Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 16 September 1998 - Strasbourg

6. Customs Union with Turkey

  President . – The next item is the report (A4‐0251/98) by Mr McMillan‐Scott, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, on developments in relations with Turkey since the entry into force of the Customs Union.

  McMillan‐Scott (PPE), rapporteur. – (EN) Madam President, during the debate in the European Parliament in the autumn of 1995 on Parliament's assent to the Customs Union with Turkey, the Commission undertook to submit an annual report to Parliament on the evolution of relations with Turkey. That was to include consideration of the economic and political aspects – among them the democratic process and the human rights situation in Turkey.

The Commission forwarded its first report to Parliament on 30 October 1996, followed by a second report on 3 March 1998 and then the European strategy for Turkey in July of this year.

The Commission's reports were divided into five sections: functioning of the Customs Union; other aspects of implementation of the agreements; economic situation in Turkey; the political situation; and human rights.

In both reports the Commission gives a favourable assessment of the functioning of the Customs Union, remarking on positive aspects such as the setting up of a competition authority, the signing of free trade agreements with a number of Central and Eastern European countries, progress in harmonising tariffs, and so on. Mention of course is made of the political difficulties within the EU in making operational the financial instruments agreed by the Council.

As far as the economic situation in Turkey is concerned, the Commission notes the strong growth achieved but, at the same time, points to the difficulties in sustaining that growth – Turkey's ability to control inflation, currently at about 100 %, its public deficit and other structural problems. Some may consider the Commission's report unduly pessimistic. In the political, diplomatic and human rights fields the Commission sees few signs of encouragement and little in the way of progress.

With regard to human rights, the public recognition by the authorities at the highest level of the need to tackle this serious issue is seen as a positive development.

The European Parliament voted in favour of the Customs Union in December 1995 despite considerable reservations in the light of the political situation in Turkey. In so doing, Parliament wanted to stress the importance of this partner in the geopolitical context (Turkey is a NATO member, a WEU observer and a participant in the new Euro‐Mediterranean partnership), and, at the same time, to register a gesture of confidence in the Turkish Government, to encourage it to pursue the anchorage of Turkey in the democratic values of Europe.

Parliament has also reached an agreement with the Commission that a joint working party of the two institutions will examine whether the MEDA programmes with Turkey are in accordance with its resolutions, particularly that of 15 September 1996. Myself – along with Piet Dankert, who is co‐chairman of the EC‐Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee – are members of this working party.

The economic effects of the Customs Union appear so far to have been substantially beneficial for the EU. I am very grateful to the REX Committee and its rapporteur, Mr Schweiger, for its examination of this particular point.

It should also be remembered that the Luxembourg European Council, on 12 and 13 December, confirmed Turkey's eligibility for EU accession and stipulated that it would be judged on the same criteria as the other applicant states.

Turkey was also invited to take part at the European Conference on 12 March – confirmation that it would in future figure in the enlargement process. However, we are disappointed at Turkey's failure to appear at that meeting.

The entry into force of the Customs Union is an essential stage on the road to Turkish accession. Although Turkey does not at present meet the accession criteria, its eligibility to join the EU at some stage has never been in doubt. It has been confirmed on various occasions. The Union's general objective must be to help Turkey overcome its problems and continue its integration into the EU. The Association Agreement and the Customs Union Agreement form the basis for the establishment of ever closer political and economic ties. As part of this process the EU must give special emphasis to the following points: firstly, moving Turkey towards full democratisation and safeguarding human rights; secondly, establishing good neighbourly relations between Greece and Turkey; thirdly, observing the principles of international law; and lastly, finding a solution to the Cyprus question.

  Giansily (UPE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (FR) Madam President, the excellent report by our colleague Mr McMillan‐Scott on the development of relations with Turkey has aroused a great deal of interest in the Committee on Budgets. The committee has tried to improve the report slightly by proposing six amendments which we hope will be considered favourably by the House in the final vote.

I believe that the European Union has a duty to offer a helping hand to Turkey. Does not the word ‘Europe" come from the banks of the Bosporus, a place of magical exchange between East and West and also the birthplace, over twenty centuries ago, of modern day Athens and scene of the Trojan war? I would like to be able to say today, as Jean Giraudoux said, that ‘the Trojan war will not take place" and that the efforts made over recent years by the Turkish authorities are enough for us to open the doors of the EU to Turkey.

However, there are still a few remaining obstacles which are included as amendments. The Committee on Budgets first asks that we examine in more detail the budgetary impact of the implementation and strengthening of the Customs Union in relation to the EU"s revenue. We would then ask that, as part of the MEDA programme, the work of the working party on democracy and the protection of human rights should be taken into account, since Parliament attaches particular importance to it.

