Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the efforts of Mr Oostlander’s report to do justice to developments in Turkey. The many amendments have clearly improved the report. The problem areas have now been stated in more concrete terms and the criticism has generally been couched in more objective language than before. There nevertheless remains one anomaly that cannot be overlooked. Although religious minorities are discussed at quite some length, it is somewhat surprising that the concerns of the Kurdish population – some 20 million people – are dealt with rather briefly. In view of the multifarious harassments and threats they have been exposed to, it is an intolerable trivialisation of the issue to call upon the Turkish Government to create a more relaxed and constructive relationship with its own citizens of Kurdish origin. I would certainly have preferred to see clear words of criticism here. Ultimately, the problems are many and varied. The precarious situation of the human rights organisation EHD, for example, is given no mention at all. Its premises were searched only recently. Threats are commonplace, and some reference to the difficult position of human rights activists in Turkey would have been appropriate. Criticism regarding the case of Leyla Zana and the other P party MPs could have been expressed more clearly. Three days of negotiations have already taken place, but they are still in prison. The negotiations process resembles a farce, and seems far from likely that the court will lift its sentence violating human rights and set them free. The report makes absolutely no mention of the case of Öçalan. His trial, too, was classified as unfair by the European Court of Human Rights. It would therefore also be appropriate to reopen his case. It is evidently too delicate an issue, however, for the name of Öçalan to bear mention in a report of the European Parliament. The report rightly condemns the banning of HAP and the threat of court action to ban DEHAP. There is no mention, however, of the order prohibiting leading members of HADEP from engaging in political activity. Why not? A clear stand should have been taken on this issue. On the other hand, in other places the report would have benefited from being less arrogant. I find it unspeakable that the report refers to the humanist and Judeo-Christian culture of Europe, making out that Europe has always been a stronghold of democracy, the rule of law, human and minority rights, and freedom of religion and conscience. It patronisingly adds that an Islamic country too can accept and defend these values. Completely aside from the fact that Islam too has always played a part in Europe, I would like to recall, as a German especially, that the values that are allegedly so typically European are not quite so deeply rooted in Europe. European history ranges across the Christian Crusades to the crimes of the colonial era – not to mention the horrors of fascism. Moreover, the reference to religion is utterly superfluous. The EU is a political and economic union. For a country to accede to it, there are clear criteria that must be fulfilled. Whether they are fulfilled against a Christian, Muslim, Jewish or atheist background is irrelevant. The main thing is that they are fulfilled. In Turkey at the moment, this is unfortunately not the case. The report, despite all its shortcomings, demonstrates this and makes it clear that there are no plans to open accession negotiations at the present time. It is to the report’s credit, however, that it also clearly states that accession in general for Turkey remains a possibility. Let us hope that the report will contribute to changing the policy of the Turkish Government in such a way that enables Turkey to accede to the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL