be welcomed, and, hopefully, Turkey will work constructively with the EU. There is also life beyond enlargement negotiations. This report is excellent, and I agree with the rapporteur’s call to open negotiation chapters 23 and 24.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8)).

  Charles Tannock (ECR ), blue-card question. – Mrs Jäätteenmäki – this was again in the interpretation – you said that Turkey had been a force for good in the work it has done in its region. How then do you account for the fact that it has kept the border closed and imposed an embargo on peaceful, democratic Armenia for 20 years, for no other reason than the fact that it sides with its cousins in Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh? How can you justify a boycott on a country like Armenia purely because of your solidarity with some other country? This is absolutely unparalleled in any other place in the world. So what good is it doing in terms of keeping its border with Armenia shut?

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE ), blue-card answer. – (FI) Mr President, Turkey has problems with Armenia, but we have to admit that there have been a lot of developments in that region, and Turkey has been active in this matter and has acted constructively.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR ). - Mr President, Turkey is still lagging behind when it comes to equality between men and women. The rigid role which women play in Turkish society means lower participation by women in the workplace, politics and civil society. Worse still, attacks against women are commonplace, and the authorities are too lenient on the perpetrators of gender-based violence. More women’s shelters are needed in order to protect the vulnerable.

Turkey must work harder to eradicate the practice of honour killings, with dozens of Turkish women murdered each year. I also call on Turkey to criminalise forced marriages. Turkish women are still less educated than their male counterparts, and there needs to be a special focus on rural women, especially with regard to literacy. Three million rural Turkish women remain illiterate. Kurdish women in particular are disadvantaged by the double burden of being women and Kurds. I call on the Commission to put women’s rights at the forefront of negotiations with Turkey.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has to be said that we gather in this Chamber time and again to debate the accession of Turkey to the European Union. I have to say though that every year, little progress has been made, and indeed there has often been regression compared to the previous year.

I wonder, after what the Turkish Foreign Minister said about the Cypriot Presidency, if this is not enough for the European Commission, the European Parliament and also for the European Council to decide that it may be time to give up trying to bring Turkey into Europe. It is evident that we have completely different interests and it is clear that perhaps we need to take a different route with this country which is no doubt strategic for Europe and with whom we can no doubt enjoy good trade relations. However, EU membership would surely also lead to imbalances in our very foundations and in our core values.

I therefore call upon the Commission to reconsider this accession policy, because we are funding this pre-accession policy, but we are certainly not shelling out for the invasion of Cyprus nor, for that matter, for the imprisonment of journalists.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI ). - (BG) Mr President, I have spoken many times in this Chamber about Turkey and the problems relating to it. I see that colleagues are trying to list all the violations. However, they are so many of them that there is simply no way that they could be listed.

Turkey violates so many of the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights that last week a colleague highly respected by all of us, José Bové, from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, together with another three members, sent and asked me to sign a letter to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, which requests the suspension of Turkey’s membership of the Council of Europe. So why, given that there is such an initiative from this Parliament, are we sitting and discussing its membership of the EU?

The Council of Europe is a much more liberal institution than the European Union. Lastly, I will turn to the citizens of Europe and ask them: Citizens of Europe, do you agree to there being a country in the European Union that has committed several genocides for which not only has it not apologised, but of which it is also proud?

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE ). – (EL) Mr President, my congratulations to Ms Oomen-Ruijten on the political integrity of her report. The institutions of the European Union have maintained their political will concerning Turkey’s European prospects.

The question is: does Turkey itself have the same will to become an EU Member State? The drawbacks of the system in Turkey have to do mainly with the prevailing views of democracy. Basic structural elements of real democratic governance are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the various ethnic minorities to preserve their cultural identity, constitutional reform in keeping with the modern model of democracy, a diplomatic approach to foreign policy issues and avoidance of threats, commitment to the principles of good neighbourly relations, not violating the national space of other States and provoking neighbours, respect for the principles and values of the construct of which Turkey wishes to become a part and, therefore, its obligation to recognise all parts of the European Union. The issue of illegal immigration via Turkey and its refusal to apply agreements already entered into also raise numerous questions.

Turkey is very welcome in Europe, if and provided that it decides to adopt the necessary measures and does not want to remain with one foot in the Asian camp and one in the European.

  Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (S&D ). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we Social Democrats have made it absolutely clear that we strongly support Turkey’s future membership. We will continue to stand by our convictions.

Unfortunately, we are not at all happy about the current policies of Mr Erdoğan and his government. It is true that a number of reforms have been implemented and that progress has been made with democratisation. In addition, the economy is booming. However, on the other hand there have been some very disturbing developments. New restrictions have been imposed on freedom of expression and journalists and politicians have been imprisoned. We are also very concerned about the threat by the Turkish Prime Minister to freeze Turkey’s relationship with the EU during the Cypriot Presidency of the Council. This is totally unacceptable.

Nevertheless, the process of reform and democratisation must continue. It is also clear that Turkey is not a supplicant country, but a partner with which the EU is conducting accession negotiations on the basis of its own unanimous decisions. Many people here may not have noticed this. In response to the many people who are talking about values, I would like to say that I am horrified to see only traces of these values. We must keep our promises. I believe that this is a very good report, but unfortunately many of the speeches in this House have been of very poor quality, which is a disgrace.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE ). - Mr President, today we call for a renewed boost in EU-Turkish relations and to open the negotiation chapters on the most essential issues now: the chapters on fundamental freedoms, justice and the rule of law.

Our emphasis on these key issues prompts the Turkish authorities, the government first and foremost, to ensure the rule of law is upheld. While we are open to cooperation in relation to the Middle East and on mutual security challenges, we strongly condemn the abuse of anti-terrorism laws. It is, after all, NATO’s second largest army, but a significant portion of this army’s leadership now faces the most serious charges of committing terrorist activities or of plotting a coup. It is essential for Turkey, its role in NATO and its relations with the EU that both process and outcomes of these trials are fairly conducted and that suspects get a due process.

The same goes for the high number of journalists imprisoned, as many colleagues have mentioned. The climate of fear and mistrust in institutions in Turkey is undermining its potential to be a leader in a changing world and we urge the Turkish Government to take its responsibilities.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD ). - Mr President, Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan has described UN sanctions against Iran as, and I quote, ‘a mistake’. Since March last year, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have issued tourist visas valid for those four countries together. Turkey, of course, has a customs union with the EU, but it also has a customs union with the five Turkic-speaking countries of Central Asia. The inconvenient truth is that Turkey is a regional power of the Middle East, and this is because of the actuality. Turkey is an Asian country, moreover one that does not tolerate meaningful dissent. Turkey should not even be considered for membership of the European Union, and it certainly should not be receiving almost one billion euros a year in pre-accession funding.

  Philip Claeys (NI ). - (NL) Mr President, how long are we going to occupy ourselves with the preparation of so-called progress reports on Turkey, reports that speak of no progress whatsoever? This is already the sixth or the seventh since 2005 and I wonder if there is still anyone in Turkey or Europe that is taking these texts seriously. We all know that, even back then, Turkey did not meet the criteria to start the negotiations on accession in the first place, and the situation has gone from bad to worse ever since.

Right now, there are about 100 people in Turkey being held in prison, purely because of the opinions they proclaimed. They include professors, officials, army officers, writers, journalists and elected politicians. Do we want these kinds of countries in the European Union? In addition, Turkey’s stance on Cyprus is outrageous, just as is its foreign policy which is increasingly turning its back on Europe.

