MONDAY, 25 JUNE 2001

PROGRESS REPORT

 

Mr TANIK (Turkey) congratulated the deputies from Montenegro and Bulgaria.

     The success of Simeon in Bulgaria had touched the people of Turkey who had closely

     followed the elections.

 

                 Turning to the question of the DEP parliamentarians, who had been imprisoned

     because of their statements, he had entered parliament with them in 1991.  Their

     imprisonment was not right and he had visited them in prison.  He noted that those who

     helped terrorist organisations in other European countries were also being imprisoned, for

     example, in Spain.  The Assembly should not under-estimate the task of being a Minister

     of Justice, which was the most difficult task in political life.  The Turkish Minister of

     Justice was respected and successful.  It was not appropriate for him to be belittled in the

     Council of Europe.  He referred to the problems of F-type prisons which were not unique

     to Turkey.  He hoped to have more information to report by Thursday on that matter.

 

 

                 Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey).- First, I want to make some comments on Mr Cox’s

     speech, especially his discussion of Turkey’s membership of the Council.  If any country

     does not respect or refuses to apply the decision of the Court, perhaps we could discuss

     the matter to which Mr Cox refers.  However, there are different kinds of decision.  As

     everyone knows, the Loizidou case was exceptional, as was even pointed out in the

     judgment of the Court, and it requires exceptional treatment. 

 

                 This Assembly took up the issue of the execution of the judgments of the

     European Court of Human Rights, on the basis of a report prepared by Mr Jurgens.

     During the debate we held last September, we saw that, especially with the Loizidou

     case, we must first overcome the basic political problems - a fact that was also defended

     by the rapporteur.  I inform my colleagues that new elements prove that Turkey is doing

     its best to help to execute that decision and to reinforce the credibility of the Court on the

     basis of a proposal that is currently under discussion by the Ministers’ Deputies.

 

                 However, there is an example from the UK.  A decision was made in the case of

     Matthews v. UK, yet two years have passed  and the UK still refuses to comply with the

     Court’s decision. None the less we do not ask for discussion of the UK’s membership of

     the Council of Europe.

 

                 In relation to Mr Cox’s comments on the occupation of Cyprus, I ask him why

     the Turkish army was there in 1974.  The state was independent, but a Mr Sampson from

     Greece took over the government and sent the then President into exile.  After only three

     days, they started to kill the Turkish minority.  When one goes to northern Cyprus one is

     aware that women and children were killed in that island, but Mr Cox talks of an

     occupying Turkish army and blames Turkey as if there was no reason for the Turkish

     army to go into Cyprus.  That is not fair and it is a lie to say that to our colleagues in this

     distinguished Assembly.  The Turkish army was in Cyprus to save the lives of the women

     and children who were being killed.  In northern Cyprus we can see almost a museum of

     the massacres that took place during those three days.

 

                 It is easy to talk of an occupying army in northern Cyprus but we are talking

     about twenty-five years ago.  Now there is a tranquillity and peace provided by the

     Turkish army, yet it is still described as one state with an occupying army in the northern

     section.  There is an independent state in that area, democratically elected, which

     sometimes sends a representative to this Assembly.  I do not think it is fair for Mr Cox to

     continue to call that territory occupied.

 

                 I apologise, Mr President, for not talking about the report prepared by our

     colleagues but as other subjects were introduced, I felt I had to reply.  Thank you for

     giving me a chance to do so.

 

 

TUESDAY, 26 JUNE 2001

DOMESTIC SLAVERY

 

Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- Thank you, Mr President.  Dear colleagues,

     I start by thanking the rapporteurs for an excellent report, which should be highly

     commended and supported by all of us.  Rather than repeat the valuable analysis of what

     is happening and why, I want to look at the background to see whether the Council of

     Europe can do something about it and come to a decision on these important issues.

 

                 What are the reasons?  We can say that they are political, economic, cultural and

     sometimes ethnic or sexual.  In certain cities or countries, some people are considered of

     less worth than their fellow citizens because of their ethnic origins.  So in the minds of

     those who employ them, that justifies treating them as near animals.  That is wholly ethnic

     prejudice.

 

                 However, there are cultural reasons for the problem.  Some people live in a tribal

     system under which they are the property of somebody else.  The leader of the tribe has

     complete ownership of their life or fate.  Such cultural issues also provide a framework for

     the situation.

 

                 There are sexual reasons.  People are employed as cooks or au pairs under

     pretence.  As soon as they say yes, put their signature on a piece of paper and agree to

     go abroad, they are kidnapped and their lives are not their own.  They are sold and

     resold.  Just the other day on CNN, a man was talking about buying and selling such

     women for $1 000, but he said that he made more profit when he resold them for £2 000

     or £3 000.  The girl gets nothing and all she wanted was to become a cook or an au pair

     and earn a meagre living, and possibly send some money home to help her family.  That is

     beyond a tragedy.

 

                 There are deeper factors at work.  What is the impact on the people involved?

     Of course there is an economic impact, but there is also a physical impact.  If the girls try

     to run away, they are beaten up.  If they try to speak to the police or a lawyer, they may

     even be killed.  They are in danger of their lives, not to mention the psychological impacts

     on them.  Why is this happening?  The answer is clear.  In this world of material wealth,

     and with the impact of globalisation, the desire to obtain more and more material

     satisfaction is reducing the value of moral systems, and the inner self-control that prevents

     people from treating others as something less than themselves is lacking.  In our world

     today, we seem to lack such inner moral judgments.  We must discover a way to raise

     our moral values and to decrease materialism.  The insatiable desire of people to get more

     and more affects both the victims and the victimisers.

 

                 Another problem is the lack of proper laws to deal with the issue.  How do we

     control the problem?  It is very difficult.  It is easy to say, “Let’s control it”, but difficult to

     do.  The issue is the abuse of power by the powerful, whether in terms of money, position

     or opportunity.  My main recommendation is to find a way in which to strengthen the

     moral fibre of society, whether through education or in other ways.  The report contains

     some excellent recommendations that we should all support fully.

 

 

WEDNESDAY, 27 JUNE 2001

UNHCR AND THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).- I would like to begin my speech by stating how pleased I

     am to see this report prepared by Ms Aguiar, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the

     Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees.

 

                 Our predecessors who had to deal with the issue of the refugees in the post

     second world war era thought that this problem would diminish over time and probably

     did not even imagine that fifty years later we would still be dealing with similar problems.

     Unfortunately, lack of stability and peace in the world is creating more and more refugees,

     which have become one of the items on top of our agenda today.

 

                 When we take up the report, we see that it has been carefully prepared and I

     share all the conclusions contained in it.  It is only natural to call upon Andorra, Moldova,

     San Marino and Ukraine to become a party to the Convention and also ask concerned

     countries to reconsider their reservations to some of the provisions of the Convention.

 

                 Turkey is among those countries currently retaining a geographic reservation to

     the Convention.  However, in reality we do not apply this reservation.  We have never

     turned one single refugee away from our borders.

 

                 Turkey also finds itself as a host and transit country for refugees, especially

     because of her geographic location, right in the middle of major conflict areas:  the middle

     east, Caucasus and Balkans.

 

                 Presently, Turkey hosts more than 1 million refugees.  Turkey has received her

     share of refugees during the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, dissolution of Yugoslavia and

     following conflicts in the Balkans and the conflicts in Caucasus.

 

                 Turkey has not refrained from using whatever limited resources she has to assist

     these unfortunate persons.  However, those countries pressuring us to reconsider our

     geographic reservations were never around when we were subjected to massive influx of

     refugees during these past conflicts.  The concept of burden sharing is of utmost

     importance when it comes to providing proper effective assistance to refugees and

     displaced persons.

 

                 Lastly, I should like to touch upon the fate of 1 million Azeri displaced persons

     that constitute a very important example in this regard.  These Azeris had to run away

     from their homes, when Armenia occupied 20% of Azerbaijan.  We were able to witness

     the horrible living conditions of the Azeri displaced persons, during our visit to the area

     with a large delegation from the Migration Committee.  It is true that the Azeri authorities

     share some of the responsibility in not providing these displaced persons enough living

     conditions.  However, this accusation cannot be realistic when we consider the limited

     resources of Azerbaijan, and whichever way you look at it, 1 million is a huge number for

     any country.

 

                 I would like to conclude by thanking all those who work for a better life for the

     refugees.  Naturally, we opt for a world where people are not forced to flee their homes,

     thus becoming refugees.

 

THURSDAY, 28 JUNE 2001

HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS BY TURKEY

 

Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- Dear colleagues, I think we all know George Orwell’s

     totalitarian utopia Animal Farm.  I recall its most famous line: “All animals are created

     equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

 

     I hope this report on Turkey will not be quite the stuff of an Orwellian novel; and

     for that I want to thank the rapporteurs.  Their report, although it proposes to pursue the

     monitoring process - which I do not think is fair - is balanced.  It may be a positive

     contribution and might encourage the forces of reform in Turkey.  It properly points out

     where more needs to be done, as well as giving credit for what has been achieved and for

     what is under way.

 

     Colleagues, we have to maintain that approach.  We have a responsibility to

     understand that we are members of a community and we must consider the effects of our

     actions on others.  Double standards should not lead us.  Double standards, especially

     when grounded in prejudice, will produce undesirable results.  Here, our most essential

     responsibility is summarised in the basic teaching of most religions: do unto others as you

     would have them do unto you.

 

                 In the light of that basic teaching, I underline a few points.  First, Turkey’s

     intervention in Cyprus was carried out on behalf of the island’s abused Turkish minority,

     and it contributed to the downfall of the Greek military junta in 1974.   Secondly,

     advocates of Kurdish rights would do well to recall that Turkey was forced to wage a

     war against a sponsored gang that was every bit the equal of the Khmer Rouge in its

     ferocity and totalitarian ambitions.

 

                 Thirdly, those people who rue the Turkish position on the Loizidou case should

     recall that the exceptional nature of that decision was confirmed in the judgment itself.

     Lastly, the Constitutional Court’s decision to ban the Virtue party for being a focal point

     of Islamic activities might be considered a mistake, just as the sanctions imposed on

     Austria by the European Union might also be considered a mistake.  The Turkish

     Parliament agreed unanimously on the need for clearer rules to deal with similar situations

     in the future.  Thirty-seven articles of the constitution, mostly those that are not in line with

     the present-day criteria of the Council of Europe - including those that refer to political

     parties - will be changed.  The parliament will meet with that agenda in mid-September.

 

                 However, that sensitivity on the part of Turkey should not mislead us.

     Democracies have the right not to hand the tools of their destruction to their enemies.  For

     most European countries, the enemy is extreme nationalism.  For Turkey, it is radical

     Islam.  Ladies and gentlemen, have you ever seen an Islamic democracy?  I ask you to

     think about what you know of Islamic governance in places where it rules - namely,

     Turkey’s eastern and southern neighbours.  If you do so, you will know immediately who

     is right and who is dangerous.

 

                 Turkey, thanks to its secular order, is a functioning democracy.  Secularism is the

     key to democracy for the Moslem world.  Should Turkey ever turn away from its secular

     order or change its western orientation, the consequences will be terrible not only for the

     Turkish people, but for all humanity.  I hope that we will all be wise and thoughtful enough  to realise that. 

                 Thank you.

 

                 Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- Mr President, dear colleagues, I read with great

     interest the Monitoring Committee report on Turkey prepared by Mr Bársony and Mr

     Zierer.  I congratulate them on their objective and incisive analysis of prevailing conditions

     in Turkey.

 

                 I do not want to make additional comments on the report itself but to provide

     information on an event that occurred last Friday 22 June, at 5 p.m.  That important event

     deserves the attention of this august Assembly.  The Constitutional Court of Turkey

     decided to close down the Virtue party, which was represented in parliament by 102

     parliamentarians.  Until last Friday, it was the main opposition party.

 

                 I remind the Assembly that the closing of the Virtue party added to the long list of

     more than forty banned parties.  By the standards of most European democracies, that

     decision was a severe blow to the fledgling democracy in Turkey.  It is worth recalling the

     statement in the report that Turkey continues to be governed by a constitution that was

     imposed on the country by the military junta in 1980.

 

                 My party, the Virtue party, made numerous efforts to make the coalition

     government review and change the existing constitution into a civilian one.  We even

     prepared and circulated a draft constitution and urged all parties to discuss the proposal.

     Alas, all our efforts came to nought.

 

                 So far, the Constitutional Court has not provided detailed reasons for banning the

     party and for expelling two of the sitting parliamentarians.  The court has alleged only that

     the Virtue party had become a centre of fundamentalism in the country.  Those

     accusations are being repeated both in the country and outside it by our adversaries.  No

     solid evidence has been provided as to which of our party’s activities could be construed

     as fundamentalist.

 

                 Please, do not fall for such propaganda slogans.  Such tactics may be a pleasant

     song to some western ears because of the negative experiences the world witnessed in the

     domestic affairs of the so-called rogue states.  The Virtue party has nothing to do with

     fundamentalism.  We have neither supported nor accepted such activities by any group in

     the country.  Our five basic principles are democracy, human rights, liberties, the

     superiority of law, and sustained economic development.

 

                 Again and again, the Virtue party urged the government to put into operation the

     concept of secularism, as it is practised in European countries and in the United States.

     That effort also failed because the government takes it upon itself to interfere actively in

     religious affairs.

 

                 Throughout my adult life, both inside and outside politics, my aim has been always

     to help Turkey in every possible respect.  I have tried to be active especially in helping to

     create conditions amenable to democracy, human rights, liberty and the superiority of the

     law.  It is in that spirit that, once again, I am voicing my concerns about conditions in

     Turkey.  I wish it well for the future.

 

                 Thank you.

 

                 THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you.  I call Mr Sa?lam of the EPP Group.

 

                 Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey).- Thank you, Mr President.  I have read the report in

     detail.  It is most informative.  However, there are many things that I do not agree with,

     even though it contains precise observations and factual information on my country.  That

     gives the report some balance.  I thank the rapporteurs, therefore, for trying to understand

     Turkey.

 

                 Although I am not convinced as to the report’s conclusions, I shall not go into

     detail and try to answer all the unfair criticism that I think it contains.  I think that it is time

     to engage Turkey on a different level.  We have to recognise that there is no justification

     for monitoring Turkey on its commitment to the aims and principles of the Council of

     Europe, because that is beyond doubt.  Furthermore, Turkey is pursuing democratic

     reforms to fully ensure the supremacy of law and respect for human rights, for a better

     future for our people.  It is true that progress is slow in some areas and more work

     remains to be done.  However, we must take into account the cold war conditions and

     the terrorist-separatist campaign that has been encouraged and assisted by some

     geographical neighbours, which has not contributed positively to a political climate of

     institutional democratic reforms.

 

                 Things have changed tremendously.  Terrorism is basically contained and, as it is

     phased out, our ability to effect democratic reforms will be further enhanced.  That is what

     is happening at the moment.  Turkey remains fully committed to implementing the

     constitutional and legal modifications, and all other changes, that are required to continue

     to remove shortcomings in our democracy and improve human rights, including the lifting

     of barriers to freedom of expression.

 

                 The Turkish Grand National Assembly has on its agenda thirty-seven proposals

     to amend the constitution.  All those amendments will serve to better align our constitution

     with the principles of the Council of Europe.  Therefore, I urge colleagues to refrain from

     getting bogged down in micro-management.  You cannot try to hunt down each and every

     problem that we have.  That is our job.  It is not what monitoring is about.

 

                 We have to accept that Turkey, regardless of the pressures the country is facing,

     is making determined progress.  The improvement of human rights is an irreversible

     process in Turkey.  We are blessed with a dynamic society that cherishes the aims and

     principles of the Council of Europe.  All the issues that are addressed in the monitoring

     report - and more - are being discussed openly by the Turkish public.  There are no

     taboos.  Many of you, including the President of the Assembly, the Secretary General of

     the Council of Europe and our co-rapporteurs, were able to witness, and even participate

     in, these discussions on the occasion of the mini-session held in Istanbul only a month

     ago.

 

                 I call upon my colleagues to recognise the ability of the Turkish public to find their

     own answers.  We appreciate your help in the process, but we do not need

     one-size-fits-all recommendations and resolutions.  Listen to what we have to say.  We

     have the tradition, the ability and the know-how.  Naturally, we will make use of the

     expertise that the Council of Europe has accumulated in its fifty years of existence.  We

     wish to continue to work with the Council of Europe in a constructive,

     non-confrontational and focused dialogue.  The time has come to move forward and to

     close the monitoring process.  A post-monitoring dialogue will better achieve our common

     purpose.

 

                 Mr İRTEMÇELİK (Turkey).- Since this is the first time that I have taken the

     floor under this important roof, I wish to greet you, Mr President, and all my colleagues

     with warm respect.  I also wish to express my appreciation for both rapporteurs who

     have made sincere efforts to prepare a basically balanced and objective report on my

     country for the Assembly’s consideration.

