Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 11 April 2000 - Strasbourg

9. Situation in Turkey

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on Turkey.

  Gama, Council. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today marks a very important step in relations between Turkey and the European Union, particularly in terms of putting the Helsinki conclusions into practice. There had been no meeting of the Association Council between Turkey and the Union for three years and nor had there been any meeting of this kind after the deliberations and the criteria laid down in Helsinki. This was an important meeting with an agenda that included not only relevant points of political dialogue, but also practical decisions which will translate into a step forward in the negotiating process. They will do so specifically by establishing eight sub-committees, which will now enable the Commission, in this case represented by Commissioner Verheugen, to rigorously prepare the screening exercise and also to start negotiations on public services and markets. These are negotiations which will increase the present level of trade liberalisation between the Union and Turkey.

By implementing the Helsinki criteria and having made progress in the country itself, Turkey has made significant steps towards these negotiations, which it is important to bear in mind. It has been gradually committing itself to implementing or to adopting a huge range of institutional and legislative changes. This is progress in the right direction, progress which is still of course experiencing delays and interruptions, and only seeing the process through will ensure that this progress meets with complete success. Hence the importance of holding the screening procedure that is being prepared and the importance of Turkey’s commitment to incorporating the body of Community legislation and also to respecting the Copenhagen criteria. In our political dialogue with the Turkish delegation, we were able not only to assess the progress made, but also to comment on what we felt were shortcomings at institutional and judicial level and also in terms of the actual implementation of economic policies.

Today’s meeting will be followed up at the forthcoming meeting of an association committee, which will study these issues in greater detail. It should also be pointed out that there was a very constructive approach to the preparations for this Association Council with regard to drafting a joint position, which was adopted by the fifteen members of the Association Council. This meant of course that very thorough work was undertaken with the Greek delegation too, which is following this issue with a sense of importance worthy of Athenian diplomacy. Now, however, the delegation is also guided by the spirit of a diplomatic rapprochement, which has been seen in relation to its neighbouring country since the earthquake that devastated Turkey and the consequent expression of solidarity by Greece. This progress in the bilateral relationship will have considerable influence on progress on this issue in the future, on the relationship between the two countries and will certainly contribute, as will these negotiations between the European Union and Turkey, to establishing a favourable framework and environment for a solution to the problem of Cyprus.

We are working in the right direction. There are shortcomings, but this right and safe direction is also the only one that will enable the great country that Turkey is to take the appropriate steps for its economic and institutional modernisation and for its complete integration into modern democratic society.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome today’s debate as an opportunity to take stock, four months after the Helsinki summit and in the run up to the Association Council which the President-in-Office has already spoken about. The Helsinki resolution brought about a net and lasting improvement in relations between the EU and Turkey. At last, it is again possible to discuss all issues openly and critically. Stronger political dialogue is again taking place at all levels.

Today’s sitting has been marked by a constructive and open discussion; as a result I am able to say that the overall balance is highly promising even if, as always in such cases, there are both positive and negative aspects.

Above all, Helsinki confirmed that compliance with the political accession criteria was the sine qua non to starting negotiations. The Copenhagen political criteria concern democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. Turkey does not yet meet these criteria, which is why negotiations will not start until they do. In the meantime, however, Turkey and the other candidate countries will start to benefit from a strategy of rapprochement and stronger political dialogue. The main element in this strategy of rapprochement will be the accession partnership which is currently being prepared and which will set out the short- and medium-term priorities which Turkey must meet, in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria, in the political, economic and Community acquis areas. We plan to submit the first accession partnership in the autumn of this year.

I think that the accession partnership will be a central instrument in speeding up the process of political and economic reform in Turkey and we made it quite clear in the discussions held in Brussels, Luxembourg and Ankara that this accession partnership must address important questions in connection with the democratisation process and human rights.

The President-in-Office has already spoken about screening and I need say no more on that subject. I should, however, like to say a few more words about the political situation in Turkey. I am sure that you will agree that a series of incidents over recent months has given real cause for concern. For example, 18 members of the pro-Kurdish HADEP Party were sentenced to three years and nine months in prison and three leading members of HADEP were taken into custody but then released shortly afterwards. The three mayors who support HADEP were released after the EU troika had expressed its serious concerns to the Turkish Government.