In the third amendment, the Committee on Budgets calls on the Council to notify Parliament of initiatives jointly undertaken with the Turkish authorities to unblock the adoption of the financial regulation on special aid for Turkey. Amendment No 4 highlights Parliament"s interest in Turkey"s participation in the Youth for Europe, Leonardo and Socrates programmes. Lastly, Amendments Nos 5 and 6 note the need to use the European Union"s budget to consolidate the Customs Union, which was also highlighted by the Commission. But the Committee on Budgets would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of the role of codecision in the annual budgetary procedure and therefore of the need for the committee"s approval if funds are to be made available.

  Schwaiger (PPE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on External Economic Relations. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner van den Broek, ladies and gentlemen, in all its reports and opinions concerning Turkey, the position of the Committee on External Economic Relations has been based on practice and actual problems. Its motto has been ‘Out with all‐or‐nothing postures and in with a gradual deepening of relations". What we are discussing today is not the question of Turkish membership but the consolidation of the achievements of the Customs Union and the implementation of the accompanying policies that have not yet been put into effect; these things need to be done in a spirit of partnership and equality between the two sides.

Every step taken by the European Union and Turkey, separately or together, to solve the problems relating to the Customs Union and to develop accompanying policies injects fresh impetus into political cooperation and brings eventual Turkish membership a little closer. It is therefore particularly gratifying that, in its memorandum of 23 July 1998, the Turkish Government responds to the proposals of the Commission and Parliament, abandons the path of confrontation with the European Union and returns to the step‐by‐step approach as formulated in Cardiff by our side, by the European Council.

We in the Committee on External Economic Relations support most of these proposals, such as the intensification of dialogue on the liberalisation of capital movements and the coordination of economic policies in general, as well as closer cooperation in the agricultural sector. We are also gratified to note that the Turkish side is favourably disposed to our proposals on the opening‐up of the market in services and calls for a relatively high consistent level of integration in the framework of the association agreement. Initial steps towards this goal are a technical study and negotiations on the mutual recognition of diplomas and certificates.

The flexibility of the Turkish side on freedom of movement for Turkish workers in the European Union must also be welcomed. However, the Committee on External Economic Relations also calls on the European Union and Parliament to remove obstacles and prior conditions where they still exist and to ensure that the accompanying measures provided for in the agreement on customs union are adopted at long last. As Mr Giansily said, and as was also expressed in Mr McMillanScott's excellent report, we should let Turkey enjoy the benefits of the Leonardo, Socrates and Youth for Europe programmes as soon as possible so that it can work with us on these programmes, since they help to strengthen pluralist society and consolidate democracy.

The regulation on special financial aid for Turkey should also be released from the Greek veto as soon as possible and enter into force. Here too the Commission bears particular responsibility in the search for a means of finally ending this blockage. The same applies to Turkish participation in the tourist‐related Interreg, Leader and Philoxena programmes, the specific conditions of which remain to be negotiated. There is also a need for small and medium‐sized businesses to be promoted through the extension to Turkey of the third multiannual programme. The same applies to the Euro‐Info Centres, PC Net, Europartenariat and Enterprise.

  Schulz (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in contrast to the previous speaker, whose task on behalf of his committee was to highlight the economic aspects of cooperation within the Customs Union, the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs has to examine the Customs Union from a different perspective, namely in terms of the human rights situation and the development of democracy in Turkey. In his extremely interesting report, Mr McMillan‐Scott addressed a number of such points, on which I should like to reiterate three fundamental observations that played a significant part in the debate on the Customs Union back in 1995. In a two‐stage process, the European Parliament held two debates in the spring and in the winter of that year to pave the way for its decision. These debates were invariably dominated by three points.

Firstly, the intensification and advancement of democracy in Turkey is an indispensable condition for the development of the Customs Union into an instrument of ever closer cooperation. Secondly, as a regional power, Turkey also has an obligation to proceed on the principle of peaceful resolution of external and internal conflicts and to be active in search of solutions. Thirdly, as a partner of the European Union, Turkey must ensure that human rights are fully protected and defended by the Turkish State within its territory.

How do things look in practice? In practice, it looks as though some progress towards democratisation may have been made here and there. The external and internal military conflicts remain unresolved. On the human rights issue, although the freely elected government is trying hard – I certainly will not dispute that – it cannot be said that human rights are fully protected by the authorities in Turkey. On the contrary, in some cases the authorities are still the instigators of human rights abuses. That is why our committee does not believe that the circumstances we criticised in 1995 have altered very much in the intervening period, a view I can substantiate by reference to the Kurdistan conflict, the situation in the Aegean and the cases of torture that still persist. Nevertheless, I do not wish to deny that Turkey has made progress, and we can only appeal to the politicians in Turkey to keep trying to achieve still higher levels of compliance with the criteria I have enumerated.

  Deprez (PPE), draftsman of the supplementary opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as draftsman for the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs, I would like to join Mr Schulz in expressing my general satisfaction with the excellent report drawn up by our colleague Mr McMillanScott.

