Mr President, as far as the content of the two reports is concerned, I would find it relatively easy to support them, despite certain shortcomings. They succeed in presenting the political requirements of cooperation with Turkey clearly and consistently, especially the need for compliance with, and development of, human rights, including the rights of the Kurdish people, the demand for the abolition of capital punishment, the strengthening of the civil society, greater involvement by non-governmental organisations and the abolition of social deprivation and regional under-development. The fact that these changes were necessary reflects badly on the Commission. The fact that they were possible reflects well on the parliamentary committee and the work of Mr Morillon. Nonetheless, my decision has been made extraordinarily difficult. The Commission maintains in its proposal that a process of democratisation and promotion of human rights has been introduced in Turkey and we heard similar words from Mr Prodi this afternoon. The committee, on the other hand, only talks clearly of the need for such a process, but not of an allegedly positive development already under way. Not only does that appear to be decidedly more realistic to me; it also tallies with the evaluation which the Commission itself made in a communication to the Cologne Summit on 3 and 4 June this year. Twice it says that it sees no noticeable improvement, at least on the Kurdish question, and it rates any chance of further improvement as doubtful given the rise of, in the Commission’s words, the ultra-nationalist MHP party. I am most baffled as to what our optimism is actually based on and why the Commission has circulated two contradictory assessments. From where I stand, it appears perfectly clear that there has been no real, positive development in the issues raised. The Turkish Vice-Premier Bahcelý of the MHP stated in connection with the upholding of the death sentence on Öçalan – perhaps it only appeared in the German newspapers – that Europe should not be encouraged to interfere even more boldly in Turkish affairs and President Ecevit expressed the view that a judgement by the Court of Justice in Strasbourg need not be accepted. That clearly contradicts the commitments entered into by Turkey as a member of the Council of Europe. Their own international legal commitments continue to be openly disregarded by Turkish officials when it comes to human rights. I consider the honest offer of membership of the European Union to Turkey to be strategically correct and necessary. The European Union must have room for and an interest in including Turkey and must clarify that unequivocally once and for all. However, there can be no cutting back on demands for democratisation of the constitution and political realities, fundamental improvements in respect for human rights, a political solution to the Kurdish question and an end to the occupation of northern Cyprus. All this is still outstanding. Tomorrow we must adopt either the Commission version or the committee version of Article 3(2). Both versions contain terms for suspending cooperation in the event of fundamental violations of human rights. I see these violations and therefore consider that it is wrong to pass this text at this point in time. That would push our own paper and our own credibility ad absurdum. My group therefore is in favour under these circumstances of deferring both reports. We sent a proper signal to the Russian Government in a similar situation two weeks ago. We should handle this matter in the same way.

Political group: GUE-NGL