Let us therefore finally pull the plug and decide once and for all that Europe should remain European.

  Eleni Theocharous (PPE ). – (EL) Mr President, it is perfectly clear that the level of application of human rights in Turkey alone precludes any ambitions on its part to become a member of the European Union. Turkey cannot become a member of the European Union, merely by reason of the fact that it is threatening to annex the occupied part of Cyprus and neither Cyprus nor the European Union are to blame for that.

Of course, human rights abuses extend to Cyprus and to the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots and I wish that you had heard the anguished cries of the Turkish Cypriots in fear of being swamped by the presence of Turkish troops.

Of course, I congratulate the rapporteur on a difficult job but, despite the fact that the report is a balanced compromise, Turkey is stubbornly refusing to recognise our goodwill. Therefore, if Turkey wants to progress on the road towards accession and for chapters to be opened, it must comply with the decisions of the European Council and the European Court of Human Rights. It must respect the European acquis .

How is Turkey demonstrating its good will? How is it reacting to the positive agenda and the positive messages we are sending it? It is responding with threats to the Republic of Cyprus, it is leading the negotiations into an impasse and, instead of complying with UN resolutions, it is calling on the legal residents of Famagusta to return as citizens to the pseudo-State.

Why should it therefore enjoy favourable treatment?

(The President cut off the speaker)

(The speaker agreed to take a ‘blue card’ question under Rule 149(8))

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D ), blue-card question. – (NL) Mr President, I actually have a very simple question. Our Greek Cypriot members have spoken several times today about what Turkish Cypriots would like, what their wishes are and what they think. Can you explain to me why it is that Turkish Cypriots are not represented in this Parliament, so that they can tell you that themselves?

  Eleni Theocharous, blue-card answer . – (EL) Mr President, it is because the Turkish occupying army forbids it, as they have done thousands of times, both during demonstrations against the occupying army and Erdogan in Nicosia last year and with their presence today in the European Parliament and every time they have a chance to visit the European Parliament. They come here with identity cards and passports issued by the Cypriot State and they respect the Cypriot State, which is more than can be said for many in this Chamber.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D ). – (EL) Mr President, talks to resolve the Cyprus problem have now been under way for forty years; the last round of talks took three years without achieving anything in terms of any effort by Turkey to resolve our problem. The number of troops has not been reduced. The occupying army maintains 50 000 troops among a Turkish Cypriot community of 100 000. At the same time, they are keeping the town of Famagusta as a ghost town, without handing it over to its residents, and they are keeping Nicosia divided, while all of us here in Parliament campaign repeatedly to reverse the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel.

Unfortunately, the colonisation of the occupied territories is incalculable. Erdogan’s objective is to achieve 1 million colonists, at which point it really will be impossible to resolve the Cyprus problem. We shall still be here in five or ten years’ time, before we admit that there is no solution to the Cyprus problem.

(The speaker agreed to reply to a ‘blue card’ question under Rule 149(8)

  Metin Kazak (ALDE ), blue-card question. – (BG) Mr President, I have a question for Mr Mavronikolas. How has the Republic of Cyprus been helping in finding a lasting solution to the Cyprus question in recent years? Can you list specific initiatives to bring about such a resolution? Why are you opposing the Commission’s proposal for direct trade links with Northern Cyprus?

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D ), blue-card answer . – (EL) Mr President, we are not against direct trade, but the Committee on Legal Affairs has decided that the legal basis for this Commission proposal should be changed. Therefore, we want trade, provided that the legal basis does not confer recognition on the occupied territories, and I repeat that no little effort has been made by Cyprus. However, there is no response from Turkey, whose Prime Minister has stated that his objective is to turn …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on reading the motion for a resolution, I wondered what Europe you are talking about and which Turkey this refers to.

If you consider Europe merely as a geographical entity, you should realise that Turkey is not Europe, given that 97% of Turkish territory is in Asia. The secular state of Turkey, founded by Atatürk in 1924, no longer exists. In its place has emerged an Islamic regime, whose Prime Minister Mr Erdoğan was convicted and jailed in 1998 for inciting religious hatred for having publicly recited: ‘The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers’. Mr Erdoğan has facilitated the rise to power of Islamic fundamentalists and extremists in the Middle East. According to Mr Erdoğan, Israel is a terrorist state and Hamas an organisation to be supported, but first and foremost ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Birgit Schnieber-Jastram (PPE ). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank Ms Oomen-Ruijten for this report. It demonstrates what an important role Turkey is playing with regard to the EU, not only in economic but also in political terms, as the link with Central Asia, the Arab nations and Africa. Despite all the progress that Turkey has made in recent years, it still has a lot of catching up to do. The main issues are the Kurdish minority and the journalists who have been imprisoned. That has been made abundantly clear here today. Therefore, we must make every effort to work together with the Turkish Government and the Turkish people to find solutions for the remaining problems and to support Turkey during the process of reform.

I am quite shocked at the way that many Members have called into question the fundamental rights of the European Union, including the right to freedom of religion and of expression.

Finally, I have a request for the Commission. Mr Füle, a positive agenda for Turkey must be submitted as soon as possible and we must make as much progress with it as we can.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D ). - Mr President, Turkey’s importance keeps increasing. Turkey’s economy is growing and Turkey is becoming a regional and global power. Europe and Turkey need each other more than ever. But ironically the accession negotiations have entered a stalemate. The Commission has no real leverage on important issues, due to the blocked chapters. The positive agenda is important to keep supporting the reforms, but if we want real changes we must support the opening of Chapters 23 and 24.

The report we will vote on tomorrow is important because it recognises these issues and it gives support to the positive agenda. It supports the reforms but also says that there are still reforms that need to be carried out, especially on freedom of speech and press freedom. We are concerned about the wide margin of appreciation allowed by the anti-terror law; we are concerned about the arrested journalists and those working under the threat of being arrested. But I am also concerned about attacks in Europe on Turkish press offices and ask for investigations to be carried out in Europe to find the perpetrators.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD ), blue-card question. – Mrs Bozkurt, you used the phrase in your speech that Turkey is a growing economy and a regional power. Well the same could be said of South Korea. Why do these two facts, if they are facts, justify political union with Turkey?

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D ), blue-card answer. – (NL) Mr Dartmouth, it is a fact that negotiations are underway; I believe that, in the framework of those negotiations, we must look at what is important for Turkey and what is important for the European Union. I have emphasised this. The fact that you are against Turkey’s membership is your problem. I think it is important that we look at how further negotiations can be conducted in an appropriate way. That is what my speech was about.

  Alf Svensson (PPE ). – (SV) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Ms Oomen-Ruijten on her excellent report. I wonder if the report has been written in order to see how far away Turkey is from achieving membership and to bring up all the shortcomings in Turkey, or whether it has been written in order to enable us gradually to view Turkey as a member of the EU.

Mr President, I think there is a need for a greater degree of honesty in this debate and for us to say whether we actually want Turkey to join the EU or not, because then we will actually have to try and get a different attitude from some quarters than I think has been the case here.

Personally speaking, I think it is very important to work towards Turkey becoming a Member State. I believe that Turkey is less dependent on the EU than the EU is on Turkey. There is clearly rather a long way to go, but we must nevertheless have the courage to say whether we want Turkey to succeed in this or not.

Turkey is a superpower. It will remain a superpower and has the ability to act accordingly.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D ). - Mr President, I support this resolution because I am in favour of full EU membership for Turkey and because I am convinced that its accession process should be completed as soon as possible. I have heard many objections to this process and I believe many of them are well grounded, but I believe also that these objections are overshadowed by three facts.

First, the contribution of Turkey to the stability of the world economy. Its economic growth, along with the performance of the BRICS, averted the transformation of the financial crisis in Europe and the USA after 2008 into a genuine catastrophe.

The second fact is the strengthening of global peace generated by Turkey’s democratisation process and its related problem-free foreign policy. There has been a huge change of course of Turkish foreign policy in the right direction, which is positively affecting all East-West relationships.

The third is the quality of Turkish social policies. In just six years, from 2003 to 2009, the country reduced its poverty rate by an astonishing 36%, and as Socialists and Democrats we particularly appreciate this achievement.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE ). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, just note the sequence of the following events. On 23 February, the Turkish Minister for Defence announced to the Grand National Assembly that 100 F-15 fighter jets were to be purchased over the next four years at a cost of USD 16 billion. A month later, on 21 March, the Turkish research vessel Piri Reis carried out illegal research activities on the Greek continental shelf.

On 24 March, the Turkish frigate Gazianter entered Greek territorial waters, arriving off Cape Sounion. I believe you know where Cape Sounion and the Temple of Poseidon are and how far it is from there to Athens. As a result of this illegal incursion by the Turkish frigate, the Greek Navy and Air Force were mobilised. I ask you, Commissioner: is it national masochism that Greek pays 3.5% of its gross domestic product on defence spending? That is more than any other Member State. What do you have to say to Turkey about that?

  Ana Gomes (S&D ). – (PT) Mr President, as the Oomen-Ruijten report points out, Turkey has already made significant progress, but still has a way to go towards guaranteeing human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The new constitution should enshrine the core values and principles of the European Union, ensuring a genuine separation of powers, civilian control over the military, and an inclusive definition of Turkish citizenship that fully respects the rights of minorities, particularly Kurds, and the majority, who are women.

Freedom of expression and of the press are crucial to guaranteeing other human rights and democracy. Intellectuals, journalists and human rights activists are still being imprisoned. Turkey urgently needs to revise its perverse criminal and antiterrorist laws, to stop using special courts against members of the opposition, and to ensure the independence of the courts.

How Turkey acts during the upcoming six-month Cypriot Presidency of the European Union will not just test the European Union: it will put to the test Turkey’s understanding of what it means to belong to this Union; of what it means to build a European Union.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE ) . – (RO) Mr President, Turkey’s place is in the European Union. We have every right to be exacting in our negotiations with Turkey where full observance of European values is concerned, but I believe that certain Member States should be equally exacting as regards the real reasons they come up with year after year in order to block the process of negotiations with Turkey.

I hope that the future Cypriot Presidency will be a positive surprise for the progress of these negotiations.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE ). - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank Ms Oomen-Ruijten for – as the previous speaker said – a very good and balanced report which highlights both the positive events over the last months and years and also the challenges facing both ourselves and Turkey. We all have to understand one fundamental political fact, which is that we are involved in accession negotiations with Turkey as the European Union, which is to say that, in a sense, Germany, Austria, France, Greece and Cyprus are all involved in these negotiations. If we are involved in negotiations then we should bear in mind that, if I remember correctly, all accession negotiations to date have resulted finally in the country in question becoming a member of the European Union which, by the way, is what the Turkish authorities have said. We must therefore answer the basic question: do we want Turkey in the European Union?

There is one other issue for our fellow Members from Cyprus to consider. I would like to suggest that we look at certain processes from a historical perspective. Poland and Germany fought wars for centuries but today there are no better partners in the European Union than Poland and Germany.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE ). - (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Ria Oomen-Ruijten on her excellent work on this report, all the more so as many years were wasted due to a failure to spell out the specific measures to be taken with a view to Turkey’s accession. The stagnation we have seen to date only exacerbates the problems discussed by my fellow Members; it does not resolve them. The plan of action that has now been suggested gives us hope that, by taking action on both sides, we can start on a path to bring Turkey closer to the European Union and to achieve higher standards in dealing with contentious issues.

As the Commissioner rightly noted, we have many things in common, so it is worth working more intensively on the areas that will bring Turkey closer to Europe. It is in our interest to support, encourage and work together with Turkey in various areas in order to solve problems. I believe in Turkish democracy, as only that can ensure the inviolability of the rights and dignity of Turkish citizens. I also believe in solving problems in certain Member States that were referred to by my fellow Members.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D ). – (EL) Mr President, the European Parliament does not have the authority to turn a blind eye to continuing human rights abuses in Turkey itself, in Cyprus and in the junta areas. The European Union is not entitled to tolerate threats from a candidate country towards a Member State, because it will take over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

I expected Ms Oomen-Ruijten’s report to contain sanctions against Turkey for failure to apply the Additional Protocol, for the Turkish threats and for the continuing occupation of Cyprus. The absence of sanctions encourages Turkey, as do the dangerous references to links between direct trade and the question of Famagusta and about the opening of two new accession chapters on the pretext of the positive agenda. Turkey is already preparing illegal colonisation of the closed area of Famagusta.

What will the European Union do in such an eventuality? Will it accept another infringement of UN resolutions or will it keep talking about …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE ). - (SL) Mr President, Turkey’s potential membership of the European Union is polarising us.

We have witnessed that again today and this will continue, this state of mind, until we, as the previous speaker said, openly admit whether or not we want Turkey in the European Union, or whether we can afford to have Turkey joining the European Union.

This state of mind is also likely to continue if all Greek and Cypriot MEPs join every debate on Turkey.

However, I think that the acquis communautaire should be the basic criterion of whether or not a country is able to have, and is suitable for, admission to the European Union. Until the negotiations start, we will not be able to assess Turkey against this standard.

I think it is right that we condemn the conviction of journalists and the persecution of intellectuals in Turkey, but we have to treat Turkey with a certain degree of good will as a serious and important future member of the European Union.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE ). - Mr President, we have heard here some opinions about the violation of human rights and the lack of separation of powers. We have heard here some opinions also about the lack of freedom of expression in Turkey. What is Turkey doing about the separation of powers? What is Turkey doing to use the constitutional drafting process as a chance for developing a moral and democratic identity, allowing for the full recognition of all ethnic groups including Kurds, Laz, Gypsies, Roma, Alevis, Syriacs, Arabs, Greeks, Armenians, Jews and others? What is Turkey doing to consider a process of decentralisation and meaningful local government in order to meet the demands of the diverse segments of its population?

  Bernd Posselt (PPE ). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vajgl has not quoted correctly from the Treaty. The main criterion for determining whether a country can become a member is whether it is a European state and meets the remaining criteria.

Turkey is not a European state. I am a supporter of a strong, federalist Europe. With Turkey as a full member, this will not be the case. Therefore, we need to find other forms of integration. I am also in favour of a policy of honesty with regard to Turkey. One of your predecessors, Mr Füle, once said to me: ‘Do not worry about it, Mr Posselt. Turkey will never become a member whatever happens.’ He was someone who in public constantly spoke out in favour of Turkey’s accession. The Turks are aware of this dishonesty. We want a clearly defined partnership, but not full membership. This will help to stabilise Turkey. Any other approach will lead to the destabilisation of both Turkey and the EU.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Turkish accession process has to move forward. It is urgent now for Turkey to comply with its obligation of full implementation of the additional protocol to the association agreement, and to make progress towards normalisation of bilateral relations with the Republic of Cyprus – the same Cyprus which is soon to become a proud and, I am confident, effective Presidency of the Council to the benefit of the European Union and to the benefit of the interests of the European Union.

It has been a fascinating debate. It is only a pity that not that many people who were so outspoken during the debate have stayed until the end, because I would like to share a couple of thoughts here.

Number one – what really surprised me, though maybe I was occasionally not attentive enough, is that no one has really mentioned the comprehensive talks on Cyprus, and tomorrow’s important meeting, and the road map as put forward by the United Nation’s Secretary-General and implemented by special representative Alexander Downer. Is it a sign of this House being content with the status quo? I hope not. I hope that the energy which I have sensed in your discussion will be turned towards supporting the two leaders who will be meeting tomorrow, addressing the core issues and allowing Downer to recommend to the Secretary-General to go for the finalisation of the process and not to leave it for a plan B – because I have news for you: there is no plan B.

(Applause)

Secondly, as for the reform process, looking at the progress achieved in the past years we can conclude that Turkey is moving forward. Even if progress is sometimes too slow or uneven a lot of taboos have been removed, a lot of questions are now being debated. Who could have imagined Turkey restoring properties to non-Muslim religious communities, the latest example being the title deeds of the Greek primary school of Galata in Istanbul?

My third point concerns the remarks about my predecessor and about double standards. I have only one standard, and it is to be sincere and truthful both in open meetings and in meetings behind closed doors. Despite my age I have enough experience and diplomacy to be aware that the worst enemy of success is to say one thing in an open arena and something different behind closed doors. I will never, ever do it.

What this House should not be split on, I believe personally, is the issue of clear rules of the game at the end of this process. What are these rules of the game?

The first is the accession treaty which clearly reflects Turkey’s position in this case, approximating its legislation fully with the European Union acquis, as stipulated by all negotiating chapters. Number two is the consensus of all Member States, and the procedure to ratify this approval. And the third is an impact study showing clearly the impact of, in this case, Turkish membership and also showing clearly to all Member States and all of us that we are going to talk about how the process is to be managed to the benefit of both the European Union and Turkey.

Those are the rules of the game and I hope the House is not split on this particular issue. I also hope that this House is not going to split on the issue that the best way to achieve this, the best way to help Turkey, to strengthen democracy, is actually the accession process. Does anyone in this House believe that building a big wall between us and Turkey would improve the very fundamental rights so many of you referred to? Because I do not.

The accession process is the only way to make the European Union the benchmark of the reforms in Turkey. The accession process is not there to compromise on our values. The accession process is for Turkey to embrace the values the European Union is so firmly based on. Why should this House be split on this process? Because, interestingly enough in this debate, I have not heard one single idea how to do it better and more efficiently to the benefit of the Turkish people. I have not heard it and I am afraid I will not hear it in the future.

Now coming to particularities, but important ones: as regards a paragraph in the resolution on civil/military relations I would like to agree that the formulation of the sentence on the integrity of the armed forces could be improved in order to clarify more precisely what is meant and take away any ambiguity that might arise.

The next point: at the start of the debate I also expressed my concerns about the respect for freedom of expression in general. It is something I will continue to raise with my counterparts. I will not miss any opportunity. In Turkey we will continue to exchange views on civil society.

Let me stress, in conclusion, something I feel personally very strongly about. The European Union should continue to encourage the reform process in Turkey. Our leverage and influence in Turkey will become all the more credible and stronger if our commitments, as outlined in 2005 when we launched the accession negotiations, remain unambiguous.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner Füle, honourable Members, historically, enlargement of the EU has proven to be one of the EU’s most successful foreign policy instruments. The attraction of the EU has actively been used to get a number of countries to implement far-reaching social, political and economic reforms. We have gained an ever larger community in which we share the same values and we exchange and trade with one another across the length and breadth of the Union, which is something that benefits security and prosperity throughout Europe. These values are the same ones that Commissioner Füle mentioned in his powerful speech just now. I look forward to continuing our constructive and positive cooperation with the European Parliament during the Danish Presidency – not only in respect of Turkey’s accession process, but also in relation to the other candidate countries.

We all know that the process is complicated and difficult and that it places considerable demands on the countries that choose to participate in it. Even though the negotiations with Turkey are in no way easy, I believe that the debate today has shown that continuing the negotiations is the best way to help Turkey along its continuing path towards political and economic reform. As emphasised in Parliament’s resolution, it is fundamentally in the interests of both the EU and Turkey that we continue down this road.

Together with the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission, the Danish Presidency will do whatever it can to support this process, but I would also like to make it clear today that the final decision rests with Turkey. The accession negotiations can only move forward if there is progress in Turkey’s own reform efforts. It is hard work, which must not be underestimated, and it is also dependent on political will and commitment. The Danish Presidency will continue to follow developments closely and we will support the process where we can.

Finally, I would like to emphasise the importance of the European Parliament in a broader political context. Debates like the one we have had today are crucial for engaging the citizens of both Turkey and the EU Member States and for ensuring the continued support for, and understanding of, our joint project. This is important work that we must not underestimate and that we should all focus on to a greater extent. The European Parliament has an incredibly important role to play in this regard.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  President. − I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 29 March 2012).

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE ), in writing. – (RO) I would like to thank Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten for this balanced report on the progress made by Turkey in 2011, on its way to EU accession. I appreciate in particular the call to open negotiations on Chapter 23 – Justice and Human Rights, which I too supported last year in one of the amendments tabled.

I am also pleased that Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten decided to support my amendment on cooperation in the Black Sea area and Turkey’s importance in the region.

Lastly, I appreciate the support for the ‘positive agenda’ proposed by the European Commission and I hope there will also be concrete results. Turkey plays an increasingly important role at regional level and beyond. I sincerely hope that it will continue its efforts for accession this year, so that in December we are able to talk about a positive moment in the negotiation process.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE ), in writing. – I welcome the ongoing work on drafting the new constitution, which has to represent and protect the rights of all groups and minorities in Turkish society. Broadening the scope of the restoration of property rights to all non-Muslim communities since August 2011 is an encouraging development. It is equally important for the religious communities to obtain the status of a legal personality. I refer in particular to Aramean (Syriac) Christians who live mostly in the south-east of Turkey and represent one of the oldest cultures in that region. Owing to their very limited numbers, they are one of the most vulnerable ethnic and religious groups. They are exposed to assimilation by surrounding cultures; therefore, it is vital for Arameans to be able to freely teach their language in schools and to be granted officially the legal status of a minority group as suggested in Council of Europe Resolution 1704/2010. So far, the Arameans have been refused such a status, which could guarantee their cultural survival in the future. The legal ownership of the 4th Century St Gabriel’s Monastery and its surrounding lands, which is a major cultural treasure for all Turkey, should be secured and the monastery and lands protected in their entirety.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE ), in writing. – (PL) Turkey is an example of a successful economic transformation in the Near East. Turkey’s GDP growth – an average of over 6% per annum since 2009 – is impressive. When you take into account the crisis in the eurozone, the differences in development between Turkey and Europe can be overcome very quickly. According to the IMF, in 2010 the Turkish economy was the 16th largest in the world. Rapid economic growth has been made possible by its favourable demographic profile and continuing rises in productivity. Thanks to its strategic location at the junction of three continents – Europe, Africa and Asia – Turkey has a key role to play in ensuring stability in this highly volatile region. As a member of NATO, Turkey is an exceptionally important partner for the EU in its ambitions to create an area of stability and prosperity in its immediate neighbourhood.

The greatest problems in Turkey are still in the areas of democracy and human rights. It would appear that the reforms introduced by the government of Prime Minister Erdogan are primarily cosmetic in nature, and intended to deflect external criticism. Measures to protect the rights of women and ethnic minorities are still insufficient. In addition, there is no real understanding of the past in Turkey, and many legal proposals that have been adopted have not been implemented. If it fails to resolve its historical disputes with neighbours and ethnic minorities, Turkey will find it hard to create a successful future.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD ), in writing. – (PL) Turkey today is a powerful and significant player in the international arena. It is a vital piece of the jigsaw that can provide the Union with the prospect of energy independence. It is also an important economic partner and a 77-million-strong market for our products.

With all its positive qualities, Turkey is still a country that has failed to condemn the first genocide in 20th Europe, namely the massacre of Armenians in the years 1915-1917. It is a very poor country, with considerable differences in growth between the western and eastern regions. There is insufficient media freedom or respect for human rights. The issue of Northern Cyprus also remains unresolved. For these reasons, among others, accepting Turkey into the European Union would appear to be completely unrealistic and illogical. It would be a disaster for such pillars of the Union as the protection of human rights, the common market and cohesion policy.

The Union and Turkey must remain economic partners, and for this reason we should aim to facilitate trade between EU Member States and Turkey and to construct joint infrastructure projects such as the Nabucco oil pipeline, for example, but they should remain separate legal entities without the possibility – or any need – for further integration.

  President. − The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the enlargement report for Montenegro.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, let me start by acknowledging and welcoming Parliament’s support for the efforts undertaken to advance Montenegro’s prospects for EU integration. In particular, I welcome your rapporteur, Charles Tannock’s, continuous balanced and positive contribution.

There is strong public support for Montenegro’s EU integration as well as national consensus on this objective among the political parties. This has enabled the country to work systematically with the reform efforts. In December last year, both the Council and the European Council welcomed the Commission’s assessment that Montenegro has achieved overall satisfactory results, notably with regard to the key priorities set out by the EU in 2010.

With a view to opening accession negotiations by June this year, the European Council has tasked the Council to examine Montenegro’s progress in implementing reforms. Among the focus areas are the rule of law, fundamental rights, the fight against corruption and organised crime. The Commission is now preparing a report on the implementation, which it will most probably present in May.

Montenegro has achieved a high degree of compliance with the membership criteria. The country has progressed towards establishing a market economy and strives to live up to the obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. Montenegro’s relations with its neighbours are very good and Montenegro has been actively involved in a number of regional initiatives, such as the Southeast European Cooperation Process which Montenegro chaired in 2010 and 2011.

Montenegro has also been actively involved in the Sarajevo Process on finding a solution for the refugees and internally displaced persons in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Croatia following the conflict in the 1990s.

However, Montenegro still has some way to go. It has to continue its reform efforts and ensure full implementation, especially concerning the rule of law. Progress in this area is particularly needed when it comes to internally displaced persons, media freedom, implementation of anti-discrimination policies and independence of the judiciary. We look forward to the conclusions of the constitutional reform which will enhance independence of the judiciary.

Progress in the fight against corruption and organised crime will also be key to the advancement of Montenegro in its EU integration process. I am convinced that we will see progress in these areas and that Montenegro’s accession process will provide further positive momentum in the Western Balkans. With the historic agreements in the dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade, the decision of 1 March 2012 to grant candidate status to Serbia and the ongoing smooth ratification process of Croatia’s Accession Treaty, strong signals have been sent by the EU to the region and this will hopefully encourage neighbouring countries and regions to make the right political choices.

If these reform efforts in Montenegro continue at the same pace, it is my hope that this will be possible, and that we can agree to open accession negotiations with Montenegro in June. We in the Danish Presidency will work closely with Parliament and the Commission to achieve that.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to address the European Parliament today for the debate on the resolution on the 2011 progress report on Montenegro. I would also like to express my warm gratitude and congratulations to the rapporteur for Montenegro, Charles Tannock, on his excellent report.

The decision of the December European Council is a fair recognition of the progress the country has made over the five years since its independence, and in particular since December 2010 when it was granted European Union candidate status. This decision has opened the door towards the start of accession negotiations.

Key to this success was the determination of the Montenegrin authorities to conduct ambitious reforms, together with the active involvement of the parliamentary opposition, civil society and the media. I am positive that this broad national consensus on the country’s European integration is a major asset for Montenegro. It will facilitate its continued steady progress towards the European Union.

I met the Montenegrin Prime Minister, Igor Lukšić last week. His determination to pursue the reform process and commitment to sustained progress in the country’s European Union agenda are commendable.

I am further encouraged by our shared understanding that the opening of accession negotiations will not mark the end of a process, but the beginning of a long and demanding journey.

As acknowledged in Mr Tannock’s report, Montenegro has made significant progress so far, but needs to deploy further efforts in the area of rule of law, in particular in the fight against corruption and organised crime. The track record of final convictions, notably for high-level corruption and organised crime, needs to be substantially increased and all alleged cases thoroughly investigated. In line with the 2006 renewed consensus on enlargement, we know the importance of addressing these issues as early as possible in the accession process.

The new approach for the negotiation chapters – 23 on the judiciary and fundamental rights, and 24 on justice, freedom and security – will allow them to be opened early in order to give Montenegro sufficient time to produce a solid track record in the fight against organised crime and corruption. As I am speaking to you, the first explanatory phase of the screening of Chapter 24 is taking place, while the one on Chapter 23 took place earlier this week.

A further important milestone for Montenegro will be the finalisation of the ongoing constitutional reform, in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission, in a spirit of consensus and constructive dialogue with the opposition parties. This will provide a solid guarantee for the independence and accountability of the judiciary.

Compliance with European standards in the field of human rights and minority rights is also of crucial importance, in particular regarding freedom of expression and anti-discrimination. The recent attack against an investigative journalist is unacceptable and needs to be thoroughly investigated, along with past cases of violence and vandalism directed against the media.

Further efforts are also needed to strengthen anti-discrimination policy, in particular from the aspect of gender equality and the effective protection of minority rights. Efforts to increase the number of legally registered displaced persons also need to be actively pursued.

The responsibility for addressing these outstanding challenges lies with Montenegro and its capacity to maintain the pace of reforms and ensure their effective implementation. The Commission will continue to support Montenegro’s efforts on its path towards the European Union through financial and expert assistance.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Montenegro as a candidate country remains a relatively straightforward country in terms of monitoring its progress towards EU accession, and, in this case, small is beautiful. Montenegro has worked hard to address the criteria and benchmarks set by you as Commissioner in seven key priority areas, namely improving the work of its parliament and the electoral framework, professionalism within the administration of Montenegro, independence of the judiciary, fighting corruption, combating organised crime, ensuring media freedom and cooperation within civil society. Montenegro – to its credit – was admitted to the World Trade Organisation in December last year. WTO accession will inevitably help Montenegro build a competitive and dynamic modern economy.

This signals Montenegro’s integration into the world economy as well. The major political Copenhagen criteria issues, which include inter-ethnic relations, gender, religious, ethnic and disability discrimination, the repatriation of IDPs, independence and transparency of the judiciary, and freedom of the media, are very fully covered in my resolution. As a country with outstanding natural beauty, tourism plays a major role in Montenegro’s economy as well. Protecting the environment from the building of hydroelectric dams and energy policy transparency are therefore natural priorities for the Montenegrin Government.

My current resolution on Montenegro’s progress also focuses on the economy. By freeing up the country from too much red tape and bureaucracy, this will encourage business and promote growth through foreign direct investment.

Montenegro is also well known as a champion of better regional cooperation with its immediate neighbours, and its achievements in this area include resolving an outstanding small border dispute with Croatia and leading the fight against organised crime in a region which sadly has too much of it. Last year it successfully concluded bilateral extradition treaties with Serbia, Macedonia and Croatia. In short, Montenegro is a good news story and it is hoped that the negotiations will now start in June of 2012 for EU accession.

  Gay Mitchell, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Charles Tannock for this report.

Sometimes I think that, when we look back on this period of history, people will not just look at the economic turmoil but they will look at the fact that the Berlin Wall came down suddenly and miraculously in 1989; and here we are, with 10 new Member States such a short time after that, talking about Montenegro joining the European Union, given the recent history of the former Yugoslavia. This is indeed miraculous and it is what we need in Europe and is what the whole foundation of Europe was about from the very beginning.

I welcome this. I welcome the progress that has been made by Montenegro in the way they have addressed this issue so far, but the European Union is open to any European country which is a democracy and can take on the responsibilities of membership.

I raise this issue only because it is a difficult issue for smaller Member States. At some stage we have to again look at the institutional issues. Can we continue to expand in the way we are expanding, for example, and have a Commission with an ever-increasing number of Commissioners? In my country the answer to that is ‘Yes’, because small countries guard this with great jealousy. But if this question is to be addressed – and I am sure it is on the agenda somewhere – let it be addressed in such a way that it is not a power grab by large Member States. This is the one place where Member States, irrespective of their size, have equality, and I would ask the Commissioner to keep that in mind.

I do welcome the progress that has been made and it is great to see that the reasoning behind the origins of the European Union is still alive and well, and that we are broadening and deepening and making this continent a stable place for the future and a place where we can conduct our affairs in a more united way internationally.

  Göran Färm, on behalf of the S&D Group . – (SV) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Tannock, as he has achieved very broad agreement in relation to this report, and I believe that to be extremely important.

I am pleased that the EU Member States are now starting accession negotiations with Montenegro. This is a strong signal of the EU’s commitment to the future of the whole of the Western Balkans within the EU.

It is also important for the candidate countries to genuinely be judged purely on their own merits and their progress in meeting the accession criteria. The resolution is very clear in this regard.

Montenegro deserves praise for its commitment, its constructive role in helping to bring about regional stability and its good relations with its neighbours. It has also made progress – a great deal of progress – as Mr Tannock has pointed out, in fulfilling the key priorities that the Commission set on a previous occasion, but there is still a great deal to be done.

The work to bring about reform will require a strong political will to tackle tough challenges, particularly those relating to the principle of the rule of law and to combating corruption, smuggling and organised crime. There remains a great deal to be done in this regard, and real success here will be important for the whole of the accession process.

However, the accession process is not just a matter for governments and parliaments. The whole of society will have to change. Therefore, Montenegro must also intensify its dialogue with civil society, the social partners and the trade unions. The freedom of the press must also be guaranteed.

In the amendment that I tabled in plenary I call on Montenegro to thoroughly investigate the cases of violence and threats against journalists and to demonstrate its commitment to the freedom of the media.

Lastly, I would like to mention equality. There is a great deal to be done if a serious effort is to be made to tackle the problem of women being drastically underrepresented in important positions in Montenegro. This, too, needs to change.

I look forward to being able to welcome Montenegro as a Member State of the EU as soon as the accession criteria are met. It is also up to us in the EU to play our part, for example by developing the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance in such a way that it truly provides the support that countries like Montenegro need to be able to adapt to a future in the EU.

  Ivo Vajgl, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SL) Mr President, I thought that you, as a member of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, would have deliberately stopped the clock so that we could talk some more.

I would like to thank Mr Tannock, as rapporteur, for his excellent cooperation and, indeed, all the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation.

The good news for Montenegro and for us is that negotiations will finally begin in early June.

There are sufficient reasons for us to believe that Montenegro is well prepared. There is also cohesiveness in Montenegrin society about membership of the European Union being an objective.

The fact that Montenegro will be starting with one of the most difficult chapters, Chapter 23, is a positive one.

Montenegro has successfully implemented a series of reforms which guarantee the fulfilment of conditions under the acquis. This is true for judicial reform and the creation of effective institutions for combating corruption, which has also attracted the attention of many members of this Parliament.

It is worth emphasising the positive role of Montenegro in regional cooperation.

I, too, as rapporteur, think that Montenegro’s agreement with Croatia to refer the unresolved issue of Prevlaka to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague shows sound and sensible decision-making.

We also welcome the steps of the Montenegrin Government aimed at ensuring modern and genuine freedom of expression, preventing attacks on journalists and promoting democratic tolerance, when it comes to minorities of all kinds in Montenegrin society.

Montenegro is having to deal with some of these issues for the first time, but that is necessary and, certainly, welcome.

It is the right time for this small and infinitely beautiful country, with a rich history and culture, to make a decisive step towards the united Europe.

  Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group I would also like to thank Mr Tannock for a very good report and the constructive cooperation we had in order to reach compromises. Also on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, I would like to welcome the clear support this Parliament is going to give tomorrow to the European Union starting negotiations with Montenegro. This is an important step forward. It is also one step to keep up this enlargement momentum that we now have with Croatia, with candidate status for Serbia, and with dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia going ahead.

Yes, Montenegro is ready and is doing quite well. Many of the amendments that we tabled have been accepted, or have been voted in the Committee on Foreign Affairs: on environment, on large-scale dams. That was very positive, but still there is one thing that is very problematic in Montenegro and that is the corruption problem. It has been addressed by several colleagues, especially concerning the privatisation processes. State-owned companies – aluminium, telecom, electricity – there were large-scale protests just recently in Podgorica against this, and the government really has to look into this and move ahead. In addition, the threats against investigative journalists, mentioned by Mr Färm and also by Commissioner Füle, are not isolated cases and the government really has to step up its support for freedom of the media.

One last issue: the law on financing of political parties. Implementation of that law has been largely delegated to the State Electoral Commission, and do you know who that is composed of? Representatives of political parties. That is simply not the way to control financing of parties and I think changes are still needed there.

Let me end on a very positive note, on LGBT issues. Here, there has been progress in Montenegro recently and I would like to add one aspect of regional initiatives. Montenegro and the government have just recently held a regional conference on lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender rights with Croatian, Serb and Kosovo representatives. That is a good thing.

  Nikolaos Chountis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, I am in favour of the accession of Montenegro – and of every other country in the Western Balkans – to the European Union, provided that its people so wish and the political forces agree.

However, we believe that this procedure and accession negotiations should be used as an occasion to resolve economic, social, democratic and human rights problems for the benefit of the people. In this sense, the report contains positive encouragement, especially in terms of establishing a modern, democratic state and combating organised crime. However, there are two points in it which I should like to highlight, given that Montenegro is one of the simplest cases in the Balkans, because we do not agree that such issues should be raised in this manner.

The first issue is that accession to the European Union and to NATO should be voted on together. As we all know, NATO is a problematic organisation which does not have the best reputation in this particular area, by which I mean the Balkans in general. The second point has to do with the fact that, basically, we are encouraging economic solutions, such as foreign investments and more flexible forms of work (there is high unemployment in Montenegro) which will certainly exacerbate the situation of the workers.

Therefore, if Montenegro joins on certain conditions, it will bring down the general financial and social level in the European Union. I would have preferred it if these points had been left out of the report.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE ). - Mr President, over the past year Montenegro has made progress in judicial reform. The backlog of cases in the courts has been reduced and measures to reinforce the independence, accountability and efficiency of judges and prosecutors have been adopted. But these are all on paper and in legislation. Enforcement is the most important element, the key issue and it is the most difficult to achieve.

If we look at the last 20 years in the post-Communist countries, the most difficult reforms were the reforms of the judiciary and the measures to enforce the fight against corruption. In the area of the fight against corruption, legislation has been reinforced by adopting a new public procurement law, the law on funding political parties and a law on conflicts of interest.

Once again, implementation is the key issue and the test of the success of all this adopted legislation. Further efforts are needed to ensure a predictable and efficient judicial system and to restore public trust. Here I would like to give two suggestions: jurisprudence must be unified – justice must not be a lottery – and all judgments must be made public.

In the fight against corruption, the Montenegrin authorities must focus on high-level corruption cases. This is the test of the judiciary and of the political class. We need, and the people of Montenegro need, a strong and convincing track record of final convictions in high-level political cases.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Elena Băsescu (PPE ). – (RO) Mr President, Montenegro has made tangible progress in the seven priority areas identified by the European Commission a year ago. In this context, I too welcome the European Council’s decision to open accession negotiations with this country in June 2012. I believe that, in this way, reforms will be encouraged in all countries in the region, showing that internal progress is vital for the success of the European integration process.

I also call on the authorities of Montenegro to continue their efforts, particularly in the area of justice and combating corruption and organised crime. In this context, I think the Commission’s new strategy to open Chapters 23 and 24 at the start of negotiations is appropriate. I also emphasise the need for additional measures to improve the situation of the Roma, including by developing a new national strategy in this field.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE ). - (SK) Mr President, Charles Tannock deserves our thanks and compliments for his leadership in the preparation of this report, and for his unstinting support in the process of Montenegro's integration. The shadow rapporteurs also deserve recognition. Montenegro has made tangible progress in the integration agenda. It has achieved good results in the process of social transformation and reform, and the same applies to the Commission’s well-known seven priorities. These processes must continue further.

Many problems remain, of course, particularly in the area of the rule of law, the fight against organised crime and corruption, cooperation of the state with civil society and media freedom, but here too there are already results. These are long-term processes for which the EU has instruments available during the accession talks. Montenegro is the champion of the Western Balkans in terms of the path to the EU, and it is also a factor in regional stability. We must therefore continue to support the country in this effort.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE ). – (DE) Mr President, Montenegro is unmistakably a European country. It is the oldest modern state in the Balkans. As well as having a strong Slav culture and also a strong Albanian culture, it is a place where Christians and Muslims can come together. The minorities there have traditionally been given very good protection. This means that despite the many outstanding problems, Montenegro is in my opinion still on the right track and needs considerable support from us. This is why I welcome Mr Tannock’s excellent report and why I believe that the presence of a Montenegrin Commissioner and Montenegrin Members of the European Parliament would enrich the European Union. The country could become something like the Luxembourg of the Balkans.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me conclude my remarks by reiterating my congratulations to the rapporteur, Charles Tannock, for his informed contribution to today’s political debate. I am confident that this resolution sends the right message to Montenegro: one of both acknowledgement of the hard work delivered so far and strong encouragement to pursue the reform process with determination.

Montenegro is very close to opening accession negotiations. I am positive that, with the strong commitment of its people and our joint support, Montenegro will continue to set a positive example in the region by moving ahead in its European integration efforts. In line with the recent European Council conclusions, the Commission will present an interim report this spring on Montenegro’s progress in the implementation of reforms, in particular in the area of rule of law and fundamental rights. The report will especially look into continued progress on the seven key priorities since the adoption of our 2011 progress report. Should the report indicate further progress, the launching of accession talks by the Council in June would confirm the credibility of the enlargement process as a whole.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, the EU has given the citizens of Montenegro the hope of a future within the EU. This is a future and an aspiration that is now within reach. In Montenegro there is broad national agreement on the desire for EU membership, and it is impressive how far Montenegro has come in a short space of time in its efforts to draw closer to the EU.

In my capacity as a member of the Danish Presidency, I visited the country myself on 21 February this year. Whilst there, I saw a strong commitment on the part of Montenegro and a willingness to make reforms. In a short space of time, Montenegro has implemented many important reforms, including ones to develop a more effective rule of law and to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights. These are reforms that are in the interests of both Montenegro and the EU.

All of this is fine, but there is still a need for progress, particularly with regard to combating corruption and organised crime. In this regard, I look forward to the Commission’s next progress report, which will evaluate the many reform initiatives.

During the debate today we have touched on a number of the areas in which reform is required. There is broad agreement between the EU and Montenegro on which areas it is relevant to continue to work on, which I am pleased about. Montenegro’s future reform work should focus in particular on completing the constitutional reform, combating organised crime and corruption and effectively implementing the legislation that has been adopted, namely in areas such as the financing of political parties and anti-discrimination.

In this connection, I look forward to the completion of the work on the constitutional reform, which will increase the independence of the judiciary. The forthcoming reforms will, without doubt, shape citizens’ day-to-day lives and place considerable demands on them. In this regard, it is important that the country’s administrative capacity continues to be increased. One way this can be done is with a contribution from the EU’s Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, which up to now has been used to good effect in Montenegro.

With a small and open economy, Montenegro has also been hit by the crisis, and, like other places in Europe, it has the prospect of low economic growth and unemployment. For this reason, too, it is important for Montenegro to implement a policy that will promote growth conditions for the corporate sector. Montenegro has already made progress towards establishing a market economy, and further reforms will reinforce this development.

I am convinced that Montenegro will continue to do its best to fulfil its obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. Progress in terms of EU integration is, as we all know, based on merit. I am pleased that Montenegro has already succeeded in meeting a good number of the accession criteria.

When the countries involved in the EU integration process deliver, the EU must do the same. It is my hope that, during the Danish Presidency, we will be able to open accession negotiations with Montenegro in June. Of course, the progress we expect in connection with Montenegro’s EU integration will first and foremost benefit Montenegro itself, but I am convinced that this progress will also help to provide positive momentum for the efforts of the other countries in the Western Balkans to draw near to the EU. This matter is therefore important for Montenegro, the Balkans and the EU. It is a matter on which the Danish Presidency will work closely with Parliament and the Commission in order to achieve the results that we all agree we want to see, for the benefit of Montenegro and of Europe.

  President. − I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow (Thursday, 29 March 2012).

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Corina Creţu (S&D ), in writing. – (RO) Montenegro has achieved significant progress in the European integration process, managing to fulfil to a large extent the accession criteria by implementing important structural reforms. However, there are also a number of issues that Podgorica authorities have a duty to handle with utmost seriousness. I mean, primarily, the need to combat organised crime and respect the freedom of the press. Objective and timely investigations are necessary in all cases of attacks on journalists. We are also worried by the serious under-representation of women in decision-making positions and by the violation of women’s employment rights. These are obvious expressions of violation of gender equality. Last but not least, Montenegro is required to implement sustainable solutions for the problems of the 15 000 refugees on its territory.