I particularly regret that Akin Birdal, whose health clearly continues to give cause for concern, was returned to prison on 28 March to serve his four-and-a-half month sentence. The Commission seriously regrets that Akin Birdal, an advocate of the peaceful solution of conflict and human rights, has been thrown into jail once again. I am sorry that the opportunity was not taken to suspend imprisonment on humanitarian grounds. I think that everything points to the urgent need to tackle reforms in a decisive manner and to ensure that freedom of expression is properly protected.

I should like, nonetheless, to draw Parliament’s attention to something which bodes well for the future; I refer to the interministerial government committee in Turkey which is currently advising on the reforms which need to be implemented in order to comply with the political criteria. This interministerial committee will submit a report – an initial draft was published in the Turkish press recently and the final report will probably be submitted in June – containing specific proposals on political reforms and the legislative changes needed.

I think it is important for you, honourable Members, to bring pressure to bear in future contacts with the Turkish side, especially the Turkish parliament, in order to ensure that the relevant reform proposals are also accepted. From an economic point of view, Turkey is in a position to make rapid progress. It has a clear strategy for structural reform, which is supported by the IMF and the World Bank. I hope that Turkey can cultivate social dialogue and an active labour market policy still further in order to underpin the adjustment process. The country has a dynamic economy and a highly entrepreneurial population, which will benefit from a more balanced and transparent growth model based on the EU acquis.

Our relations with Turkey entered a new stage after Helsinki and making progress with the new tasks represents a challenge for both sides. Of course I shall continue to keep you informed of all aspects of these new endeavours.

(Applause)

  Morillon (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, your statements have reinforced a belief and an impression I have. I believe that the journey on which we embarked at Helsinki will be a long one and that no one is yet able to predict where it will end, except in Turkey’s assuming an important position either inside or outside of the European Union. The public and private sector spokesmen we recently met in Turkey all readily agreed on this.

My feeling is that certain representatives of the Turkish people are discovering, as a result of December’s decision, that accession to the Union will mean not only drastic reform of their institutions, but also radical changes in mindsets. This is reflected in the distrust shown, as the Commissioner has just reported, towards European institutions in general and the representatives of the European Parliament in particular.

Firstly, there was the refusal of the request to visit Leyla Zana, which resulted in the postponement of the meeting of the joint European Union-Turkey Parliamentary Committee scheduled for 22 and 23 February. Then, on the same day, at a time when your rapporteur was in Ankara, there was the arrest of three Kurdish mayors from the south-eastern region. Lastly, on 28 March, there was the arrest and reimprisonment of Akin Birdal, President of the Turkish Association for the Defence of Human Rights, at a time when a delegation from this Parliament was visiting Turkey.

I would ask the Council and the Commission whether it would not be appropriate, given the circumstances, to state quite clearly that while the Union is not in the business of telling anyone what to do, it is founded on the will to promote and safeguard certain fundamental values, prominent among which are respect for human rights and the rights and duties of minorities.

This is what Parliament will once again underline in the resolution, which is to be submitted for the approval of the Members next Thursday, urging the Turkish Government and the political parties of Turkey to turn to good account the constitutional review that is currently in progress in order to implement pressing reforms, in line with the Helsinki Agreements, that will enable the Turkish State to guarantee the democratic rights that we consider essential. The ball is in Turkey’s court. It is up to Turkey to decide whether the first obstacles encountered on this new road are to prove insurmountable or not.

(Applause)

  Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to hear that both the President-in-Office and the Commissioner have taken stock of the first four months and have come to the conclusion that the climate surrounding relations between the Union and Turkey and the potential for discussion have improved. We MEPs are particularly pleased because most of us – and this cut across all Groups in the House – expressed our scepticism as to whether the Helsinki resolution was the right resolution at the time.

The European Council in Helsinki did what it was entitled to do and passed a resolution which, when it was passed in Helsinki, incorporated certain expectations of the Turkish side and here the European Parliament is in agreement with the European Council. Commissioner Verheugen has just recapitulated these expectations. He has spoken of democracy, the rule of law and the protection of minorities as three basic elements in the expectations which the European Union, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have of Turkey and which they have formulated.

Four months after Helsinki, Commissioner, I can say on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists that we fully subscribe to your view that the climate surrounding relations has improved but no progress has been made on the three points which you listed. It is difficult to discern any further democratic developments during these first four months. Even progress with the protection of minorities leaves much to be desired and we are somewhat sceptical about the question of the rule of law.

You mentioned the example of Akin Birdal and Turkey must look at this example and ask itself how it intends to make us believe that progress is being made in the areas referred to when incidents occur within the country which, in my opinion, are typified by the example of Mr Birdal. Mr Birdal advocates peace. Mr Birdal advocates solving the problem of minorities without violence. Mr Birdal’s reputation as a human rights activist extends well beyond the borders of Turkey.

The way in which the Turkish Government has dealt with Mr Birdal, the way in which the Turkish judicial system has dealt with this man seems to be typical of the manner in which Turkey proposes to deal with people who stand for exactly what the European Union is demanding of Turkey. If politics contains symbolic messages then, in my opinion, the Turkish judicial system has committed a serious error four months on from Helsinki in treating Mr Birdal this way.

We in the European Parliament expect far greater efforts than those made so far and we are assuming that what we are saying in this debate here will not go unheeded.

(Applause)

  Ludford (ELDR). – Mr President, when Turkey joins the European Union the impact and the benefits will be considerable. The EU will then have to adjust, and in a welcoming way. But, in the shorter term, it is Turkey which has to adjust the most, in particular to meet the Copenhagen political criteria. I am glad the Commissioner stressed these. We cannot fulfil our role of critical friend by soft-pedalling on the need for drastic change, particularly with regard to guaranteeing individual freedom and a legitimate right to the Kurds. Indeed the key to reform is ending the war against the Kurds, which gives the pretext for the state of emergency and the repression that goes with it.

The Kurds deserve a peaceful settlement involving a degree of political devolution and respect for their cultural and linguistic rights. To say this is not to be anti-Turkish. Will not other Turkish citizens benefit also?

The arrest and imprisonment of HADEP leaders like Sakharov prize-winner Leyla Zana and human rights campaigner Akin Birdal is an impediment to Turkey's progress to the EU. To allow the European Parliament to vote for Turkey's accession when the time comes, reformers in Europe and Turkey must work together to lobby for change, as the Commissioner advised.

  Ceyhun (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the majority of my Group supported the Commission’s policy on Turkey and the resolution passed by the Council in Helsinki. It was and is extremely important to us that the candidate status granted to Turkey should bring about fundamental changes to democracy and hence the way in which human rights are dealt with within Turkey.

We were pleased to acknowledge the declaration by the Turkish Prime Minister that Turkey would meet the Copenhagen criteria as quickly as possible. The decision to defer the death sentence on Mr Öçalan was also welcomed as a step in the right direction.

However, we were then forced to acknowledge a number of incidents which we were and are unable to accept. The mayors belonging to HADEP were arrested and we rightly criticised this move. We are pleased that the Turkish Government reacted quickly and the mayors were released but we shall monitor the court case against them.

The former president of the Turkish human rights association, Akin Birdal, is again under arrest, despite the fact that he requires medical care. Unfortunately, he must serve another six months of a one-year sentence.

We realise that the measures needed to guarantee the permanent democratisation of Turkish society cannot be introduced overnight. However, a number of small steps are urgently needed in order to demonstrate that Turkey is prepared to take the path trodden by Spain, Portugal and Greece.

Turkey must at last abolish the death penalty, the only country in Europe yet to do so. And we should not have to wait for a reform policy on the Kurdish question. Today’s report from Luxembourg is good news but we would say, nonetheless, that Turkey must realise that respect for human rights and minority rights are prerequisite to any accession negotiations. We are prepared to be patient as far as the speed of democratisation is concerned. But we will not accept a standstill on this issue.

When my fellow Member Daniel Cohn-Bendit visited Leyla Zana, she said to him – and I think to us too – that we should support the reforms in Turkey and that the Helsinki resolution was Turkey’s only chance. In this sense we shall continue to support the Helsinki process.

  Uca (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, whoever wants to join the EU must meet the Copenhagen criteria and abolish the death penalty. Including Turkey. Despite frequent promises by the Turkish Government, human rights violations continue there. I should like to list a few examples. The Kurdistan Democratic Party has been exposed to attack since 20 February. Three Kurdish mayors belonging to HADEP were arrested recently and then released but are not allowed to leave Turkey.

Then the former and present leaders of HADEP, Murat Bozlak and Ahmet Turan Demir, were sentenced to three years and nine months in prison together with 18 other members of HADEP. It was maintained that HADEP was supporting and helping the PKK which has opted for peace rather than war.

Akin Birdal has started serving the rest of his sentence. Thousands of Turkish troops marched into northern Iraq at the beginning of April. More than 50 000 soldiers are stationed on the border in order to fight the PKK, despite its call for peace.

Why are arms being delivered to Turkey? More than 300 000 people gathered for the Navruz festival in Diyarbakir under the banner “Peace, Brotherliness and Democracy”. Having been there, my personal impression is that the people are longing for peace and democracy.

The leader of the ANAP, Mr Mesut Jilmaz, said at an event in Diyarbakir, that the way to the EU was via Diyarbakir. I therefore call on the Turkish Government to respect human rights and to find a political solution to the Kurdish question. Because the only way into Europe is via the Copenhagen criteria.

It will be the task of the European Commission and the Council to strengthen their commitment here. At the moment, the most important task is to advance the democratisation of Turkey, which is why I call on everyone to unite without hesitation and to reinforce democracy and peace.

  Schori (PSE). – Mr President, all of us who have visited Turkey recently realise that the picture is very complex. The first impression is that there is a sort of EU euphoria in Turkey when it comes to the media. There is a very lively debate in the country. That is very important.

Secondly, the trade unions, popular movements, etc. all say the same thing. They think it is positive that Turkey is a candidate country. We even heard Akin Birdal, on the eve of his imprisonment, say that a new Turkey has been emerging in the last five months.

We must realise that we will have a lot of ups and downs in our relationship and that we will have both progress and setbacks. Perhaps we are seeing something new being born. But the old legal system is still there. That is what is working against democratic fighters such as Akin Birdal. But we also see the reformists who know very well what has to be done according to the Copenhagen criteria. One party leader said to us that at least 65 articles of the constitution and penal code had to be changed.

When we spoke to people in that country during the Socialist Group visit we found three different approaches to EU membership. First you have the anti-reformists, the fundamentalists and so on, who do not want membership. And then you have the reformists – within the government, administration, human rights groups and other parts of civil society – who really want it. They certainly want membership. Then you have a third group, who say that they want Turkey to become a member, but on Turkish terms. Here the Copenhagen criteria, and the Commission and our screening are very important. Almost automatically they will have to deliver if Turkey is to become a member one day.

There are two final impressions and messages received from the people we talked to during the two or three days we were there. The first was that nothing will prevail without a strong civil society in Turkey. People we met from civil society also said they appreciated the help from the European Union, but that some of it was slow. We know that and we would like the Commission to look into that.

The other and last message is that yes, we have the road-map. But we need more precision from the road-map. Help us to be more precise with the road-map because we want to follow it.

  Maes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, the question of whether or not Turkey belongs to Europe is not primarily a geographical issue, nor is it primarily an economic one. The deciding factor, however, will be whether or not Turkey will subscribe to a European set of values in which human rights, democracy and the protection of minorities are guaranteed. This will not require any sacrifices, probably unlike Turkey’s other issues, but it will be for the good of all inhabitants of Turkey itself. The political solution to the Kurdish issue would not only liberate the Kurds, it would also take a heavy weight from Turkey’s shoulders. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that we should not aggravate the situation by supplying arms. I myself am sceptical of Turkey joining the EU, but the current process may well promote peace and stability. This is why we want to give Turkey the benefit of the doubt. Whether or not Turkey will join may therefore depend largely on how it will fare in matters pertaining to human rights, democracy and the protection of minorities.

