age/027-670-271-9-39-903-2
0050921IPR00563-28-09-2 005-2005–true/default_en.htm

Enlargement – 29-09-2005 – 16:55

European Parliament postpones vote on protocol to Ankara Agreement

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan – MEPs postpone vote on
extending customs union

The Parliament postponed voting on approval of the protocol extending
Turkey’s association agreement with the EU to the ten new member states.
MEPs feared that the Turkish declaration that the protocol does not mean any
form of recognition of Cyprus would form part of the ratification process in
the Turkish parliament and thus gain legal force.
 
Nevertheless, in a political resolution voted afterwards, Parliament notes
“the Commission and the Council take the view that Turkey has formally
fulfilled the last conditions for starting the accession negotiations on 3
October 2005.”
 
At the request of the EPP-ED group, Parliament voted 311 votes in favour,
285 against and 63 abstentions to postpone the vote on Parliament’s approval
of the protocol extending Turkey’s customs union with the EU to all its new
members, including Cyprus. The vote to postpone has no legal consequences in
terms of the starting date for accession negotiations. Stumbling blocks were
the Turkish declaration that the signing of the protocol to the Ankara
Agreement does not mean any form of recognition of Cyprus and the Turkish
refusal to admit vessels and airplanes from Cyprus. A majority of MEPs first
wanted guarantees from the Turkish authorities that the declaration was not
going to be part of the ratification in the Turkish parliament, fearing that
it would then have legal implications.
 
Nevertheless, in a political resolution adopted afterwards by 356 votes in
favour, 181 against and 125 abstentions, Parliament noted the Commission’s
and Council’s view that access negotiations with Turkey can start on 3
October. But by the end of 2006, the Commission must assess if Turkey has
fully implemented the protocol. If not, this could lead to halting the
accession negotiations. During the negotiations, which are open-ended and
will not automatically lead to Turkish EU membership, Turkey should be kept
under permanent scrutiny and pressure to ensure that it maintains “the pace
of the necessary reforms”.
 
Parliament also said it considered Turkish recognition of “the Armenian
genocide … to be a prerequisite for accession”.
 
MEPs deplore that the Annan plan for a settlement of the Cyprus question has
been rejected by the Greek Cypriot community and hopes that Turkey will
maintain its constructive attitude in finding an equitable solution.
Meanwhile, the Council should keep its promise and reach an agreement on the
financial aid and trade package for northern Cyprus.
 
On other issues, MEPs voiced their concern about the criminal proceedings
against Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, about article 305 of the penal code
which criminalises “acts against the fundamental national interest”, about
the restrictions on foreign funding for associations, and about the “Law on
Foundations” concerning religious communities.
 
Parliament wants each negotiation session at ministerial level to be
preceded by an assessment of the fulfilment of the political criteria, both
in theory and in practice, “thus exerting permanent pressure on the Turkish
authorities to maintain the pace of the necessary reforms”. Also, a full
programme of clear targets, timeframe and deadlines should be fixed for the
fulfilment of the political criteria. The Commission and the Council should
report annually to the European Parliament and the national parliaments on
the progress made by Turkey in this respect. MEPs reiterate that the
accession negotiations are an open-ended process and will not automatically
lead to Turkey joining the EU, even if the objective is Turkish EU
membership. Finally, Parliament underlines that the EU’s capacity to absorb
Turkey is an important consideration as well, and needs to be monitored by
the Commission during the negotiations.
 
Debate on opening of accession negotiations with Turkey
 
Speaking on behalf of the Council,  Britain’s Minister for Europe, Douglas
ALEXANDER said the strategic case for opening negotiations with Turkey was
convincing, but it was necessary to be scrupulous in ensuring all the
requirements were met before Turkey could join.
 
Turkey had met the two conditions laid down by the Council in December, and
its declaration stating that it had not recognised the government of Cyprus
had no legal effect.  The negotiations would be the most rigorous yet, and
Turkey would not accede imminently.  The Turkey which would join would be a
different Turkey, and the EU might also be different by then too. Progress
so far had been encouraging, and the conditions for opening talks had been
met, he said.
 
Enlargement Commissioner Oli REHN agreed that the formal conditions set out
by the Council for opening negotiations had been met.  He also stressed that
the talks would be the most rigorous yet undertaken.  There were good signs
– such as the Turkish government’s recognition that there was a Kurdish
issue and that the conference on the Armenian question would finally go
ahead – but also bad signs – such as the uneven implementation of freedom of
expression rights. “Both Europeans and Turks should work to build a
relationship based on mutual trust, ” he said, pointing out that the common
goal would be accession but that by their very nature the talks were open as
to the result they would achieve.
 
British speakers during the debate on Turkey
 
Roger KNAPMAN (IND/DEM,UK) said that he opposed political union with Turkey
as much as he opposed it with France, Germany or Italy. “But what of the
euro-fanatics whose ardour suddenly cools when they reach the Bosphorus? It
is not hypocrisy, but fear, fear that public support for the whole EU
project will collapse if Turkish membership were seriously pursued.”  For
this reason, he said, he was happy to see the EU plough ahead with
negotiations, destroying itself in the process.
 
Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK) said “It is extraordinary that those who have
profited so much from EU integration in terms of prosperity, security and
liberal democracy should not refuse to extend these prizes to Turkey.” He
said the EU’s absorption capacity was a real issue, with the need for a
settlement of the constitution ahead of Turkish or Croatian entry.  He also
argued that the Cyprus issue and instability in the Balkans could not be
resolved if the EU refuses membership to Turkey, and called for a stepping
up of trade relations with northern Cyprus.
 
Roger HELMER (NI, UK) said there were powerful reasons in favour and against
Turkey’s accession to the EU.  The key condition, he said, should be
“democratic accountability”, Mr Helmer felt that Turkey’s accession would
“dilute the influence” of his constituents in terms of self-determination
and he therefore opposed Turkish membership of the EU.  Mr Helmer welcomed
the proposal from Angela Merkel on privileged partnership for Turkey as it
would incur fewer costs for Turkey.  Mr Helmer wished the option of
privileged partnership could also be made available to the United Kingdom.
 
Geoffrey Van ORDEN (EPP-ED, UK) stated that “last Christmas the Council
voted for Turkey”.  The conditions laid out at that time had been met and
Turkey was therefore ready to start negotiations.  Mr Van Orden warned
against the separatist dissidents still at large in Turkey that risked
undermining Turkish secularism and unity.  He stated that Turkey should be
treated in the same way as all other candidates for accession.  Mr Van Orden
stated that the Cyprus question should be treated separately from the
accession negotiations.  However, he recalled that the people of Northern
Cyprus had voted in favour of the Annan plan on reunification and that Greek
Cyprus had rejected.  He said the EU had done little to support
Northern Cyprus.  Mr Van Orden welcomed the imminent opening of negotiations
and recognised that the talks would last many years.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress