6. Composition of the European Parliament (vote)
- Report: Alain Lamassoure, Adrian Severin
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - Madam President, I would just like to make a clarification, because several different terms are used in the report and in the amendments, and I would like everybody to know what we are going to vote on. There are a number of amendments by Mr Tajani and others which, when speaking about 'citizens', have in mind national citizens and not European citizens. When voting one way or the other on those amendments, please bear in mind that they are not talking about European citizens, but national citizens. I am sure everybody understands that this is an important difference.
Thank you for your clarification.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like some clarification from the rapporteurs and Parliamentary officials. I wish to know whether, if Amendment 1, first signatory Mr Mayor Oreja, were to be adopted, Amendment 51 would fall. I think this is a mistake, and that if Amendment 1 by Mr Mayor Oreja were to be adopted, Amendment 51 would not fall, but it would change the voting intention of the Italian delegation.
Mr Tajani, one of the co-rapporteurs will speak on that matter when we get to that point. I think you are right but, for the moment, let us proceed.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to point out that, ever since Maastricht, European citizenship has coincided with national citizenship in all of the Treaties. They are the very same, identical thing. Is that fact clear to my colleague Mr Severin?
(The vote was suspended for a few moments owing to technical problems)
Madam President, I kept the numbers of votes 'for' and 'against' for the last two recorded votes and they were identical. That was when we had the first problem. You may care to take the vote on amendment 21 by the IND/DEM Group again.
I think you are absolutely right. I, too, was worried by what was happening at that stage.
(The vote was suspended again for a few moments)
(FR) Madam President, we have no roll-call vote for the other reports. Perhaps we could begin by voting on the reports that do not require a roll-call vote, if you do not mind, so that we can keep the sitting moving?
The problem is, we are in mid-report, so I am afraid we do have to conclude it before we can take something else.
- Before the vote on Amendment 1:
rapporteur. - (FR) Madam President, I do apologise to everyone for the question due to my inexperience: this is only my third term in the House.
If I have understood correctly, if Amendment 1 were adopted this would retain the text in the paragraph of the amendment and remove the figures corresponding to the number of seats in the report. Is this how I should take it? I am asking the authors of the amendment: is that the way everyone understands it?
This means I have made a mistake, and therefore I apologise to those involved. I recommended a positive vote when drawing up the PPE-DE voting list, because I thought that the amendment concerned only the text. However, where figures are concerned, for the PPE-DE Group the instruction changes to a free vote, and along with my co-rapporteur I invite all those who wish to support the proposals of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the rapporteurs to vote against Amendment 1.
(Applause)
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is still not clear whether Amendment 1 is compatible with Amendment 51. If Amendment 1 is compatible with Amendment 51, as I believe it is, the Italian delegation will vote in favour of Amendment 1, but we do need this clarification.
This amendment will dispose of all the others.
Our congratulations to our co-rapporteurs, and our thanks to our technicians.


Third country nationals subject to or exempt from a visa requirement when crossing external borders (debate)
The next item is the report by Tanja Fajon, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement - C7-0112/2009 -.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Barrot, and all of you attending here today, the European Parliament firmly supports the abolition of the visa regime for all the countries of the Western Balkans. That is also the core idea that has guided us throughout the preparation of the report. I would like to express my compliments, in particular, to the shadow rapporteurs and members of Parliament, as without their support I would not have been able to achieve this result. Likewise, I would like to thank the Council and the Commission for their collaborative efforts which will form the firm bedrock of future cooperation in this area, especially once the Treaty of Lisbon has been ratified, as that will enable Parliament to adopt any necessary measures through the codecision procedure.
The citizens of the Western Balkans have been isolated by the visa regime for far too long. They have fewer rights today, as regards free travel, than they did in the days of the former Yugoslavia. What young people from the countries of the Western Balkans know about Europe, or America for that matter, today is what they learn from the internet and television. As I come from Slovenia, I can recall that it was actually the Slovene Presidency which initiated the process of visa regime liberalisation in early 2008, five years after the signing of the Thessaloniki Agenda, which guarantees an unambiguous European perspective for the population of the Western Balkans.
I am pleased to welcome the Commission's proposal for the abolition of the visa requirement for Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, and I am particularly pleased to welcome Slovenia's initiative, which has received strong support from the Member States and which allows the citizens of these countries to start travelling freely to the countries of the Schengen area from 19 December. 1 January 2010 would have entailed logistical difficulties, as the Christmas and New Year holiday period is exactly the time when many citizens of these countries want to travel to visit their relations living in the Member States.
The abolition of visas will make an enormous contribution to the process of regional cooperation and the overcoming of ethnic divisions and will also help to build cultural, social, economic and political bridges.
Ladies and gentlemen, the abolition of visas for the three countries I have mentioned is a very positive step in the right direction. However, I should point out that the countries which were omitted from the visa abolition framework should be allowed to join it as soon as possible or, rather, as soon as they are ready to do so. Naturally, I am talking about Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania. We cannot allow them to become ever more isolated, at a time when their neighbouring countries are enjoying the possibility of unlimited travel into the European Union.
Of course, they need to be prepared for visa abolition and I do not mean to suggest here that we need to lower our criteria. What we want to do is to send a clear message to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania: We are waiting for you; you must urge your governments to fulfil their side of the bargain. We, on the other hand, will do everything in our power to ensure that there are no delays in decision making on the European Union's side. I can safely say that this approach has met with the broad support of two committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, which is my parent committee.
I would also add that, tomorrow after the vote, I will ask for the floor in order to deliver a special political statement, a common statement of Parliament and the Council, which strongly supports the abolition of the visa requirement for all the countries of the Western Balkans. In this statement, on which we shall vote separately tomorrow, we will both welcome 19 December, the date when the visa requirement will be abolished for Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, and call on the European Commission to prepare, as soon as possible, a proposal that the visa requirement for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania be abolished as soon as they have met the relevant criteria. We, on the other hand, undertake to deal with this proposal under an expedited procedure. I would like us to set a clear date for the abolition of the visa requirement for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania, although I am aware of the demanding nature of the procedures involved. I hope that the summer of 2010 will prove to be a realistic date for the abolition of the visa requirement for these two countries.