 

                 Clearly, Turkey, like all others, is an imperfect society.  We are yet to make

     structural reforms to achieve the three principles of supremacy of law, democracy and

     respect for human rights and fully to align ourselves, our legislation and practice with

     European norms.  Having said that candidly, I ask my colleagues in the Assembly not to

     lose sight of some points of crucial importance during our deliberations.  First, starting in

     the late 1970s and lasting until roughly two years ago, Turkey was compelled to bring to

     the fore its defensive reflexes in the face of successive waves of ideological and separatist

     terrorism.  In the twenty or so years in question, we lost more than 40 000 of our

     compatriots and experienced a devastating effect on our country’s economy, democracy

     and national psyche.  In other words, a minimum sense of fairness would require us all to

     be mindful of the fact that Turkey is struggling to leave behind the indescribable trauma of

     its recent past.

 

                 Secondly, since the current coalition government came to power, certain

     noteworthy steps have been made in the right direction, as indicated in the report before

     us today.

 

                 Thirdly, we in Turkey are increasingly aware - and we are under a growing

     pressure from the public - of the need to move faster and go deeper as regards the

     required reforms.  The fact that all the five parties represented in the Turkish Parliament

     have agreed to amend in a meaningful manner thirty-seven of the articles of the

     constitution is a case in point.  As you may be aware, Prime Minister Ecevit has declared

     his government’s decision to ask parliament to convene an extraordinary session on 17

     September, with the sole purpose of realising the reforms in question.

 

                 Fourthly, we certainly could, and we must, put to good use constructive ideas,

     criticism and other remarks from friends, to the effect that the reform process should

     move ahead faster - although, needless to say, without putting our security or stability in

     jeopardy.

 

                 In that context, we would certainly welcome encouragement and well-meaning

     criticism from the Council of Europe, of which we are proud to be one of the founding

     members.  However - and this is of the utmost importance, Mr President and colleagues -

     the encouragement and criticism in question should be made in full cognisance of Turkey’s

     legitimate concerns and sensitivities.  Otherwise they would be counter-productive instead

     of bringing about the desired results.

 

                 It is in this mindset that we members of the Turkish parliamentary delegation have

     tabled several amendments that do not detract from the substance of the report.  I hope

     that all other members of this august body will consider them in the spirit in which they

     were offered.  We also hope that the Assembly will remember this critical aspect of the

     issue when it comes to amendments tabled by some of its other members.  Let us not

     forget that our message cannot be more important than how it is perceived by the

     addressee.

 

                 Mr President, rest assured that without too much delay Turkey will leave its

     myriad difficulties and shortcomings behind.  In the future, we would certainly prefer to

     remember that in that process we had walked hand in hand with the Parliamentary

     Assembly of the Council of Europe rather than just by ourselves.  I want to trust that

     members of this Assembly will act with a common sense of purpose, commensurate with

     the ideas and objectives that bring and hold us together under the roof of this edifice,

     which is very dear to us.

 

                 Ms GÜLEK (Turkey).- I thank the rapporteurs, who have sincerely tried to

     understand the reality of the situation in Turkey as well as the progress that has been

     made.  Turkey is a founder member of the Council of Europe, involved since 1949.

 

                 We, the members of the Turkish delegation, are members of the hardest working

     Turkish Parliament ever.  We often sit until six or seven in the morning, including

     weekends.  We have passed more than 200 laws in the past two years, including laws on

     economic reform, human rights, agriculture and the reorganisation of the state and its

     internal structure.  Perhaps more importantly, we passed those laws and ensured their

     implementation under a three-party coalition, involving people from opposite ends of the

     political spectrum.  That reflects a maturity of politics and the development of a culture of

     consensus.

 

                 Of course, much more needs to be done.  That is what this Assembly is working

     towards.  However, one should not forget the consensus on the far-reaching changes to

     thirty-seven of the articles of our constitution.  Our commitments in the short and medium

     term have been laid down in great detail in our national programme instituted in response

     to the European Union accession partnership document.  That is a sign of the sincerity of

     our intentions.

 

                 A lively debate has begun in Turkey on many of the issues that have been

     mentioned today.  We have introduced revolutionary changes to more than 1 000 articles

     of our civil code - in fact, it is a new civil code.  We are witnessing the emergence of a

     genuine civil society in Turkey.  Women’s non-governmental organisations have made a

     tremendous contribution, attending meetings and putting pressure on us, to the changes in

     a civil code that was progressive in its day, giving Turkish women the vote in 1934, but

     that became outmoded.