  President. − The next item is the report by Rui Tavares, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the recommendation for second reading on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the general programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’ (06444/2/2012 – C7-0072/2012 – 2009/0127(COD) ) (A7-0063/2012 ).

  Rui Tavares, rapporteur. − (PT) Mr President, sometimes we have to remind ourselves where we came from. If we look at the history of international law on refugees, we see that founding the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in 1949, signing the Geneva Convention on refugees in 1951 and the first great effort to resettle refugees, which followed the 1956 revolution in Hungary, were targeted, all of them, at European refugees.

At that time, Europe was the continent of refugees. We Europeans often forget that was the case today when we see refugees arriving from the rest of the world.

We also have to think about the world in which we live. Refugees are the most vulnerable people in the world. Of the several million refugees that exist, the majority want to return home, to their country of origin. Some of them could stay in transit countries with which they sometimes have a cultural or linguistic affinity. However, a small proportion of refugees – estimated at around 200 000 per year by the UNHCR – can neither return home, where their lives would be at risk, nor stay where they are, in countries that are often not signatories of the Geneva Conventions.

They need, therefore, to be given access to a new life in a third country. Resettling refugees is a global, orderly and peaceful effort, in which we should all play our part, and Europe should play its part precisely because it remembers where it came from and its history. Europe currently resettles around 5 000 refugees per year, compared with around 100 000 who are resettled by other countries: the United States, mainly, Canada, Australia, or even new players such as Brazil or Chile. There is a need, then, to get to work, and we have been doing so in recent years. The codecision on the European Refugee Fund (ERF), which we voted on in this House now almost two years ago, introduces new humanitarian priorities with clearer categories; strategic priorities in the European Union’s neighbouring countries, where we could act to resolve critical humanitarian emergencies. It also introduces modulation between the support given to the Member States, so that we can attract all 27 Member States, since only 10 resettled refugees when we started this process and there are now 13 that want to do it.

The journey between two years ago and now, from its start under the Swedish Presidency to its conclusion under the Danish Presidency, has not been easy. During these several presidencies, there have been several obstacles and several moments of anguish in which lives were lost and people waited in refugee camps for longer than we would have wished.

From my point of view and, I believe, that of the European public and of many people in this House and the institutions, this is no way to make laws in life-and-death situations. There is a need, beyond the Treaty of Lisbon, which introduced the codecision procedure, for an interinstitutional agreement delivering clear timetables for making this kind of law.

We cannot delay two years in life-and-death situations. I must therefore thank the Danish Presidency, which has enabled us to conclude this process, on its activity and on the hard work it has done on this dossier; all the more so because Denmark has an opt-out in these areas, so it does not have access to monies from the ERF. It was disinterested work, noble work; as was, in fact, the majority of the work done in Parliament itself too. It is not going too far to remind you that it is not refugees who vote for the Members of this House, who pay your salaries with their taxes or who lead our political parties. However, from Greek Communists to UK Conservatives, there has been a huge alliance to bring this dossier to a good conclusion, for which I am very grateful.

I should like to conclude by reminding you of the Commission itself, where the process was started. To represent the many Commission officials, I should like to mention a person who worked on this dossier for two years and unfortunately passed away when agreement had already been reached but before it was adopted here: our colleague and friend Stefania Pasquetti, whose work, like the work of many people who worked on this dossier, will live on as long as we are able to resettle one more family of refugees; to double or triple the number of refugees settled in the world.

Thank you very much and many thanks to all the people who worked on this dossier.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am really happy to be here today. It has, as the rapporteur has said, been a long journey to where we stand today, and I would like to thank Mr Tavares for his commitment, his endeavours and his hard work to finally achieve a result in this dossier. I would also like to thank all the presidencies that have been involved, and the Danish Presidency that has now brought it to a successful conclusion.

Many people have worked on this and thank you, Mr Tavares, for mentioning Stefania Pasquetti. She and many others at the Commission did a lot of work and she was very committed. As you said, she very tragically died unexpectedly a few weeks ago. She would have been very happy today to see that we have finally reached an agreement between the three institutions, with overwhelming support from the European Parliament. I would like this to be a tribute to her work.

When we proposed the establishment of the programme back in 2009, our aim was to make sure that more refugees in situations of extreme vulnerability could be given more stable lives by resettling them in the European Union.

We proposed not only to increase refugee resettlement to the EU, but also to use and to pool our resources in a more strategic way. In order to achieve this, increased funding was offered to Member States new to resettling refugees. We also had the idea of annual selection of resettlement priorities. This was intended to widen the scope of refugees that could be resettled under the European Refugee Fund. In this way more people can be given the possibility to have a life in dignity and safety, offering them a future in which they can live rather than merely survive.

I am so proud and happy that today we have managed to overcome all the differences in a spirit of good compromise and to see our work on this file completed. Today’s legislation runs to the end of 2013, but the new asylum and migration fund that we have proposed for the coming financial perspective, 2014 to 2020, includes a reinforced and ambitious resettlement component.

Furthermore, in line with the suggestions made by the European Parliament, we are working this year on the implementation of a pilot project on resettlement in emergency situations which allows for even more resettlement to take place in the European Union.

As you know, we had to overcome a last-minute snag in the legislative negotiations on the legal basis for the proposal, so I would like to read out a specific declaration on this issue by the Commission: ‘The Commission, in a spirit of compromise and in order to ensure the immediate adoption of the proposal, supports the final text; however, it notes that this is without prejudice to its right of initiative with regard to the choice of legal bases, in particular in reference to the future use of Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.’

By establishing this programme, we are sending a very strong signal to the international community that the European Union recognises the need for more resettlement of refugees and of our commitment to give shelter and protection and a durable solution for refugees.

Thank you all for your work on this; I am looking forward to a very strong endorsement in the vote tomorrow.

  Georgios Papanikolaou, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (EL) Mr President, we too should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Tavares, for his efforts over the past two years and more. My thanks also to the Commissioner, for everything he has told us today. We are all delighted that, after so much debate here in plenary, we have now completed efforts and negotiations on this refugee resettlement programme. I too would remind the House that it is important for us to provide more incentives for the Member States to get involved in the programme and that it is very important for us to increase the contribution made by Europe in meeting the needs of all these people, who number approximately 200 000 a year at global level and who need a new country for reasons that we are all aware of.

Allow me, however, to make the following observations: it does not do honour to any of us that, while all these events were unfolding in North Africa, we took so long to adopt our final decisions, for reasons that we are all aware of. Nor does it do honour to any of us that all these negotiations, that lasted over two years, ultimately resulted in a programme that will only be applied for one year in 2013. We need to at least try, in the next period, to make the best possible use of these data. In the next programme, in the next financial period, we need to make use of this year, we need to evaluate it quickly, we need to see its pros and cons, so that we can lay the foundations, the cornerstone, for further efforts on our part.

I listened very carefully to the Commissioner’s statement. That statement proves that we shall have to engage in very important negotiations over the time remaining. We must not delay those negotiations. We all supported this programme right from the start. Also, we have all said that this programme should be combined with the internal resettlement or reallocation programme in Europe and that is something that we all expect to be working on in the current period. My congratulations, therefore, once again and let us hope that the application of this programme next year will be the starting point for much more important work by Europe in this sector in coming years.