Just to conclude. We should not forget Kosovo, either, if we do not want it to become a black hole on the map ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Let me just conclude: The European Union has a political responsibility to finalise the process of visa liberalisation and tomorrow, I expect Parliament's broad support in this regard.
Madam President, it is regrettable that the Swedish Presidency could not be represented here tonight in the person of a Minister, as it would very much have liked.
I understand that the Council Presidency was not invited and was told there was no need for it to be here. I would like to remind the House that the Swedish Presidency has driven and supported the process of visa liberalisation for the Western Balkans from the very beginning.
We should - and I know my colleague Tanja Fajon, the rapporteur, agrees with me - have a chance to thank the Council Presidency, for we owe it the joint declaration between Parliament and the Council, supported by the Commission, which is unique in the history of this institution.
I would like an explanation, though maybe not here and now, of why the Council Presidency could not attend, and I would like it to go on the record that the Minister could not be here because no invitation was made.
I have been informed that the Council Presidency was invited, but it had scheduling problems and so is unable to be here. However, I will look into the matter.
Madam President, I wish to reply to the question put by Mrs Corazza Bildt and to say that the Swedish Presidency has indeed been very active in this process which, as Mrs Fajon has just ably explained, enables us to offer a number of citizens from the Member States concerned, and young people in particular, the possibility of engaging and interacting more with this Europe, which they are, at times, rather unfamiliar with.
It is true that this proposal represents an historic stage in the development of European short-stay visa policy within the context of our relations with the countries of the Western Balkans. Moreover, the Commission welcomes the adoption of this legislative proposal by both the European Parliament and the Council. Everyone is aware of its major political impact and of the sensitive nature of the issue, which affects all of the citizens of the countries concerned.
I understand Parliament's position. I would like, in this connection, to confirm the Commission's strong commitment to monitor closely the fulfilment, by all of the countries concerned, of all the criteria laid down in the road map. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had already been the subject of a positive assessment; the dialogue was therefore concluded with that country. In October, Serbia and Montenegro hosted missions led by the Commission, in association with the experts from the Member States, and those missions confirmed that all of the criteria of the respective road maps had been fulfilled properly.
We are going to follow the same method for Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite the very significant progress made over the last few months, Bosnia and Albania have not yet been able to complete the necessary reforms requested in the road map to justify the exemption of the visa requirement. However, as you just said, Mrs Fajon, it is already very encouraging for them to hear that their neighbours already have this option of being exempted from the visa requirement, and I can confirm to you that I personally will do everything in my power to ensure that Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina can obtain this visa exemption as quickly as possible, as you want.
I invite Parliament, which, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, will be a colegislator in the field of visas, to support the structured method of dialogue on the liberalisation of visas, which is the method followed by the Commission, because a different approach would cause confusion without really changing the visa regime. It would create false hopes and would be liable to slow down the efforts made by the countries in question to implement the reforms required by the road maps.
At this stage, we are keeping Albania and Bosnia in Annex I to the regulation, while reaffirming the European Union's commitment to help these two countries meet the criteria in their road map, and thus to be exempted from the visa requirement in accordance with the procedures in force.
In this context the Commission supports the text of the joint political declaration, which confirms this strong commitment by the Union to implement as quickly as possible the second stage of this visa liberalisation process for the citizens of Albania and Bosnia, Mrs Fajon.
There you have it, Madam President. I believe that this is a very important point that shows the Balkan States just how attentive Europe is to their expectations and desires.
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. - Madam President, the commitment supported in the Fajon report and backed by the proposed Council and Parliament declaration is a far-sighted one. It is to give visa-free travel to all the people of the Western Balkans. This is not solely a generous and altruistic move. It is also hard-headed and shrewd, since security in the widest sense of the word will be promoted and advanced. People who are free, and free to travel, tend to be committed to peaceful solutions and less prey to introverted nationalism which is a security threat.
Who can fail to be moved by the images on the screens outside this Chamber and all the celebrations we have had this week marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall? While these obstacles cannot be compared to the Wall, they are still a barrier to the free communication and wider horizons that promote understanding and tolerance. Our insistence on an inclusive approach should include a fair result by the 15th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement.
I would like to congratulate and thank the rapporteur, Mrs Fajon, for her hard work and the way that she has included all the nuances in every twist and turn of her deliberations over the last two months.
I do also thank the Council, and especially the Swedish Presidency, for their work in helping us to get agreement on the declaration, which confirms the definite aim of visa liberalisation for all the citizens of the Western Balkans as soon as possible - and we hope that this will be during 2010, because the absence of a reasonable commonality in the target dates for achieving this free travel is divisive and creates instability.
We also have made a commitment, in the Fajon report, to working for a visa facilitation and visa liberalisation road map for Kosovo similar to those for the other Western Balkan countries.
I would also like to add the hope that the Government of the United Kingdom - which is not included in the present decision of the EU Schengen zone by virtue, of course, of not being a member - will also shortly follow the same path. I always feel a certain schizophrenia when working on these matters on the Schengen projects because I am a British MEP, but it obviously would be a good thing both for the European Union and for the Western Balkan region if the UK were to follow suit as quickly as possible.
I would like to conclude by thanking Mrs Fajon, the rapporteur.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, the PPE Group is committed to speeding up visa liberalisation for all countries in the Western Balkans by July 2010. We welcome and support the proposal to grant visa liberalisation for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia by Christmas this year.
We understand the plea of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania - a young generation which has been locked in and left out and feels imprisoned. To them we say: 'We are on your side; we are ready when you are ready'. It is regrettable that the slow start by the authorities in Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina left them behind. The responsibility for any delays rests with them. We exhort them to meet the benchmarks as soon as possible. We know that the Commission is helping in that process.
Unfortunately, I have to say that I am saddened that it took us three months of negotiations for the PPE Group to convince the political Left in this House to operate according to the treaties. Is that so complicated? Finally, it too has understood that the European Parliament is not above the law.
With all respect to my distinguished colleagues, I have to denounce a non-constructive attitude. There are no short cuts. There is no abracadabra. We are not here to score points. We are here to obtain results for the citizens of the Balkans. Let me be clear, any provisional mixed intermediary status does not accelerate the process and does not put pressure on the Commission or the Council. It definitely does not send any strong political message.
I would like to conclude by saying that I experienced the siege of Sarajevo and the shelling for a year and a half. To my friends there, I am saying that I am committed.
(The President cut off the speaker)
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, until 2008 and the Slovenian Presidency, not enough progress was made on what the Commissioner rightly called an historic move towards visa liberalisation for the Western Balkans.
As Mrs Ludford said, very correctly, there are deep practical considerations as to why this is important for us and why this is not just a reactive measure. So, on behalf of the Socialist and Democrat Group, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Fajon, for the careful and painstaking work she has undertaken to move the European Union towards this ultimate goal of abolition of the visa regime for all the countries of the Western Balkans. This has been done with the shadow rapporteurs and with the Commission and Council, and it should be commended.
While it is clear that many see visa liberalisation as having great benefits on both sides; it is also the case that we have to take the whole House with us on the question of the road map and of ensuring that fundamental reforms are carried out in all of these countries in order to gain confidence for a truly decent visa liberalisation regime.
The task for our rapporteur was to make a breakthrough on visa liberalisation while taking the House with her. She has done this in the form of the declaration that she negotiated with the Council. The declaration looks to visa liberalisation for Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, to an acceleration of the liberalisation regime for Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to a sensitive compromise on the question of Kosovo.
For all these reasons, my group supports this report and hopes it will gain widespread support in the House.
Madam President, I would first like to join with the previous speaker in expressing my sincere thanks to both rapporteurs, Mrs Fajon and Mrs Ludford, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and also to the shadow rapporteurs. We have succeeded in presenting a proposal demanding that the Commission and the Council come up with an overall package for all the people of the entire Western Balkans, leaving no one out. I very much hope - and I am addressing Commissioner Barrot in this regard - that you can convince the Council that the goal of visa liberalisation should also apply to Kosovo, so the dialogue will now begin, and so that visa liberalisation will also be achieved for Bosnia and Albania by no later than the middle of next year. I would prefer it to be sooner.
I would like to make one thing clear. Of course, it is a matter of implementation, but I have heard that everything has not yet been implemented in Serbia. I would like to know what you think about this. It is important to implement everything. I would like to thank everyone involved and I hope that all of the people ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, twenty years ago, my fellow countrymen from East Germany obtained the freedom to travel. A few years later, Slobodan Milošević arbitrarily jeopardised and then took away the freedom of travel for Serbs and then for all other countries in the region. How often since 2000 have we in this House, in declarations and in public debates, wished for the freedom of travel - visa-free travel - for the countries of South-Eastern Europe. We know that the EU cannot achieve this alone, as the national governments need to agree to it. We need to overcome the anxieties in our population. Criminals are everywhere - they do not need a visa! They cross borders without a visa. That is therefore not something that we should be concerned about.
It is about the young generation, who, with the help of visa-free travel, can finally go wherever they want to. We are therefore very pleased that the citizens of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia will now finally be able to travel freely again. How wonderful! There is still a hint of sadness in that Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo cannot yet join them, but in December, we expect the Commission to acknowledge the huge progress that Albania has made and to see that Bosnia and Herzegovina has also made a certain amount of improvement. Unfortunately, there are politicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina who are less concerned about the interests of their citizens, as they are secure in the knowledge that they themselves, of course, have visa-free travel. I therefore believe that we need to ensure that this is possible by next summer. I hope that Mr Barrot will help us in that. However, we must not forget Kosovo. It must not be the last remaining black mark. We are obliged to help Kosovo to meet the benchmarks. It cannot do it alone. Visa-free travel is a deeply humanitarian act. I am pleased that we were all in a position to make this happen. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr Barrot.
(HU) Europe and the European Union started off as a peace project and are now going through the longest peacetime period in history. Therefore, we are aware of what a powerful instrument integration can be from this perspective. Now we have to use it to deal with the Western Balkans.
The Western Balkans have only recently gone through an extremely traumatic period of war, causing great suffering to a huge number of people. Progress needs to be made with the process of European integration in order to overcome this event. Visa-free travel is an important step in this. Several people have mentioned the opportunity it would provide young people with to establish direct contact and gain first-hand experience, as well as the opportunity for democratic forces to grow in strength. It is not only about providing a message of trust and visa-free travel. Europe can also benefit from the Western Balkans moving closer to the European Union from a security and economic policy perspective. However, it is important that we do not create new divisions in the region, but ensure that every country can participate in the visa-free travel scheme as soon as possible.
(NL) Tomorrow, the European Parliament will be voting on the abolition of the short-stay visa requirement for Balkan countries. Not all the countries for whom a road map was drawn up are eligible to receive the waiver on 1 January.
It is very unfortunate that, in one country, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commission proposal permits a disparity between different sections of the population: those able to benefit from visa-free travel to Europe on Croatian or Serbian passports and those - the Bosnian Muslims - who are not in possession of such a passport. This is an embarrassing distinction in view of the country's recent history.
It is up to the European Parliament to send a signal to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania tomorrow. Criteria are criteria, and these requirements need to be met in order to qualify for the visa waiver. As soon as the benchmarks have been met, however, the visa waiver must be granted as soon as possible.
We have seen that a great deal has been done to meet the benchmarks, and we call on the Commission to help Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania to meet all the requirements as soon as possible.
(SL) For the citizens of the Western Balkans, the abolition of the visa requirement for travel to the European Union does not only have a technical dimension, but an exceptional political charge and significance as well. Today, we rightly commemorated in Parliament the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and of full-blown socialism. However, Skopje, Podgorica and Belgrade will, during this Christmas and New Year, finally get to celebrate the fall of a visa wall which has separated them from us in the European Union for almost 12 years.
For nearly 20 years, the majority of the population of the former Yugoslavia has been denied the opportunity of travelling freely across Europe, which is something they were used to previously, when they were still citizens of the now collapsed socialist federation. We are beginning to see the ugly consequences of such isolation, which has lasted an entire generation, and it is high time that we put an end to it.