  Folias (PPE-DE). – (EL) I would like to ask both the Council and the Commission to see things as they really are and not as they appear to be. I should like to point out that in Helsinki, Greece withdrew its reservations and Turkey became a candidate country. Greece has made a great many gestures of good will and good neighbourliness, a great many. Turkey has made none. Even today in the Association Council, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Mr Cem, said that there is no occupying army in Cyprus, only the army which entered Cyprus in order to liberate Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike. I just wonder who have they been trying to liberate for the last 25 years, and from whom? Have they still not managed to do so? I would point out that, when we visited Turkey as Parliament’s representatives, we asked to see Leyla Zana. We were not allowed to see her because she was in prison. Akin Birdal, who held talks with Mr Barón Crespo, was taken into prison while he was standing outside. I just wonder if the Commission’s regrets will help to get Akin Birdal out of prison tomorrow? Is that such a drastic step?

Finally, I would like to say, to keep within the time permitted, that only two weeks ago, Turkish newspapers published a list of some 100 European journalists, parliamentarians and other individuals, including Archbishop Christodoulou of Greece, who are persona non grata in Turkey. Today, Mr Cem dismissed the list as media hype; but, at the end of the day, Turkey does in fact reserve the right to publish lists of persona non grata. I should like to close by saying that I hope they will not get wind of what I have said here today and include me on this list, because I love Istanbul and I like to go there quite often.

  Sakellariou (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I was a member of the delegation from our Group which visited Turkey. I do not want to recount my experiences at length, I just want to tell you what my impression was. It was one of disappointment. I am extremely disappointed that four months after obtaining candidate status, nothing serious has yet been done to move towards compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, especially the political criteria.

Commissioner, you mentioned the interministerial committee. It is true that numerous structures are being set up. I have been aware of this in Turkey since 1995. If they are obliged to comply with something, they start by setting up committees and commissions, interministerial, extraministerial, every sort of committee under the sun. The structures are superb, we can all agree on that. Except that they do nothing. For example, it would have been very easy without any committees, without any commissions, to abolish Article 312 of the Criminal Code; all it needed was a vote in the Turkish Grand National Assembly and that would have freed a whole series of intellectuals, authors, journalists and the very same Akin Birdal from jail. That is how easy it is to take the first steps.

The Turks tell us they need time, they need a great deal of time, because this reform can only be achieved one step at a time. I warned you about that. I told you that numerous fellow Members here in this very House, in the European Parliament, were prepared to allow as much time as they needed, 200 years, 400 years, even more. But I belong to a Group which enthusiastically helped Turkey to achieve candidate status, not just so that Turkey could be a candidate but to give Turkey a real chance to become a member and start negotiations.

Which is why we want to insist and want to press for Turkey to be helped on its way with a road map and a specific timetable and, of course the accession partnership which the Commissioner referred to earlier, and not just to remain a candidate.

(Applause)

  Stenzel (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Turkey was granted candidate status at the Helsinki Summit, but accession negotiations must go on hold until the necessary internal reforms have been introduced and the human rights situation complies with European principles. During your recent visit to Ankara, Commissioner Verheugen, you too drew attention to the fact that continuing human rights abuses, the failure to establish rule of law and the fact that no solution had been found to the Kurdish question stood in the way of Turkey’s accession to the EU in the near future.

The unequivocal shortcomings in this area contrast with statements by Prime Minister Ecevit to the effect that Turkey may be ready to start accession negotiations in 2004. A number of factors which have been listed here several times already make this sort of prognosis appear premature. Even the fact that the head of government, Mr Ecevit, described Kurdish as a dialect of Turkish, despite the fact that the two languages have fundamentally different roots, is an indication of the hardening of the political situation in Turkey. The fact that all this has been accompanied by a recent offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq only adds to this impression. There can be no question of the European Union having any interest in increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey or of wanting to encourage the Trotskyist PKK, which is also guilty of massive human rights violations, to engage in new clashes.

However, one has the impression that anti-European forces within the army and the administration are behind the recent arrests and the new offensive against the PKK in northern Iraq in order to prevent Turkey from moving closer to Europe. This demonstrates in retrospect that the concessions made to Turkey in Helsinki were perhaps premature and that the strategy towards this country, which is so important to western security, needs to be reviewed.

  Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have visited Turkey three times in the last six months, once before and twice after the Helsinki resolution. I experienced surprise after surprise and also disappointment after disappointment. The situation is in fact as a number of fellow Members have described it. There are forces which are fighting strongly to move closer to the European Union and there are other forces which reverse all their efforts by carrying out attacks and by putting Akin Birdal back in jail, thereby provoking the pro-European forces.

It is of course a good sign that the Turkish Government now has a written programme setting out the action which Turkey must take on the basis of the demands of the European Union. And it must take it, because paper alone is cheap. Changes need to be made here. The changes also affect the national security council which, according to this proposal, now needs to be reorganised as an advisory council and is no longer the final supreme instance of Turkish democracy or Turkish relations.

It is, of course, a bad sign that there is one incident after another, such as the arrest of Akin Birdal who, as Mr Schori said, has such a positive attitude to the changes in Turkey itself. It is also a bad sign that no gradual solution has been found to the Kurdish question, the prerequisites for which are much improved today although, Mrs Stenzel, I am unaware of any statement by Ecevit that Kurdish is a Turkish dialect. What Ecevit said to us was that there were several Kurdish dialects and that he could even imagine Kurdish being used as an official language in Turkey under certain conditions.

I should like to urge you, Mr President-in-Office, to work together with the other fourteen Member States of the European Union to ensure that the European Investment Bank is finally authorised to give Turkey financial support. It is not easy to ward off criticism in connection with the financial protocol to the effect that we have not kept our promises to support the modernisation and the restructuring of Turkey financially.

My last point is this: of course we are also aware in this House that the question of Turkey, including its relations with Greece, is bound up with the Cyprus issue. If we could manage to make Turkey more open and more cooperative on the Cyprus question, that would be a very positive development. However, I should like to say quite clearly on behalf of our Group and, I believe, on behalf of many others, that unless Turkey itself does what it has to on the question of human rights and democracy, even if is cooperative on the issue of Cyprus, and unless Turkey shows that it is willing to change its internal democratic system, there can be no accession to Europe.

(Applause)

  Souladakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, the discussion here today is quite an interesting one; nonetheless, we should see to it that Turkey is judged in light of the clear-cut European criteria and that Greco-Turkish relations are not used as a fig leaf to mask a different reality.

I would like to add two or three minor points. Turkey has its internal problems, but it has its external problems, too. It could, for instance, show willing by accepting the jurisdiction of the court in The Hague, or the Court of Human Rights. But no, this is not the case.

Secondly, in our endeavours to help Turkey integrate into the European Union, we must be strict when it comes to compliance with the political requirements we have laid down. In this sense, if we try to paint a skewed picture of reality, then of course it will be a false one. And in politics, false realities produce false results. As for the problems cited by Turkey, there is Kemal Ataturk’s theory which says that “there is a danger that our unity will crumble and henceforth we should not say that we are Turks, we should say that we call ourselves Turks”. There is a huge difference in meaning, because to say I am not a Turk, but I call myself a Turk leads some to reason that all nationalities should be ground together into one pulp from which a new human race can evolve. As you know, historically, such a thing is just not possible.

In this sense, it is clear that, first, the democratization of Turkey must be the most we can strive for and, at the same time, the very least and, secondly, we should put an end to Turkey’s fears that it will crumble as a nation if its recognizes the rights it should be according minority groups, because there are not only the Kurdish minorities, there are also Arabs, crypto-Christians, and other minority groups. In any case, what is certain is that if we do want to help Turkey, we must insist that the political criteria are respected, and I would like to add the following: to date at least, as far as I know, the only real forces in Turkey in favour of the European strategy are the forces of economy and we should bear this in mind.

  Gama, Council. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank all the Members of the European Parliament for their contributions to this debate. I have not interpreted their opinions and points of view as giving a red light to this policy, which says ‘no, this policy is wrong and we want a different one. We want to deny Turkey the right ever to join the European Union’. No! Nobody said that! And this is something upon which we agree. I considered the speeches to be demanding ones, calling for the whole process to be scrutinised thoroughly. The European Parliament obviously has an important role to play in this. Turkey will not be admitted to the European Union without the European Parliament’s approval.