As far as general principles are concerned, there are three elements in this report which we believe should form the basis for relations between the European Union and Turkey. The first guiding principle should be that of non‐discrimination. Mr McMillan Scott quite rightly reminds us that Turkey should not be treated any more harshly than any other candidate country. Any request for membership should be examined solely on the basis of respect for the Copenhagen criteria.

The second principle is not being too lenient. We must not turn a blind eye to serious violations of human rights because Turkey is an ally, or because it is in a strategically important position, or because the majority of Turkish leaders are constantly announcing their desire to join the EU. Nor should we turn a blind eye to the lack of respect shown for minorities, the constant use of violence, or the temptation to resort to violence to solve problems with neighbouring countries. This application for accession is a demand for quality. It should not be considered as a safe conduct to do as they please, and nor is it a passport for impunity.

The third principle is to reject a policy of isolation. The European Union will not make a worthwhile contribution to development and democracy by isolating Turkey. It is in the interests of development and democracy that Mr McMillanScott"s report suggests holding planned ministerial meetings, fully honouring all aspects of the Customs Union and developing aid for Turkish civil society.

On behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties in particular, I would like to express my pleasure at finding two requests in this report which match our priorities and which have already been pointed out by other speakers: the enlargement of the Socrates, Leonardo and Youth for Europe programmes and the need for the Turkish Government to cooperate fully and actively with the European Union in the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking.

  President . – Before giving the floor to Mr van den Broek, I would inform the House that he unfortunately has to leave us after his speech for pressing reasons connected with the situation in Russia. I would make it clear that Mr Monti will take over from him immediately.

  van den Broek, Member of the Commission. – (NL) My thanks to Mr McMillan‐Scott and his colleagues Messrs Giansily, Schwaiger, Schulz and Deprez for their contributions to the debate and for Mr McMillan‐Scott"s report which I read with great interest. More generally, I am grateful to him for his efforts to move forward our often rather complicated relations with Turkey, both as rapporteur and above all as a member of the European Parliament"s contact group or Joint Working Party. The conclusions of this report of Mr McMillan‐Scott"s broadly square with the Commission"s own findings. We share your view that generally speaking the Customs Union is working satisfactorily, despite a very considerable trade surplus in the European Union"s favour. At the same time, we note that progress has not been good enough in the areas of democratic reform and human rights, though I am happy to agree with Mr Schulz that there are signs of improvement here and there.

You rightly pointed to the importance of not isolating Turkey. I think we have a duty to remain actively involved in developments in Turkey. Using the means open to us and the MEDA programme on democracy, we must cooperate with nongovernmental organisations and give support wherever possible to positive and democratic forces in Turkey, with a view to consolidating civil society as a basis for stable, democratic developments in that country in future. Turkish participation in student and teacher exchanges under the Socrates, Leonardo and ‘Youth for Europe" programmes can make a very positive contribution here. I am happy to echo Mr Schwaiger in saying that. And I hope Parliament will be quick to support the Commission"s proposal on that. The European Parliament has always followed the progress of relations with Turkey very attentively and has played a very prominent part in them. Through the Joint Working Party you are kept informed of what the Commission is doing under the MEDA programme. Cooperation in this group is certainly working satisfactorily at present, we believe. So far the Commission has accepted virtually all the European Parliament"s opinions on project proposals. So I honestly see no virtue in proposals to change the operation of this group even though in essence it is, I have to agree, an institutional anomaly.

Your report urges the Commission to submit an annual report on the functioning of the Customs Union to the European Parliament in advance of the budgetary procedure, before the end of October. I promise you that the Commission will make every effort to get the report out as swiftly as possible. But I should add that there may always be reasons for delaying publication, as you will recall from last year when the intensive discussions with the Turkish authorities, prior to the European Council in Luxembourg, warranted delaying the publication of that report.

And this discussion continued in Cardiff, as you will remember, where the conclusions of the European summit expressly reaffirmed Turkey"s eligibility for membership of the Union. As you know Turkey did not – much to our regret – take part in the first European Conference in March 1998 and also decided at the very last moment not to attend the proposed Association Council meeting in May. And Turkey"s decision following the European Council meeting in Luxembourg to break off political dialogue with the European Union in areas we regard as very important, namely Cyprus, Greek‐Turkish relations and issues of human rights and democracy, naturally did little to move forward our relations in general.

I am convinced, Madam President, that the European strategy for Turkey which the Commission adopted in March and which received the blessing of the Heads of State and Government in Cardiff points the way towards a deepening of ties between the European Union and Turkey. Turkey herself reacted positively to this document and the two sides will shortly be consulting on a programme and timetable for implementation of this strategy. I hope that Turkey, in tandem with the deepening of the relations between us based on the Ankara Agreement of 1963, the Customs Union and the European strategy, will come to the realisation that she has everything to gain from reopening the political dialogue. Cardiff reaffirmed that Turkey"s future lies in Europe. It was also decided that an annual progress report would be compiled for Turkey and for the ten countries in Central and Eastern Europe, plus Cyprus. It was stated in Cardiff that this report had to be based on Article 28 of the 1963 Ankara Agreement and on the conclusions of the European Council meeting in Luxembourg. This report is no different, in terms of its approach, from the reports for the other countries.

I think it is in Turkey"s interest to take part in the second European Conference scheduled for 5 October, given that issues of mutual concern will be discussed there. But I understand, if the rumours are correct, that Turkey is not at present intending to take part in this meeting on 5 October.

As you know, the Commission made it clear in its document on a European strategy for Turkey that certain proposals could not be implemented without appropriate financial aid. The Member States also acknowledged that in Cardiff. Thus the Commission is currently, also at the request of the Heads of Government, studying the various ways and means of putting a proposal to the Council accordingly and it goes without saying that the European Parliament too will play an important part in that process.

To conclude, Madam President, I believe the European Union has made considerable efforts to get relations with Turkey back on track.

  Titley (PSE). – (EN) Madam President, we are delighted that at long last we have received the McMillan‐Scott report in plenary. It is a very important report that gives us the opportunity not only to look at the operation of the Customs Union but to give some preliminary reflections on the future direction of relations with Turkey, in anticipation of Mr Swodoba's report which hopefully we will have before the end of the year.

It also gives us a very important opportunity to stress once again in public to Turkey that as far as we are concerned: they are a strategically important country; we recognise their European vocation; and they will be treated exactly the same as other countries which seek to join in the European Union in terms of applying the Copenhagen criteria. It is clearly important that we keep stating and restating that case.

Having said that, we should always bear in mind that Turkey is essentially an agrarian society rapidly transforming itself into an industrial society. Many of the economic, political and social problems that we identify stem from that single fact. Clearly part of our job is to aid that transformation to an industrial society and aid the transformation to a modern democratic, pluralistic society.

The Customs Union is part of the strategy which, as Commissioner van den Broek has indicated, the European Community has been pursuing since 1963. Notwithstanding what Mr McMillan‐Scott said about the asymmetrical nature of the Customs Union benefitting us more than it has benefitted Turkey, that position is definitely beginning to change gradually.

One of the effects of Customs Union is to encourage the business community and greater entrepreneurial activity. That is the area we should be concentrating on in the development of the Customs Union; encouraging more entrepreneurial activity, more activity with the business community, more activity with the free and democratic trade unions.

We also need to improve administrative and professional standards in Turkey which are frequently woefully inadequate. We must focus on that and indeed encourage the development of better academic and professional standards through exchanges and interrelations with academia in the European Union.

I am also told that one of the problems we have in Turkey is that there is often very poor quality of translation into Turkish from European Union languages, which leads to misunderstandings about standards. Again, we could be working on those areas.

That is not to say we should ignore the areas which have been outlined by Commissioner van den Broek and Mr McMillanScott. We still have to state constantly and categorically our concern for human rights and democracy in Turkey. We also have to make it clear that Turkey has to recognise the right of Cyprus to negotiate to join the European Union if we are to develop relations.

Finally, I urge us to work with the media, work with politicians who are looking to liberalise Turkey and work with lawyers and members of the judiciary to improve standards in Turkey as a means of developing greater political dialogue.

  Lambrias (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, it is most unfortunate for the European Union and for the Turkish people that the leadership in Ankara and their lackeys in the occupied parts of Cyprus have no intention of complying with the basic principles of international law, or indeed with the rationale of pragmatism.

It will soon be a year since the Luxembourg decision which defined very clearly the conditions that would allow Turkey to extend its association with Europe and improve its prospects of accession. Ankara's reactions during that time have been through every manifestation of unreasonableness: anger to begin with, indignation, abuse, threats, and an astonishing disregard for Europe"s fundamental principles.

More particularly, against its neighbour Greece which, let it be noted, out of all 15 of our countries would be the one which stood to gain most satisfaction and benefit from Turkey's approach to the European family, Turkey escalated its harassments in the Aegean, which could have led to the outbreak of war, escalated its disputes affecting Greece's territorial integrity, and sabotaged every attempt to begin a constructive dialogue. And top Turkish leaders were brought into the part of Cyprus still under military occupation, to direct its incorporation into Turkey if Europe's declared policy on the accession of that independent republic were brought to a successful conclusion.

Now, in the face of the impasse brought about by this intransigence, which has been confirmed by every envoy sent by Europe and America, Mr Denktash has set off like a firework the idea that he is disposed to negotiate a confederal solution, believing that some people might be naive enough to think that he has softened his attitude. In reality, he is proposing to consign the successive UNO decisions to the dustbin, to reward the Turkish invasion and to perpetuate the 24‐year tragedy of Cyprus. Only if the European Union stands firm will any Turkish leadership see reason and open the way towards the closest and most effective possible cooperation, to the benefit of both Europe and the Turkish people.