However, the Macedonians, the Montenegrins and the Serbs should be joined by the Bosnians and Herzegovinians, the Albanians and the Kosovars as early as possible in 2010. That alone will enable the new generations of those countries to finally see and experience the outside world, establish contacts with other Europeans, contribute to the development of European values at home and equip their nations for fully-fledged membership in our common European story - the European Union.
As Parliament rapporteur for Macedonia, I have received a large number of phone calls in recent days from citizens of various Balkan countries. I wish to reassure them, loud and clear, that their visa-free travel to the EU is not a substitute for their accession to the EU. What their free travel in the EU amounts to is a step towards fully-fledged membership of the EU.
(HU) I would like to welcome this report and congratulate the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs. I also want to say that as far as I can see, on this 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, guaranteeing the crossing of borders in the case of Western Balkan countries becomes part of the series of events that started 20 years ago, like a new wall collapsing.
This is why this proposal should be welcomed. However, we must not forget that the issue of providing visa-free travel is only partially a technical one, while it is a very clear political matter at the same time. This is why it is important. I also support the acceptance of the Joint Declaration because this signals that the European institutions have understood this responsibility. This responsibility also means action at the same time. First of all, it means action by the relevant states which have been unable to meet the visa-free travel conditions to fulfil these requirements as soon as possible, not to mention action from the European Commission without whose help this process would drag on.
(DE) Madam President, I believe that we are on the right track with regard to the Balkan States. We have drawn closer through visa facilitation and that will help to create stability, although it is also a sign of our appreciation of the efforts that have been made. However, I also think that it is good for us to retain a clear set of rules and for the requirements relating to these also to be complied with. In this regard, I would particularly like to thank Mrs Corazza Bildt for the efforts she has made.
Anything else would, in my opinion, be a pure Brussels-based decision, in which a clear system would be abandoned and no honesty would be shown to the people affected in the Balkan States, just as little as is shown to our own people. Political signals should not be placed in a footnote or in an annex to a European directive or regulation; they need to be formulated properly.
(PL) Madam President, I am glad that the citizens of Western Balkan countries will be able to move freely around the European Union. This will facilitate interpersonal contact, extend business possibilities and create conditions for the residents of the region to get to know the European Union better.
We cannot, however, allow our Eastern neighbours to be isolated. We cannot deny them the opportunity which we are giving to other European countries. We must establish for them, too, clear criteria and an action plan for greater liberalisation of visa traffic. We have to bear in mind that the cost of a visa is a considerable expense for the residents of these countries, and the application procedures take a long time, which restricts the possibilities for developing a whole range of forms of cooperation.
We should also remember that in 2012, the European football championships will be held in Poland and Ukraine, so the possibility of free movement will be especially important.
(RO) I, too, wish to stress the importance of freedom of movement as a fundamental right, and I reconfirm that numerous citizens from countries in the Western Balkans will enjoy this right. I obviously welcome this openness.
However, at the same time, I wish to deplore the fact that this report ultimately did not feature any reference at all to a country included in the Eastern Partnership. I believe that it needed to be associated with Moldova, if only symbolically. We are talking about Moldova, a country which has made considerable progress on the political front. I think that the most solid wall we know in Europe is on the eastern border, between Romania and Moldova. I believe we must deplore this fact.
Madam President, my thanks to all of the speakers who have largely supported the process of abolishing visas for three leading Balkan States. You made it clear that freedom of movement was obviously very desirable. As Mr Moraes said, it is beneficial for both parties - for Europe and for the Balkan States.
At the same time as thanking all of the speakers and, in particular, the rapporteur, Mrs Fajon, I would simply like to say, Madam President, that, ever since part of the decisions were pretty much taken for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, we have offered continual assistance to Albania, which I have visited personally, and to Bosnia and Herzegovina, precisely so as to help them make progress - and we shall continue to do so.
I believe that the very swift adoption of this resolution is a good indicator of the way in which we will be able to move on quickly to the other states and, in particular, to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to Albania, without forgetting, of course, Kosovo.
rapporteur. - Mr President, once again I thank all those who made contributions, which prove that the European Union strongly supports visa liberalisation for all the countries of the Western Balkans.
I regret that the Swedish Minister was not here, because we had very good cooperation. I welcome the Commission's commitment to do everything possible to accelerate the process for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania, and I hope both countries will introduce visa-free regimes once they meet the criteria - as soon as possible, possibly in summer next year.
I want to say that I involved everyone in this, and I am fully aware of what the treaties prescribe. But this is a political House, and we all do serious politics as best we can.
Once again, I welcome the abolition of visas for Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro on 19 December, and I really hope that Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania can follow as soon as possible. We are talking about the destiny of the young generation. It is our political responsibility to finish this visa liberalisation process, and we also have to find a solution for all the people in Kosovo.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, let me begin by congratulating the rapporteur and shadow rapporteur for drafting an acceptable compromise on this matter. The issue of providing visa-free travel is only partially a technical one. It is also a very definite political matter. Visa-free travel is based on mutual trust and commitments. This is why I also support the acceptance of the Joint Declaration, in addition to the report, because this signals that the European institutions have understood this responsibility.
Responsibility, of course, also means action. First of all, it means action by the relevant states which have been unable to meet the visa-free travel conditions. They must do their utmost so that these conditions are met as soon as possible. It also means action by the European Commission without whose effective help this process would only drag on, which cannot be in our interest. It also concerns Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo.
As a Hungarian MEP, I would like once again to mention that, thanks to visa-free travel status for Serbia, a more direct link is being established between Hungarians living in Vojvodina in Serbia and the mother country, not to mention with Europe too. Citizens who live on either side of these borders, speak the same language and foster close family and cultural ties are unable, for their part, to find sufficient words to express the importance of being able to cross borders without any barrier or visa. Today we are marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and cutting through the barbed wire. Guaranteeing the crossing of borders in the case of Western Balkan countries becomes part of the series of events that started 20 years ago, like a new wall collapsing


Democratic process in Turkey (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on democratic process in Turkey.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am afraid we may have the same passion in this discussion on democracy in Turkey as we had on the wine reform during the second half of Arsenal v Manchester United, which is a snapshot of Europe in 2009.