Well, the decisions made at Helsinki are demanding ones, with clear benchmarks, and we are not currently negotiating Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Turkey has merely been recognised as a candidate. In fact, as long ago as 1963, the Ankara Agreement established the possibility that Turkey might join the European Union, with the association agreement to evolve through an initial stage, a transitional stage and a final stage. The Copenhagen criteria are clear and Turkey must not be discriminated against, either positively or negatively. Furthermore, the very fact that we are currently making good progress with the planned enlargement of the Union to include Central and Eastern Europe enables us to prove that Turkey is not being discriminated against. On the contrary, it is being given equal treatment, in the sense that it must comply with a body of legislation, it must amend its own laws and it must behave in the same way in this process as the other countries that have applied for membership.

I can tell you that the Commission is not carrying out an assessment even now. This has not yet started, but the Commission has been instructed to prepare it. The Commission is involved in bilateral discussions with Turkey in order to provide it with information on the acquis communautaire. We have not even moved to the negotiating stage in which the assessment will be undertaken in a multilateral context, with the participation of all countries. We are, therefore, at an exploratory stage. We are giving Turkey powerful messages about the need for it to reform itself through its institutions, its laws and its administrative procedures. We in the Association Council have been very strict with Turkey and Turkey has, to some extent, recognised shortcomings and has stated its willingness to improve them, in particular with regard to laws governing the press, criminal law and the way in which citizenship rights are recognised, specifically in the cultural and language fields. I think that here too, real progress has been made, although perhaps not progress which has a clear legal form yet. There have also been steps backwards and we have expressed our deep disappointment at the fate of the leader of one of the most representative human rights organisations, and that of certain council leaders and politicians who have recently been arrested.

It is obvious that the Turkish political process is a complex one. However, something that can be acknowledged today is that, contrary to what used to happen in crisis situations, when Turkey was always tempted to use military power or to use extremist internal forces, thanks to the guidelines and the frameworks that were laid down in Helsinki, this strategy has contributed in Turkey to the consolidation of pro-European forces, which will, of course, have to develop a completely pro-European programme in terms of constitutional reform, political changes and new legislation. Criticism must be levelled at the Turks, not in order to prevent them from continuing in this process, but we must monitor the situation closely so that they can implement the changes necessary for this process to continue successfully.

  Verheugen, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, I should like to subscribe to the President-in-Office’s evaluation and to say that I feel this debate was helpful and supports the line which the Commission has followed. It does not matter that Parliament has taken a more critical stance than I am able to do at present, for reasons which you will understand. I have drawn the Turkish Government’s, the Turkish parties’ and the Turkish parliament’s attention to the role of the European Parliament in ensuring that no political compromises are made with candidates during access negotiations and in Turkey’s preparations for access negotiations which contradict the Copenhagen criteria.

I should like to expressly stress here that there can be no discounts for anyone, including Turkey, when it comes to accession conditions. I should also like to repeat here what I have said on previous occasions: we must be conscious of the fact that the process which we have now set in motion will not be without its setbacks. I do not know what is easy and what is difficult to do in Turkey. But I do know one thing and that is that a debate is currently taking place in Turkey of which we only hear a part, a debate which will decide on the fate of the country and, partly on the fate of Europe too. It is in our interests that the reform-orientated, democratic, pro-Europe forces carry the motion in this debate.

I should like to close by saying that we are still just right at the beginning. We are in fact at the beginning of the beginning. We are only just preparing the pre-accession strategy. We have no pre-accession strategy yet which is why I think it is slightly premature to start talking about disappointments or about the need for a new strategy. By definition, strategies only deserve to be called such when they can go the whole course. I therefore advise on a little patience here.

We shall see things more clearly, we shall know what specific progress we can expect in the autumn, once all the elements of the pre-accession strategy have been defined and once we have received Turkey’s reply. This reply must be given this year and must refer clearly and unequivocally to what we expect of Turkey and must tell us exactly what Turkey intends to do. That will be the time to say more than was possible today in this cautious evaluation.

(Applause)

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at the next voting session.