Mr President, as far as Turkey as a candidate Member State is concerned, the door is open, but the road is hard. That is the message of my report. For the other candidate Member States that was really self-evident. They and their citizens have had a lot of trouble in reaching the finishing line and up to the last committee meetings comments were still being made about them in clear tones urging completion of the work. Turkey is no exception. There is no reason therefore to give this country special treatment on account of its size or its strategic position. Turkey does of course have quite different problems from the other candidates. These problems are mainly in the area of the Copenhagen political criteria. More than ever perhaps the emphasis in this report is placed on the background to or deeper causes of the political shortcomings which usually manifest themselves in violations of classical freedom rights and of fundamental human rights. It is also to do with the fact that the Turkish State is based on a philosophy that was developed in the 1920s, a period in which Europe did not provide many pleasant examples from which to draw your ideas. The criticism of Turkey concerns the structures of the State, the dominant political position of the army, the National Security Council, which is dominated by the military, the nationalism that leads to suppression of ethnic, religious and cultural minorities and the priority for collective security and collective interests over individual human rights, which again and again gives cause for complaint. The army also has a very strong influence in education, broadcasting and the business community and it is very important that this is also recognised in part in Turkey’s latest reform packages. In the contact with Turkey it is always a question of who are we talking to? Are we talking to the government and the majority in the parliament or are we in fact talking to the representatives of what people call the ‘deep State’, the high generals and the high established bureaucracy? Apart from these problems we also mention those on the borders, with both Cyprus and Armenia and possibly with Iraq. The lack of a functioning social midfield is also apparent. There is little room for the trade union movement. Religious communities, even the Islamic, are under strict state control or are having a hard time. Other candidates had leeway to make up here too. The idea of candidate membership is that the country concerned develops into a Member State like the others. It must not for example make any difference in legal position whether you live in Diyarbakir or in Rotterdam. If that is the case, then it is impossible to sell membership to our citizens. A directly elected parliament may see this more readily and with greater concern than a council of ministers. We therefore invite the Council to be just as clear in its policy towards Turkey as this Parliament and not to cling to symbols and symbolic dates. Clarity has been the express concern of this report. It is not honest out of a need for appreciation to remain silent about a series of objections only to conjure them up again at a later date. Turkey has to know where it stands now. That means radical changes, as other candidates have also experienced. Which is why we warmly applaud the plan to draw up a new Constitution, while expressing the wish that the political values that are supported in other Member States will be taken as a starting point. Furthermore, the army must relinquish its present dominant position and be brought back to a form and function that is usual in other Member States. This has consequences for the National Security Council and for the state security courts. Amendments to the law that have in mind the conversion from a military nation, as people write to me, into a civil nation, must prove that their objectives are being achieved in practice. This is a question of mentality and culture. The Union must therefore focus its support on actual fulfilment of the political criteria, that is, on retraining and exchange programmes for government officials, especially those in the police, and of lawyers who are involved in courts of justice, and so on. Torture, for example, must now really be over and the return of the expelled and refugees to their villages must not be obstructed by the so-called village guards. Freedom of religion must not be a dead letter. Numerous frustrating government measures can in fact be abolished in a short time and it is a constant source of amazement that this does not happen. Cultural rights must not be recognised in dribs and drabs, but convincingly and generously. For a while it seemed that the government would indeed be able to establish its authority and we had also hoped that it would, for example, be able to make good its intention to resolve the Cyprus issue on the basis of the UN plan. That unfortunately proved not to be the case. A renewed successful attempt will show whether the army is indeed finding its normal role. Mr President, I am pleased with the broad support for the report that exists in this Parliament. I have also cast a generous eye over the amendments and where possible given them a plus. We have agreed with Mr Swoboda that we can accept an amendment from the radical and green corner, concerning the willingness of Turkey to fulfil its tasks under the reforms, as an addition, not as a replacement. If it is not wanted as an addition, we shall vote against. But if it is presented as an addition, then we can say, ‘yes’ to it. I otherwise hope that the open talk of the debate about religion, culture and politics is not smothered by deletions in paragraph 3, as that is a paragraph that could simply bring this discussion to a tremendously good end.

Political group: PPE-DE