This is more serious, because this is a very serious matter and indeed a very substantive issue concerning democratic development in Turkey. First of all I am deeply saddened and shocked by the massacre that took place in Bilge in Turkey last night, killing 44 people. I offer my sincere condolences to the families and friends of the victims and I trust that the murderers will be brought to justice as soon as possible. There is no moral or ethical justification of this kind of horrible attack.
Let me also express my personal, and the Commission's, sorrow on the death of nine Turkish soldiers and a gendarme as a consequence of the terrorist attacks last week. Our thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives.
We condemn terrorism and support Turkey in its fight against terrorism. The PKK is on the EU list of terrorist organisations. Between 14 and 18 April more than 200 officials and members of the Democratic Society Party have been arrested in a police operation throughout Turkey, and in particular in its south-eastern region.
We understand that charges brought against them include being a member of a terrorist organisation, although a formal indictment is still pending. We expect to see the indictment finalised as part of a transparent and objective judicial process.
The Commission cannot interfere in ongoing legal cases. However, our approach is clear: while we support the fight against terrorism, we have consistently stressed that it must be conducted by respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular as regards the freedom of expression and association.
Political pluralism is an integral part of any democracy. The Turkish Grand National Assembly is today largely representative of the country's political diversity. The Democratic Society Party has been contributing to pluralism in Turkey, and its political legitimacy was confirmed by the results of the recent local elections in March.
At the same time, the people of south-east Turkey need peace, they need stability and prosperity rather than further violence or confrontation. Condemning the use of force and violence is a duty for all parties involved. All must exercise restraint and be committed to peaceful means and peaceful means only. This is also an integral part of any democracy.
We will continue to follow up closely the developments of this case. It is essential that the principles of democracy and the rule of law, including the rights of defendants, will prevail.
The Commission also continues to follow closely the closure case against the DTP currently pending in the Constitutional Court. In this context, the current rules governing the closure of political parties in Turkey are not in line with the European Convention of Human Rights and with European practices, as was recently stated in an opinion of the Venice Commission. We have requested Turkey to take such an opinion fully into account and to reflect it in the Turkish constitutional and legislative framework in the form of revisions to this effect.
To conclude, we continue to encourage the Turkish authorities to address the problems of the south-east of the country and its people, in order to enhance the economic, social and cultural opportunities of all Turkish citizens irrespective of their ethnic, religious or linguistic origins.
Under the Copenhagen political criteria, Turkey is expected to ensure cultural diversity and promote cultural rights of all its citizens, as set out in our Accession Partnership. In this context, the establishment of a new TRT channel broadcasting in the Kurdish language is a step forward. It shows a change of mentality and I want to encourage the Turkish authorities to take further steps in this direction.
We will continue to monitor the situation in the south-east and will report in our upcoming progress report. That is an essential part of the process of democratisation of Turkey.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, following the local elections on 29 March, in which the Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) achieved a sensational victory - almost doubling their number of mayors from 52 to 98 - it is clear that the Kurdish question can no longer be reduced to a socioeconomic issue, as Mr Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) have been doing up to now. There is a clear need for a political solution, and the DTP must also be accepted as a full partner in discussions.
In this situation, one would think that a repressive approach was outmoded, yet the Turkish authorities have once again embarked on a widespread wave of arrests. More than 400 leading DTP personnel have been arrested for requesting a solution to the Kurdish question. My question to the Commission is as follows, therefore. This is now the fifth or sixth party set up by the Kurds - currently bearing the name DTP. It has 21 members of parliament and 98 mayors, and still the Kurds continue to be sidelined.
Commissioner, has not the time come for the European Union to initiate mediation between the Turkish Government and the DTP? If it does not, this situation will remain at a complete standstill. In other words, the causes of a number of supposed terrorist activities must be tackled. I think that the election victory a few weeks ago also proves that the Kurdish sense of nationality is alive and well, and that structural reforms promoting increased autonomy for the Kurds must also be carried out quickly.
I should also like to call attention to another urgent problem on the fringe of this debate, which is that more than 1 500 minors have been locked up in prison and are being tried by the same court as adults, totally contrary to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. What does the Commission intend to do about this?
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Rehn, during this sixth legislative period Turkey has been a priority on our EU agenda. Before the start of accession negotiations, Turkey had made huge steps towards reform and the EU recognised this accordingly.
Today the mood has changed somewhat. We are growing increasingly concerned about the progress of the democratisation process in Turkey. Freedom of the press, the protection of minorities, but also reform of the judiciary must be monitored constantly. As for the Ergenekon trial which is taking place in Turkey, I would like to say that this must not become politicised. The fact is that arrests and searches are taking place. Hasty comments should be avoided. Careful reporting has an important role to play here.
Important progress has been made on the Kurdish question. The solution of the Kurdish problem is central to the process of democratisation and the protection of minorities. However, I also have concerns about the current position of some EU heads of government. Ambiguous signals from the EU also mean that from time to time the democratic process in Turkey faces a bumpy ride. In this respect I would like to recall that a clear commitment on behalf of the EU to Turkey's full membership would give the reform process a huge boost. Otherwise, there will always be new breeding grounds for fundamentalism and nationalism, and the Kurdish problem will get worse.
After all, the common goal is to turn Turkey into a more modern, stable and prosperous democracy, based on a secular state and a pluralistic society. This is not only in Turkey's interest, it is also an important strategic interest of the European Union.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is the last plenary sitting of this legislative period. My fellow Member Mr Öger has just said that Turkey is a priority. In recent years, as rapporteur for my group, I have been able to deal with this issue and I must say I am very happy that in this last session we are once more getting to the heart of the matter, namely the question of democracy in Turkey.
It is the first Copenhagen criterion that is in question. There are varying opinions as to how Turkey has developed. However, I believe that in one respect there is consensus: the pace of reform in Turkey seems to have slackened; the impression at the end of this legislative period is that Turkey now has further to go before it will be ready for accession than it had at the beginning both of the mandate of the Commission and of the legislature of this Parliament.