  Bertens (ELDR). – (NL) Madam President, my thanks to the Commission for its reports on the operation of the Customs Union and, it goes without saying, to Mr McMillan‐Scott too for his very readable and interesting document. I expected nothing less from him.

The Commission"s reports give us every opportunity to trace the pattern of developments in Turkey. There is every reason why we should, because after all these years relations between the Union and Turkey have got considerably worse. The Turkish Government"s refusal to take part in the European Conference and Turkey"s action in breaking off the political dialogue with the Union are bad and regrettable developments. Commissioner van den Broek was right in identifying them as such.

The Union"s position is plain. Turkey is treated just like all other applicants, very simply, on the basis of criteria, the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey is and remains a candidate for membership. But she does not meet the criteria which have been set. It is entirely up to her: if she changes things, the situation can be reviewed.

Meanwhile we have to work with the instruments we have to keep relations with Turkey on a good footing. Happily, the Customs Union is working well. The Commission is quite properly looking to see if ties can be consolidated in other areas too. The impasse over the MEDA funds and the financial protocols is a cause for concern, but we hope that creative thinking on Europe"s part and moves towards democracy on Turkey"s part will lead us out of the impasse.

The Customs Union was not only about free markets, but also about European aid to Turkey. Europe is willing to help. All the Turkish Government has to do now is to act on its word – its word of March 1995.

We are still waiting for an improvement on human rights. We are still waiting for a change in Turkey"s position on the Kurds. We are still waiting for a breakthrough on Cyprus. Instead of a willingness to compromise, Turkey is showing rather the opposite, with a process of gradual but at least verbal annexation.

I urge the Turkish Government to resume its dialogue with the Union. Only through talking can we find common ground. Only then can we survive together. Only then can we find solutions to the problems we share. Only then can we make progress along the road to Turkey"s accession.

  Daskalaki (UPE). – (EL) Madam President, in his report Mr McMillan‐Scott sets out all the problems which tarnish relations between the European Union and Turkey, and attempts with his well‐founded comments to indicate, mainly to Turkey, the path it should follow if such debates are to become unnecessary in the future.

The problems are familiar and have often been explained. In December 1995, the European Parliament gave the green light to the agreement on a Customs Union with Turkey, but it laid down specific prerequisites concerning human rights, which are constantly being violated, the Kurdish problem, and the more general issue of relations between Turkey and Greece – a Member State of the European Union – and the situation in Cyprus. The Commission is still responsible for strict monitoring of the situation and for keeping Parliament informed well in time before the next year's budget is considered, and it is encouraging that Commissioner van den Broek promised to do this a little while ago.

The rapporteur stressed all this and also explained that any harsh statements he made apply to those in power in a Turkey under military control and not to the Turkish people, who have themselves had much to put up with. Unfortunately, however, as we all know, nothing has changed in Turkey since the Customs Union. Human rights violations have intensified and threats outside Turkey have multiplied. On the other hand, in the West there are many who speak in favour of Realpolitik . Europe, they say, has major economic and strategic interests in Turkey, so large, it seems, that it often sets aside some of its principles to accommodate them. But the question remains: what is to be done?

Mr McMillan‐Scott's proposals are very interesting. The idea is not to isolate Turkey, but to make it understand that Europe has set certain terms and that it insists absolutely on them. Most of the measures proposed by the rapporteur go in the right direction, and so do the amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets, which Mr Giansily referred to earlier and which we should support.

  Carnero González (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Madam President, I feel that at this stage, we need to ask ourselves two basic questions.

Firstly, how has the situation in Turkey developed since December 1995? Secondly, how far has the entry into force of the Customs Union, approved by this Parliament at that time, influenced developments?

I believe that the answers to both questions are fairly obvious, but also disheartening.

No positive developments have taken place in Turkish political life. There has been no progress concerning democratic principles nor in respect for human rights. Turkey is failing to observe international law and to control its dirty war against the Kurdish people.

In this sense, we did not send out the right message when we approved the Customs Union in December 1995. The authorities in Ankara were not encouraged to move forward, to restructure and modernise the State, and start to transform Turkey into a fully democratic state, subject to the rule of law. On the contrary, the effects of the message were patently harmful.

However, a few months ago, in Luxemburg, the European Council returned to the position of requiring exactly the same from Turkey as it does from all other countries, exactly the same as is required from any individual. We have to be in favour of a relationship on equal terms between the European Union and Turkey. This relationship must be shown to be open and of mutual benefit, whilst contributing to the development of the country. Anything else would be a mistake.

There is a great deal of truth in Mr McMillan‐Scott"s report, although it is, in my view, too weak. Perhaps, on the occasion of the award of this year"s Sakharov Prize – I understand that Mr Birdal has been nominated – Parliament will be able to send out the right message.