 

                 Many of those facts are mentioned in the report, but I have to draw attention to

     the fact that far less progress than Turkey has made, and far fewer paragraphs welcoming

     such progress, would in the past have led - and has done for certain countries, which I

     will not mention - to the ending of the monitoring process.  There is such a thing as a

     post-monitoring dialogue.  It would be far more acceptable for us if the monitoring ended

     and the dialogue started.

 

                 It is important not to take issues out of context and present them in a one-sided

     way, reflecting pre-conceived ideas.  We are here not to represent our governments, but

     as parliamentarians, working together under one roof to represent Europe.

 

                 It is important to note that we are implementing the reforms for the benefit of our

     citizens, not because the Council of Europe or the European Union has imposed them on

     us.  When there is true dialogue, with constructive criticism and comments, we can

     achieve a result and a good contribution is made to our work, but sensitivities must be

     respected.  One such sensitivity is the secular nature of my country.  As a woman in the

     Turkish Parliament, I am passionate about that and will defend it until the day I die.  I am

     sorry to see that the amendment drawn up by all the leaders of the political parties has

     omitted to pay any respects to the secular nature of my country.

 

                 I am also disappointed to see that my colleague from the banned Virtue party - of

     course, we are not in favour of parties being shut down so easily - has conveniently

     forgotten to mention that, when her party was a member of the leading coalition, it never

     proposed such changes.

 

                 I am a great believer in constructive dialogue, but it is important to respect the

     historical realities. One should not mention only one version of history and always talk

     about what happened after 1974, forgetting the events of the 1950s and 1960s and the

     sufferings of the Turkish Cypriot people, as well as the fact that the exchange of

     populations in 1975 was done under United Nations auspices, according to the third

     Vienna agreement.

 

                 The Loizidou decision is the only decision that Turkey has not been able to

     implement, because the land is not in its territory.  Turkey even changed its constitution to

     be able to implement a decision of the European Court of Human Rights.  One of the

     dissenting judges in the case said, “I feel unable to base a judgment of the European

     Court of Human Rights exclusively on the assumption that the Turkish presence is illegal

     and that Turkey is therefore responsible for more or less everything that happens in

     northern Cyprus.”

 

                 I hope that some of our amendments will be accepted.

 

 

                 Mr KALKAN (Turkey).- Let me thank the rapporteurs Mr Bársony and Mr

     Zierer for their comprehensive report.  They carried out considerable preparation work

     for the report and visited Turkey several times.  During their last visit, we had a chance to

     meet them in Ankara and had an exchange of views over a wide range of issues.

 

                 At the outset, let me stress my strong belief that the monitoring process has

     reached the limits of its usefulness to Turkey or the Council of Europe.  It is therefore high

     time that we concluded this chapter and opened a new era in relations between Turkey

     and the Council of Europe.  I appreciate the positive tone of the report and the resolution,

     which are based on positive developments in Turkey.  However, too much attention has

     been paid to specific issues that have a limited effect on the overall process of reform in

     that country.

 

                 The report gives detailed information about the on-going reforms.  The draft

     resolution commends them, but then, in paragraph 16b, calls on Turkey, which has

     constitutional experience dating back to 1876, to consult the Venice Commission about

     constitutional amendments.  Moreover, that is listed as one of the obligations about which

     the Assembly says it is concerned.  Let us be more realistic and serious.

 

                 The Grand National Assembly of Turkey has undertaken large-scale

     constitutional reform.  The inter-party harmonisation committee has reached a consensus

     on amendments to thirty-seven articles of the constitution.  On Tuesday, the leaders of the

     coalition government agreed to go ahead with the amendments in September.  An

     extraordinary meeting of the Grand National Assembly will take place in mid-September.

     The reform process is no longer just a parliamentary project; the political will exists to

     finalise it.

 

                 Paragraph 16f goes into unnecessary detail.  Is the report really the place to

     discuss communal activities for prisoners?  The issue is dealt with by the European

     Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

     Punishment, in co-operation with the Turkish Government, and we welcome references to

     that in other parts of the report.  If the report is to comment on the hunger strikes, we

     should also call upon the Belgian and Dutch Governments to arrest the leaders of the

     terrorist groups who have ordered hunger strikes from their comfortable homes in

     Belgium and Holland.  If we do not, they will be responsible for the resulting human

     drama.

 

                 Paragraph 10 of the draft resolution refers to amendments to the civil code.  The

     code is, in fact, entirely new.  It is revolutionary, as it guarantees full equality of the

     spouses in all family matters.  It is remarkable that, in the marathon discussion of 1 200

     articles of the civil code in committee, Turkish women’s organisations were involved.

     They displayed exemplary determination and performed an excellent civic role, making

     their voice heard in parliament.  The visible emergence of civic society is a new

     phenomenon in Turkey, with non-governmental organisations working in almost all

     aspects of our daily life.

 

                 Although I praise the good will and hard work of the rapporteurs, I have a

     number of disagreements with them.  We have, therefore, submitted amendments to the

     resolution and will express our views in the discussion of them.  I call upon the Assembly

     to keep in mind the progress that has been achieved, which was deemed sufficient to end

     the monitoring process of many other countries represented in the hemicycle.

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).- I congratulate the co-rapporteurs, who prepared this

     report on a difficult subject, despite the fact that it includes some doubts and

     shortcomings.

 

               Before I go into detail, let me say that I cannot understand the logic

     supporting the argument that the monitoring procedure should continue.  That

     underestimates the achievements since the beginning of monitoring in 1996.  When one

     compares Turkey with other countries in the post-monitoring procedure, one realises that

     one should either support the closure of this procedure for Turkey or should feel

     uncomfortable about adopting a double standard against Turkey.

 

               Before one judges a country, one should take into consideration the

     geographical location, the living conditions and the economic situation of that country.

     The PKK, which was accepted as a terrorist organisation by the ECHR and the report

     prepared by Mrs Vermot-Mangold, has taken 30 000 lives.  I ask you, fellow politicians,

     what your reply would be to people who lost their children aged between eighteen and

     twenty.

 

               Turkey is the only country promoting human rights while struggling with

     terrorism.  Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin have never been treated as a minority

     throughout history.  At present, approximately 30% of parliamentarians at the Turkish

     Parliament are of Kurdish origin.  I use the term “approximately” because we never care

     about the ethnic identity of individuals.  I asked our friends who visited Turkey whether

     they saw that reality, and stressed that there is no ethnic discrimination.  Therefore, you

     should not believe those trying to mislead you, and should agree to the amendments that

     we have submitted on these sensitive issues.

 

               I should also like to mention the amendment related to the decision of the

     Constitutional Court passed last week.  No-one should open a discussion here on the

     decision of an independent court.  The Conciliation Committee on Constitutional

     Amendments in our parliament has finished with its work and the Assembly will convene

     on 17 September to discuss these decisions.  These developments have not been realised

     before because the coalition government did not have the necessary quorum to make

     constitutional amendments.  The members of the banned party were indifferent to

     consensus proposals during the discussions.  Having adopted the report on the threat of

     fundamentalist movements against European democracy, does the Assembly accept that

     Turkey would be open to fundamentalist movements and danger?

 

               Despite all this, three leaders forming the coalition reached a consensus and

     decided to include provisions that will make it difficult to ban political parties and will

     clarify the vagueness in the present legislation.

 

               The economic crisis that turkey is living through is the outcome of her

     allocation of 40% of her budget to the struggle against terrorism which has been going on

     for 18 years.

 

               The Assembly is really for the development of democracy and human rights

     and the same welfare level in Turkey as that of the European Union.  I urge it to

     disappoint the enemies of the Turkish Republic and terrorists trying to have its support.

 

               Rather than encouraging separatists and terrorists, the Assembly should

     encourage its colleagues to support the efforts of those who are striving hard to establish

     the economic,

     social and cultural improvements for the Turkish people that they deserve.  I thank you in

     advance for your support for our amendments.

 

               Mr VIS (United Kingdom).- My thanks go to both co-rapporteurs, Mr

     Bársony and Mr Zierer, for their interesting report.

 

               The issues before us are among the most important issues discussed this

     week.  They concern the status, in the minds of European people, of the Council of

     Europe.  We are here to embrace, defend and develop human rights in our continent.  We

     are also here representing nations that have abolished the death penalty.  The member

     states of the Council of Europe should not have to accept asylum seekers from other

     member states.  In order to become or to be retained as a member state of the Council of

     Europe, a nation should observe the directions of the European Court of Human Rights.

 

               A nation that closes down a legitimate political party and confiscates its

     assets for the presumed reason of wishing to remain a secular state denies the nation of

     democratic pluralism and freedom of expression.  A nation that is in the process of

     developing a policy on water, which will destabilise the area of many nations in the middle

     east, appears irresponsible.  Turkey is a nation that can be characterised by any of those

     descriptions.  When I say “Turkey” I am referring only to political decision makers who

     have an influence on Turkey.  I do not include the Turkish people or the Turkish delegates

     who are members of the Council of Europe.  Secondly, the political decision makers in

     Turkey are not just politicians; they include people from the military, the police and other

     state institutions.

 

               I welcome any progress that has been made on Turkey.  However, many of

     my previous comments could have been put ten or even twenty years ago.  The progress

     in Turkey has therefore been too slow.  The minimum condition that we should agree

     upon is to retain the monitoring procedure.  Furthermore, I would be in favour of setting a

     variety of dates by which Turkey would have to adhere to all aspects of our democratic

     and human rights principles, and suggest that we review the issues in an attempt to

     determine whether Turkey has made sufficient progress to retain its status as a member of

     the Council of Europe.

 

               Mr MUTMAN (Turkey).-First, I want to thank Mr Bársony and Mr Zierer

     for their efforts.  Although the rapporteurs underline that there has been considerable

     progress during the period under the monitoring procedures, the report does not reflect

     our expectations.

 

               In my opinion, we managed to make many improvements in the past three

     years in many fields, both legislatively and administratively.  I do not want to go into detail

     about the relevant laws and regulations.  All progress has been reported in the text.  Let

     us not forget that terrorism has claimed over 30 000 lives since 1984.

 

               If you go back two or three years in this Chamber, we witnessed a lot of

     belated debates on the methods of handling terrorism.  Then, most of our colleagues

     criticized us severely on this subject.  Since then, three people were killed in the clash

     between police and protestors at the Gothenburg Summit in Sweden.

 

               I am sure many colleagues perceived that the protection of lives by the police

     was not an easy task.  When it comes to terrorism, that is much harder.  Thank God,

     terrorism has almost ended.  It is the right time to pursue democratic reforms more

     rapidly.  As for human rights, many serious steps have been taken by the Turkish

     authorities.

 

               The current government is a three-party coalition, in which the political

     spectrum ranges from right to left.  The country has not become used to being governed

     by a coalition for more than two years.

 

               It is an exceptional situation.  The government has managed to survive in

     power.  Everybody in my country wants further democratisation and a strengthening

     mechanism that will protect human rights.  The current government carries out its activities

     in line with the citizens’ expectations.  The best example of this latest improvement is a

     package of reforms, including the ruling and opposition parties in parliament.

 

               We are aware that some shortcomings in practice still exist.  This government

     is the only one that can pursue democratic reforms to the end, with the support of a large

     majority of members of parliament.

 

               As for the banning of the Virtue Party, we are not pleased with the decision

     of the Constitutional Court.  Our current constitution is based on the principles of national

     sovereignty, secularism and republicanism.  We are very sensitive about religious

     fundamentalism.  That is a clear distinction between Turkey and other Muslim countries.

 

               As Turkey is surrounded by Iran, Iraq and Syria, we guard our secular

     position with utmost care.  The focus of this concern is the Turkish Parliament.  If you do

     not secure a 2/3 majority of seats in parliament, you are unable to change the

     constitutional article which provides for the  closure of parties.

 

               I want to review the  chronological events between 1959 and 1974.  By

     1960, Cyprus was a British colony.  Sovereignty was transferred by  Britain to the

     co-founder partners, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, with equal rights of

     self-determination.  The main concern was that one party should not dominate the other

     party.  The agreements of 1960 had five signatories – Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots,

     Britain, Greece and Turkey

 

               The Turkish-Greek partnership state was destroyed in 1963.  The period

     between 1963 and 1974 was the dark chapter in history in terms of human rights

     violations and killings.  It was fully fledged violence.

 

               Turkey went to Cyprus and used its guarantor rights in the aftermath of the

     military coup by Sampson.  These guarantor rights were fully legitimate under the 1960

     agreements.  There were two causes for the Turkish military intervention:

 

     1.         To prevent the massacre of the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriots.

 

     2.         To prevent the annexation of the island to Greece.

 

     3.         The Turkish armed forces acted as a peacemaking force.  In fact, they stopped all

     violence immediately.  In twenty eight years, there has been no further violence, except for

     a few isolated cases.