For the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe the problems of freedom of the press and of opinion are particularly important in this context. You know that you cannot watch YouTube in Turkey. The rights of journalists, publishers, publicists, columnists and authors are restricted by certain legal regulations. The Commission has thankfully indicated in its progress report that this is a problem. In the opinion of many observers, these problems have increased. I would be grateful if the Commission would say something about this - whether it believes the problems have got worse or whether things have got better. That would be really surprising.
In addition, there are important subjects like the protection of religious minorities and the safeguarding of women's rights. However, the key issue at the moment is the question of freedom of the press, the revoking of the press accreditations of critical journalists by the Prime Minister, the largely unjustified arrests of critical journalists and publishers in the course of investigations into the clearly criminal Ergenekon network, the takeover of the ATV-Sabah media group by the Scharlach-Holding, which is owned or controlled by the Prime Minister's son-in-law, the Prime Minister's public calls to boycott media and the judgement against the Doğan media group and fine of EUR 380 million with the aim of forcing it out of business because it reported the lighthouse donation scandal, and his preferential treatment of the AKP. This is not only a question of press freedom, it also scares off investors, who doubt the certainty of the law in Turkey.
Turkey is an important neighbour, an important, respected NATO partner. We want to continue supporting Turkey; that is the opinion of my group. However, we believe that a great deal has to be done here, that the Turkish Government must demonstrate its will to no longer ride roughshod over fundamental European rights, as it is doing at the moment. We would be grateful if this could be documented persuasively in the next legislative period.
Moreover, I believe that we should have this debate not in Strasbourg, but in Brussels.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, where democratisation in Turkey is concerned, the picture is mixed, in my opinion, with progress on some points and stagnation and deterioration on others.
It is progress that there were no riots on 1 May on Taksim Square in Istanbul, only trade union leaders commemorating the 1977 tragedy. It is progress that Turkey and Armenia have agreed to improve mutual relations. My call to the Turkish Government would be to continue on this path and not let itself be stopped or sidetracked by nationalists in Ankara or Baku. It is progress that there have been arrests of people suspected of planning a coup or of involvement in political assassinations: the Ergenekon affair.
My warning to the Turkish authorities would be to continue to keep their actions within the law, as any contravention will be used to draw attention away from the substance and will be seized on by those who do not want to see a solution to this matter, do not want to get to the bottom of things.
Then there are the negative developments, however. It is a bad thing that the prime minister has called on the population to stop buying certain newspapers. It is a very bad thing that many of the leading members of a party that was democratically elected to the Turkish Parliament have been arrested. The mass arrest of prominent members of the Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) is just as unacceptable as a formal ban on the party, as the result is the same. The scope for finding a political solution to the Kurdish issue has been drastically curtailed. This is very good news for the extremists on both sides, but very bad news for the majority of Turks and Kurds, who have been longing for a peaceful solution to this problem for so long.
The situation of progress on the one hand and stagnation on the other will only be ended, in my opinion, if the government unambiguously opts for deeper reforms, if the opposition supports these in both word and deed and also, ladies and gentlemen, if the EU keeps its promise that Turkey can become a full member of the European Union provided it meets our democratic standards.
This brings me to my final comment, Madam President. Whilst I am very pleased about the party-wide anxiety about Turkey's democratisation, I have no sympathy at all with MEPs who are critical of Turkey but who are not prepared to allow it to become a full member if these problems are solved. Even after my term of office has come to an end, I shall continue to argue for the reforms that are needed for Turkey to become a full member of the European Union.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a 14-year-old boy in Hakkari was beaten into a coma by a SWAT team policeman. Another 14 year old, who was fleeing a police gas attack, drowned after falling into a river. On 4 April two people died at a demonstration near Urfa as a consequence of a police operation. At present in Diyarbakir there are more than 185 minors in prison. Hundreds of democratically elected politicians and activists of the DTP have been imprisoned, including three party leaders. There are more than 207 proceedings against DTP MPs.
Such is my reading of the present democratic process in Turkey. The list goes on. This repression began shortly after 29 March, when the DTP enjoyed major successes in local government elections in the south-east of the country and the number of their mayoral appointments almost doubled, while by contrast the ruling AKP experienced bitter losses in its much sought after Kurdish region. In my opinion there is a link between the election success of the DTP and the wave of repression against it.
It was then heard from government circles that the extension of the DTP's election success right up to the border with Armenia was regarded as a security risk. Instead of trying to understand this clear vote for what it is, namely an unambiguous message by the Kurds that a solution must be found within the system, an attempt is being made to repress this political success, and with police brutality, if necessary.
Unfortunately, I do not think that even the highly praised AKP has either the will or the determination to develop and push through a comprehensive strategy for the resolution of this conflict, which has lasted for decades. As you all know, since the last progress report there has been no significant progress in the area of freedom of the press and of expression, recognition of the Kurdish reality, rights for religious minorities or civilising the military. The ruling AKP must finally implement genuine constitutional reform and bring a new dynamism, which can regenerate the country constitutionally and democratically and accept its pluralistic, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural social reality. Otherwise there can be no real democratisation in Turkey. That should be clear to all of us here.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, the European Union has made two cardinal errors in its relations with Turkey. In 1999, it press-ganged Turkey into becoming a candidate country, and continued on this wrong track by opening accession negotiations with Ankara in 2005. The Council and the Commission think that, in doing so, they can disregard the historical legacy of the Republic of Turkey.
Nowadays, this historical legacy - or rather burden - manifests itself in a veritable cultural battle between the secular Kemalist camp and the conservative/religious front surrounding the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) as to the direction the Republic of Turkey should be taking. A noxious consequence of this is the sensational Ergenekon trial of numerous prominent Kemalists. When it comes to nationalistic attitudes towards the country's religious and ethnic minorities, there is now precious little to choose between the Kemalists and Prime Minister Erdoğan. The constant disenfranchisement of these minorities - which is part of the history of the Republic of Turkey - is, of course, at variance with the EU's political conditions for accession.
I would refer the Council and the Commission to a wellknown Dutch saying: it is better to stop half way than to persevere in an error. The European institutions and the Turkish authorities should learn from this wisdom at long last. This is the only way to pave the way towards better, more realistic relations in the interests of both parties.
- (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from what I have heard, it is clear that Turkey is a country with very big problems when it comes to democracy.