  Aelvoet (V). – (NL) Madam President, I am especially pleased to see Commissioner Monti here with us today, but no national parliament would tolerate the minister responsible leaving the chamber during the debate. Anyway, now to the matter in hand.

It is somewhat surprising to hear from the Commission or read in the Commission"s dossier that more than two years on from the introduction of the Customs Union between the European Union and Turkey, that Customs Union is working satisfactorily. Particularly of late, relations between the Union and Turkey have never been more tense. We have been on the very brink of a crisis.

I think we should be worried, ladies and gentlemen, that since the introduction of the Customs Union the economic benefits have been so unilaterally in the Union"s favour, with so little benefit to Turkey. I know there has been a slight improvement, but unless the balance is redressed properly in the near future this will naturally be perceived in Turkey as a very bad thing. I well recall hearing a majority view during the debate here in the European Parliament that this Customs Union ought to benefit to both sides.

In economic terms at least, our finding is that this is not yet altogether the case. Nor has this Union brought much by way of the hoped‐for improvements in human rights, protection of minorities and so on. But I very much feel that the prospect of membership should remain open, though that does not mean we can scale down the demands we have to impose by way of political criteria. But I would like to make the point that the argument of non‐discrimination, so clearly adduced here by everybody, would have carried greater weight if the European Union had taken a tougher line on Slovakia, since the Commission document clearly states that Slovakia does not meet the political criteria either.

Lastly, I hope that in the interests of the Union and the Turkish people, relations within the framework of the Customs Union will help to foster prosperity and democracy in both areas.

  Mégret (NI). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if the European Union was as it should be, we would not be here today debating the Customs Union with Turkey. And the reason for this is very simple; Europe should be European and Turkey is not European. Whatever the advantages, respect or friendship we can offer to this large country, the truth is that it does not share our common European civilisation. Turkey is not similar to Europe, neither geographically, historically, culturally nor religiously. And although for geopolitical reasons, stronger relations between the Europe and Turkey may seem an attractive prospect, to bring these relations into the EU"s structures and to talk of possible membership is preposterous.

Yet the fact that we are indeed doing this shows how dangerous the current idea of Europe is, since it misjudges our identity completely in order to concentrate on purely commercial needs. Worse still, on a purely economic level, all the indications are that bringing Turkey further into the EU will damage our productive apparatus because of major structural differences between Turkey and Europe, in particular the low labour costs in Turkey. And this is without mentioning the fact that Turkish immigration in western Europe is destabilising the social balance of our nations. Consequently, it is rather surprising to see the European Union consistently easing the conditions it claims to impose before granting aid. It is an appalling situation for the Union to be in, almost begging for greater cooperation with Turkey.

For our part, the National Front does not approve of the Customs Union and we refuse to accept Turkey"s membership of the Union, whilst maintaining friendly relations, as such a policy is against the essence and the interests of Europe.

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are examining the success or failure of the Customs Union with Turkey. I should like to congratulate Mr McMillan‐Scott on his report and to thank him for our close cooperation. Since I am to present the next report to the House, this cooperation was very important to me.

As far as economic success is concerned, there is every reason to conclude today that, as Mr Titley has already said, after an initial phase of disequilibrium, a balance is gradually being established in economic relations between Turkey and the European Union. To that extent the Customs Union can certainly be termed a success.

In social terms it is also possible to speak of success, in so far as those elements in Turkish society with an interest in a Western‐style democratic republic have been strengthened. I refer primarily to the entrepreneurs, employers' associations and trade unions, who can now cite the benefits of Customs Union to back up their call for a modern Turkey, for a country organised in accordance with the rule of law.

From a political point of view, however, I sadly have to note that progress on the way to parliamentary democracy, respect for human rights and the will to resolve the internal and external political problems and conflicts in a peaceful manner are not as much in evidence as we would wish. For that reason, let me appeal most earnestly to the Turkish Government to remember that it not only needs good economic relations with the European Union, that it not only needs to develop democracy in Turkey but that it also needs to live in a peaceful environment if it is serious about joining the European Union.

I should like to stress once again that Turkey certainly has the potential to accede to the European Union and must be equipped to do so. We shall assess Turkey against the same criteria, the Copenhagen criteria, which we apply to all the other candidate countries. But Turkey should also make greater use of the existing Customs Union in order to carve out its own path towards the European Union.

  Langen (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a fact that relations between the European Union and Turkey have deteriorated over the past few months. There are many different reasons for that, and we need not discuss them all today. What is clear, however, is that Turkey has contributed to this worsening of relations through the defiant attitude it adopted after the Luxembourg summit. Our concern – and the purpose of Mr McMillan‐Scott's report, to which I add my support – is to find a new beginning.