We have seen and we have heard of 15 000 minors in prisons, we have heard of hundreds of arrests on dubious charges, we are aware that the Kurdish problem is still continuing and above all the Armenian problem, the ageold problem that is absolutely still alive to this day. We have seen the murders of priests or missionaries in the past two years, we have infinite problems. If we compare this situation to that of another country, let us say Belarus, which is still is considered a pariah country in Europe, a country that apparently actually forms part of an axis of evil, it is hard to understand how we can continue to talk about Turkey joining Europe.
There are evidently strong lobbies that promote and desire at all costs Turkey's entry to form part of Europe. Apart from anything else, we cannot overlook the fact that there is a problem, Cyprus, that is actually unique in its essence: in other words a country that is a candidate for EU accession that occupies the land of another country and continues to occupy it by extending its domain over this island and exercising absolute nonliberal power over the people of the island.
I believe that Europeans are looking into their consciences and increasingly realising the inevitability of a decision against Turkey's admission into Europe. I will remind you of some facts: Turkey has 90 million inhabitants, strong demographic growth and above all we must not forget the fact that the Turkish speaking countries of Central Asia are demanding Turkish citizenship and the Turkish State seems intent on giving it to them. This means that the entrance of Turkey would not mean simply Turkey joining Europe but also other peoples, other states in Europe. Let us also not forget that, in historical terms, Turkey was against Europe and now it acts as a significant look-out for two powers that are certainly not European, in other words the United States and Israel.
Lastly, we must not overlook the factor of religion: millions of Turks entering Europe would mean the opening of thousands and thousands of mosques and therefore certainly a reduction in Christian identity and civil identity in Europe. We must also not forget that mosques are often willing accomplices in allowing in ideas that are strongly anti-libertarian, anti-women and anti the European public.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, like the Commissioner, I would also like to send my condolences to the families of the victims of this savage attack. I would also like to say in advance that I support all of Turkey's efforts and endeavours in the direction of democratisation. They are certainly intended to bring Turkey closer to the European Union - not 'into', but 'closer' to the European Union.
I also believe that we must proceed with a policy of zero tolerance in the area of human rights and democratisation and must expect extremely high standards. The examples which our colleagues have given speak for themselves and we can see that Turkey still has a very, very long road ahead of it before it reaches EU standards. They also prove that so far Turkey has neglected to address and implement these fundamental constitutional reforms.
The system in Turkey is still characterised by the fact that there is no clear cut division of power between the various state authorities, and this is the root of many of the problems we find in Turkey's political life today. Unfortunately, it must also be said that the list of unsolved problems is getting longer rather than shorter.
For example, I will pinpoint parliamentary rights: there are particularly large deficits in the area of parliamentary budgetary control of military spending. The parliament has hardly any say in this and, what is more, there are special funds over which the parliament has no control whatsoever.
In addition, the immunity of individual members of parliament is regulated in an extremely ambiguous way. In this respect, there is a massive need for reform in Turkey. Unfortunately, Turkey has also failed to sign various European and international agreements - the Convention against Torture, for example. I believe it is really up to Turkey to set a good example here and meet European and international standards.
I could recite even more points, but I will leave it there and call upon the Commission to pay strict attention to progress in these areas.
(BG) I share the concern for the democratic process in Turkey in light of the recent arrests which were made after the local elections. Regardless of this, I do not think that politicians who have close links to organisations resorting to violent methods to achieve their aims should be supported. Violence has never been an acceptable and justified means of protecting rights and freedoms.
I believe that Kurds must enjoy more cultural and educational rights and I greatly respect the continuing reforms, including the launch of a 24-hour Kurdishlanguage TV channel. However, rights and freedoms, fellow Members, are not won through violence, but by using peaceful, political means, through dialogue and mutual respect.
This is why our sincere support for the reforms in Turkey will also encourage the EU's fundamental values to be upheld, with one of the most important of these being respect for ethnic and religious differences and diversity. I am sure that the bright prospect of accession to the European Union will speed up the respect for human rights and the reforms in Turkey.
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, President, first of all I would like to greet the president of the DTP Party, Mr Ahmet Türk, who is a VIP guest here to follow the debate. Dear Ahmet, you know that we are with you, that we support the democratic struggle your party is conducting in Turkey for the recognition of the fundamental rights of the Kurdish people.
We acknowledge that the DTP is an essential tool for fostering democracy in Turkey, and for this reason we firmly condemn the police operations that Prime Minister Erdoğan has ordered against you, imprisoning all three vice presidents of the DTP together with more than 300 militants and sympathisers. The DTP's victory in the last administrative elections shows that the DTP is a party that enjoys strong popular democratic support. The European Parliament resolved to ask Prime Minister Erdoğan to table direct discussions with the DTP and instead his response was more oppression, more police, more authoritarianism and more imprisonment.
Everybody knows that my parliamentary group and the European Left have up to now supported Turkey's application for membership of the European Union, at the same time supporting the process of reform in that country. I believe, however, that over the last two years, and particularly during the last few months, Mr Erdoğan has showed his other side, that of a leader who is hand in glove with the worst part of the Turkish army that simply wishes to massacre the Kurds.
The process of reform is practically dead in the water, the prisons are filling with Kurds; Mr Erdoğan himself is cutting off any prospect of Turkey's membership. The responsibility for what is happening in Euro-Turkish relations and the growing bewilderment of European public opinion with regard to Turkey lies with him and him alone.
I would like to send a very strong political message to Mr Erdoğan: either seek a negotiated political solution to the Kurdish question which, let us be very clear about this, is a process that will involve direct negotiations with the DTP, or we will ask you to suspend your negotiations for membership of the European Union. The road to Turkey's membership of the Union is via Diyarkabir and the DTP, otherwise it will be us, in other words the people who most supported your accession process, who ask for a pause for reflection, which could well become permanent.
(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today Turkey seems to function as a democracy, but it is not for the European Union to give endless lessons on good conduct, when the EU itself cheerfully and unscrupulously bypasses the sovereign will of its constituent peoples when they vote in referenda.