Now that our colleagues have given us all these economic data on the Customs Union, it is time to make political progress, and there are some questions here for the European Union to answer. For example, there is the question why we have not yet put the financial part of the Customs Union into effect after all this time. Why have we failed to provide ECU 30 million to train customs personnel and to equip the customs services when there are Turkish customs posts at the external border of the European Union? Is this the proper way to proceed?

We have this coordination between the Commission and Parliament under the MEDA programme, and rightly so, but if we want to put our relations with Turkey on a sound footing again, we must face up to our own responsibilities. That is why our group seeks a new beginning. Despite the lack of progress on human rights and democracy, we want the Customs Union to be implemented in a balanced manner and we do not want to block its financial resources any longer.

We have tabled some amendments to this end, and I hope that the amendments proposed by the Committee on Budgets pursue the same objective, because at the end of the day how can we make it clear that Turkish accession is possible in the distant future if we cannot honour our own obligations pursuant to a valid international agreement? That is why I argue that, despite all the problems we have with Turkey on human rights problems, the issue of the Kurds or relations with Greece, it is high time we fulfilled our obligations and thereby created a new basis for EU‐Turkish relations.

  Lindqvist (ELDR). – (SV) Madam President, one of the first things I was involved with in this House was the decision on the Customs Union with Turkey. That debate took place on 4 October 1995 and I voted against. Many of those who voted in favour, however, did so on the understanding that Turkey would meet its side of the agreement – which it has failed to do. Undertakings were given on democracy, human rights, the war against the Kurds, torture and persecution. All these things were going on then and continue going on now, several years after the agreement was signed.

If Turkey is not keeping to its commitments, then it is only natural that we should start considering abrogation. I nonetheless feel that Turkey should be given as fair a chance as possible.

  Alavanos (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, the McMillan‐Scott report provides a basis, it contains a few ambiguities, but I believe that with the amendments it will turn out to be a good resolution.

As for Turkey, the issue must be made clear. The problem is not that Turkey is an Islamic country, nor that much of it extends into Asia, nor that it has a large population, nor that it has underdeveloped zones. Like any other European country, Turkey indeed has a right to become a member of the European Union, but it also has corresponding obligations. Those obligations have been clearly stated with a view to justifying the Customs Union: the Cyprus and Kurdish problems, human rights, and relations with its neighbours. But it has taken not a single step towards meeting those obligations, and that is why both the Turkish Government itself and the European Union's bodies are in an exposed position.

I think we must insist, we must say that the doors are open and that the ball is now in Turkey's court. Especially today, we must lend weight to two issues and I call on the Commission and the Council to mobilise their efforts towards them and abandon their inertia. One concerns the fact that with the presence of Turkey's Minister for Foreign Affairs the Denktash regime has rejected the UN basis for a solution to the Cyprus problem, in other words a federal two‐zone entity, and is talking about a confederation and separate states. The other is that Turkey must take steps to withdraw its forces so that more general demilitarisation can take place on the island.

  Cellai (NI). – (IT) Madam President, we expressed the view on 15 December 1995 that the vote on the Customs Union with Turkey could be nothing other than an act of political flexibility in recognition of that country's key strategic role, given the upsurge in intolerable and highly dangerous religious extremism affecting a number of Turkey's neighbouring states. At the same time, we demanded a strong reminder of the need to respect human and political rights, above all those of ethnic minorities, first and foremost the Kurdish people.

Since then we have kept a careful eye on the delicate shifts in Turkey's domestic political situation: the formation of the 55th government and the Constitutional Court's decision to dissolve the Islamic party; the constitutional situation, including most recently the new law on police custody, while the irregular role of the army in society remains a cause for concern; the human rights situation – the Commission has provided a good deal of useful assistance to NGOs in this field – in particular the Kurdish question, the deterioration of which has caused the exodus that has brought thousands of Kurds to EU countries, Italy in particular, in search of refuge and a future. Here we would reiterate the advisability of an exclusively political solution, in parallel with the one for Cyprus, as was agreed at the Edinburgh summit which – in point of fact – dissociated the start of accession negotiations from the peace process.

On 29 April 1997, the Union confirmed to the Association Council that Turkey was eligible to join the EU, stipulating that it would be judged on the same criteria as the other applicant states. The same view emerged at the Luxembourg European Council. Therefore, although the Commission's report points out that there has been little progress concerning human rights and democratisation in Turkey, Europe is still of the opinion that Turkish accession is a useful and sensible aim; the Customs Union was a significant step in this direction.

The Alleanza Nazionale intends to vote in favour of the McMillan‐Scott report. We share in particular its assessment of the importance of the democratisation process and the safeguarding of human rights – including those of the Kurds – as well as the aim of establishing good neighbourly relations between Turkey and Greece, partly through a settlement of the Cyprus question. Finally, Alleanza Nazionale endorses the proposal to open up Community programmes to Turkish youngsters, and calls on the Commission to appeal strongly to the Turkish authorities to step up their efforts to combat drug trafficking.

  Katiforis (PSE). – (EL) Madam President, I am speaking on behalf of Mr Roubatis, who is a member of the Committee on External Relations and cannot be here today.

I read Mr McMillan‐Scott's report very carefully and I must say I find it very good. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and assure him of my support. I also noted the amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets, and I hope they will be adopted because I believe they correctly express the call for a closer analysis of the financial consequences of Customs Union and for Parliament to be informed about any political initiatives undertaken by the Council together with the Turkish authorities.

I would also like to remind the House that when it approved the Customs Union on 13 December 1995, it specified a series of conditions such as compliance with international law, democratic functioning and the protection of human rights. The consequence of non‐compliance with those conditions is that Parliament should not be disposed to approve the items necessary for operation of the parallel financing protocol, as Mr McMillan‐Scott rightly stresses in paragraph 8 of the resolution. In many of its resolutions since 13 December 1995, the European Parliament has expressed its dissatisfaction with the meeting of those conditions. There is no need to go into all that again. The facts are known. There is aggressiveness towards my country, the Cyprus problem is worse, there are violations of religious freedom in Turkey itself and, of course, the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on compensation for those who lost their fortunes and on their reestablishment in northern Cyprus was rejected. That is a slap in the face for Europe's bodies and of course makes it impossible to see Turkey in a good light.

Madam President, I will end by saying that I both know what Turkey must do to become a member of the European Union, and assure you that I wish for it. What it must do is what was done by a former province of the Turkish State, namely Greece. It achieved a substantive change‐over to democracy, which Turkey has not accomplished. And until it does, I fear that it cannot possibly become a member of the European Union.

  Berès (PSE). – (FR) Madam President, when we discuss the question of the Customs Union with Turkey, we are dealing with an extremely sensitive subject. The strategic aspects of this will be discussed in relation to Mr Swoboda"s report later on, so I would simply like to make three comments.

The first observation is that when discussing relations with Turkey – beyond the question of the help we are now providing – we should ask what more we could do to reinforce democratic structures in Turkey, particularly by developing sectors such as energy, the environment, vocational education and administrative reform. This is indeed what our rapporteur said, and he is quite right.

In order to do this, it is perhaps worth considering how financial aid to Turkey is managed and possibly unblocking certain budget lines.

My second comment is related to the MEDA programme. I believe that this should be fully implemented, as the rapporteur suggests, including those aspects of the MEDA programme which enhance democracy.

The third comment concerns our working party. It is a unique institution that was set up for cooperation with the Commission. But I do wonder what the future of this party ought to be. I believe that an interim assessment of how the working party operates should be carried out and the possibility of it being institutionalised should also be discussed.

  Blak (PSE). – (DA) Madam President, when the European Parliament voted for the agreement on a Customs Union with Turkey, it was with great misgivings. Parliament nevertheless voted in favour, in order to show confidence in Turkey. What has Turkey given in return for this confidence? The answer is ready to hand. Very little. Let me give a few examples: arbitrary arrests, critics of the system who suddenly disappear, prisoners dying in political detention, laws which set aside the personal rights of ordinary people for up to three years, 6000 Kurds murdered in 1997 alone, prisoners of conscience like former Member of Parliament Leyla Zana, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison without evidence. Until critics of the system like Leyla Zana and Celim Sadak are released, Turkey will fall far short of the EU's standards for a state governed by the rule of law. If Turkey is still serious about membership, it needs to make many and radical changes, and it must do so right away.

  Sakellariou (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, almost three years ago this Parliament assented to the Customs Union with Turkey. Before I deal with that, may I thank Mr McMillan‐Scott for the excellent work he has done in producing his report. I can fully endorse its contents. Let me take you back to the time when we took that difficult decision. We took it because we wanted to give Turkey a tangible token of our trust. At the same time as we gave our assent, we expressed four expectations. Some Members have already referred to these, but I should like to list them again: progress on human rights, progress in democratisation, a constructive contribution to the solution of the Cyprus problem and a peaceful resolution of the conflict with the Kurds.

I can see today that our 1995 decision was based on a twofold error of judgement. We made the mistake of putting faith in the promises made by Mrs Çiller, and the Turkish Grand National Assembly made the mistake of doubting the seriousness of our intent. I also note that the situation in Turkey has not improved in any of those four respects and indeed has deteriorated dramatically in some areas, for example in relation to Cyprus and the Kurds. Let me categorically express my regret that relations between the EU and Turkey have reached this new low, because I was one of those who consented to the Customs Union at that time in the hope of bringing Turkey closer to the EU and offering her a chance of future accession.

Every day the policies pursued by the Turkish Government erode our hopes and undermine our quest for rapprochement. There is little point in our trying – perhaps slowly but none the less steadily – to draw closer to Turkey if she is going to drift faster in the opposite direction towards an uncharted and risky future.

  President . – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.