Basically, Turkey is still a long way from respecting the values of the European nations, as demonstrated by the situation of the countless ethnic and religious minorities which make up the country. The situation of millions of Kurds is slow to improve. Relations with the Armenians or even their Greek neighbours are under constant diplomatic or military pressure. Cyprus is still under Turkish military occupation, in defiance of international law. This has gone on for 35 years. Religious minorities scarcely fare better. The rights of the communities not listed in the treaties are regularly trampled on, under the blind eye of the European Commission, which continues, as does Parliament, to support the accession of this country to the European Union.
Therefore, let us be consistent. While cooperation with Turkey is essential, any accession plans for Turkey must be made in accordance with the European democracies, namely through referenda.
Mr President, we have founded a lot of our efforts and based many of our policies on the hope that by being nice to Turkey this country will change its Kemalic fascism into democratic-like behaviour that is just about acceptable. We were absolutely wrong and have rapidly become desperately disappointed and frustrated. The democratic reform process in Turkey has been moving with the pace of a three-legged turtle.
Commissioner, we and the vast majority of the European citizens we represent have run out of patience. We have had enough. The governing regime in Turkey has proven itself totally incapable and unwilling to get its country into the state of a 21st-century civilisation. Commissioner, the carrot technique has failed gloriously and you have to admit it. The time has now come to use the stick.
Mr President, Parliament, I am afraid, is proving itself again to be rather fickle on the issue of Turkey. I would be grateful if the Commissioner could give us his frank appraisal of the Ergenekon affair. Does he agree that it is a welcome sign of the cleansing of the stables and a signal that the judicial process is finally starting to attack deep corruption inside parts of the Turkish State?
(DE) Mr President, I would like to respond to what Mr Lagendijk has said. We too of course see the positive diplomatic role Turkey can play in relation to Armenia and in relation to the Middle East. However, diplomacy and democracy are two different things. We are particularly concerned by Prime Minister Erdoğan's action against Ahmed Doğan's publishing group. Even Der Spiegel, which has nothing to do with either Doğan or Springer, writes of Erdoğan's private vendetta against Doğan.
I have already mentioned the Commission's progress report. Once again I would like to ask the Commission a specific question. Is the Commission more or less concerned about freedom of opinion and of the press in Turkey than it was at the time the progress report was published? If no, why is it no longer concerned? If yes, what specific measures does the Commission intend to take? How important is the subject of freedom of the press and of opinion in relation to the ongoing accession negotiations? As I said, this is after all about the first Copenhagen criterion, the political criterion.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I want to thank honourable Members, first of all, for a very serious and substantive debate on the democratic process in Turkey, and I also want this evening to thank the European Parliament for its contribution to the EU's policy in relation to Turkey. There has been critical but constructive support for our engagement with Turkey in a very critical period. I think Parliament's approach - like, I trust, the Commission's approach - can be described as fair and firm in relation to Turkey and its EU accession process.
Indeed, in my view, we have to be fair and firm and only by being both at the same time can we achieve results. What I mean is that we have to be fair in the sense of maintaining the EU perspective as the critical driver of reforms in the country, keeping our word concerning Turkey's chance to show that it will be able to meet EU accession criteria. At the same time, we have to be firm by applying rigorous conditionality, especially as regards fundamental freedoms and democratic principles. These two key elements - fairness and firmness - only work together and they cannot be separated from each other. I think that is clearly the best way of supporting a democratic transformation in Turkey, which is our objective, because it makes Turkey a better partner and a prospective possible Member State of the European Union, in line with the negotiating framework adopted in the early hours of 4 October 2005.
The current state of affairs is pretty much a mixed picture, as Joost Lagendijk, the chair of the European Parliament Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, described it. Sometimes it feels like two steps forward and one step backward, but better that way than vice versa.
As Mr Duff raised the issue, I think that the Ergenekon investigation is a case in point. In view of the investigation so far, it seems that it was essential that this network behind potential political or other attacks against democracy in Turkey was revealed and will continue to be revealed in the spirit of the rule of law and democratic secularism.
On the other hand, in the recent stages of the Ergenekon investigation, one may question whether all the principles of the rule of law have been truly applied or whether there are some other political purposes behind these arrests. The jury is still out. We are following this very closely and we shall certainly report on this in our forthcoming progress report in the coming autumn.
In my view, three principles are particularly important. First of all, the democratic principles: pursuing constitutional reform, where reform of the rules governing political parties is essential in view of the experiences of last year, this year and previous years, when we have seen the pitfalls of the constitutional framework of Turkey in this regard, as pointed out by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
Second, freedom of expression, which Graf Lambsdorff referred to, is the bedrock of democracy. This was discussed quite recently at the meeting of Parliament's Joint Parliamentary Committee with the Turkish Grand National Assembly. I am concerned about media freedom and its development in Turkey and we will certainly come back to this as a special section in our progress report in the coming autumn.
Yes, there has been positive progress concerning the consequences of the reform of the infamous Article 301 some one or two years ago. On the other hand, relative progress concerning Article 301 does not justify attacks on media freedom elsewhere, as has been referred to in several statements this evening.
Finally, the rule of law, which is underpinning the functioning of all society and the economy and which is the key value of the European Union: that is illustrated in the fight against terrorism, which we support, as long as it is conducted in line with the rule of law and principles of justice in the best European tradition.
So, the pace of negotiations with Turkey will essentially depend on the progress and intensity of the reforms enhancing fundamental freedoms and the rule of law in the country, in all walks of life and all corners of the country. That is the foundation of the negotiation process. Progress in the technical negotiations will depend on whether there is serious progress in, and intensity and implementation of, these reforms enhancing fundamental freedoms and human rights and democratic secularism. These are enshrined in the Treaty on European Union and in our common European values. That is the critical yardstick of Turkish progress towards the European Union.
The debate is closed.


2. Azerbaijan: freedom of expression (vote)
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, on behalf of the PPE Group, I propose the following oral amendment to paragraph 7: the words 'deplores the Azerbaijani authorities' decision not' should be replaced with the words 'urges the Azerbaijani authorities'. The text should read as follows: 'Urges the Azerbaijani authorities to renew the FM radio licences of a number of international broadcasters...' and so on.


9. An EU-South Africa Strategic Partnership (vote)