26-30 NİSAN 2004 TARİHLERİNDE STRAZBURG’DA YAPILAN

 AKPM NİSAN GENEL KURUL TOPLANTISI ESNASINDA

TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİNİN YAPTIKLARI KONUŞMALAR

A European Migration Observatory

Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) thanked the rapporteur for putting such an important matter on the order of business. There was a great need to discuss migration, and therefore the debate was timely. The question of the rights of immigrants was important at national level but, also, in the context of reconciliation. Asylum and legal immigration needed to be better controlled. The establishment of a European migration observatory would assist member states by providing an overview.

The 3.5 million Turks in western Europe would be helped by a process that established legal status. Furthermore, an observatory would have helped both destination countries and migrants’ countries of origin. The Council of Europe needed to contribute to freedom of belief, religion and culture in Europe, and to promote a pluralist society. Europe needed immigrants because it had an ageing population and a shortage of people of young working age.

Situation of European Prisons and Pre-trial Detention Centers

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey). praised the high quality of the analysis in the report and the fact that it demonstrated the endemic shortcomings of the prison system. It was a matter of priority that countries’ pre-trial and subsequent detention systems were examined in depth.

Turkey had made a number of significant improvements since 2001, including the establishment of independent monitoring structures and bodies, and the liberalisation of the use of published material in prisons. Action had been taken at a legislative level but also at a practical level, in the form of public awareness campaigns. It was undeniable that progress had been made, and that had been reflected in the findings of monitoring reports made by independent authorities.

It was imperative that action was taken to ensure that prisons and pre-trial detention centres complied with European standards. The Council of Europe needed to promote the legal status of such arrangements. The question was, how best to do so? Attempts to introduce an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had been unsuccessful. However, the quickest and most effective approach would be an achievable recommendation to the Council of Ministers.

Strengthening of the United Nations

Mr TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey). – Our debate today on strengthening the United Nations is timely. As the report underlines, historians register 2003, with the occupation of a sovereign state – Iraq – without prior authorisation by the Security Council, as a difficult and rather bad year for the credibility and effectiveness of the United Nations. It is very disappointing for those who put their trust in collective responses to global challenges. However, today’s challenges prove that the United Nations and its charter are more important than ever. I therefore thank our rapporteur, Ms de Zulueta, for successfully raising such an important issue.

The report examines not only the problems and the difficult period that the United Nations is undergoing, but proposes important suggestions for addressing the difficulties.

Part of the continuing discussion about United Nations reform centres on strengthening the political influence of the General Assembly, more effective deliberation on agenda items and streamlining the agenda so that there are fewer items with more content. In the light of the increasing number of General Assembly special sessions, the Assembly’s regular agenda should be better organised, and the work of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council should be better co-ordinated to increase their substantial contributions to each other’s efforts. The report correctly underlines a proposal to enhance the authority of the President of the General Assembly by extending the mandate to three years and making it possible to elect a political figure to that post. I support that proposal, along with the introduction of a parliamentary dimension to the work of the General Assembly, which would allow us to take debates from the top to the grass roots – to the people – thus strengthening both transparency and efficiency.

It is also necessary to realise the long-awaited reform of the Security Council, and I support the view that it should be made more representative of United Nations membership to increase its legitimacy. In conclusion, I fully support the views and suggestions of the rapporteur in the draft resolution and recommendation, and her work is an important contribution to the ongoing debate on the strengthening and the reform of the United Nations.

Situation in Kosovo

Mr Süleyman GŰNDŰZ (Turkey). – We all know that developments in Kosovo continue to be a source of great concern.  The bloody events of last March brought the fragile peace to the brink of collapse.  This urgent debate is very timely and it will be very useful to evaluate the present situation and prospects for the future of people in Kosovo.

On the other hand, I am grateful to my colleagues who condemned the killing of innocent people and the destruction of religious and cultural monuments in Kosovo.

I hope and urge that the perpetrators be brought to justice and that the recurrence of such violence be prevented.  I commend the decisions of the Serbian Government and Kosovan Albanian authorities to reconstruct and repair the religious and cultural monuments.

The failure of the international community’s achievements in Kosovo means the failure of peace in the Balkans.

I believe that the active involvement of the Council of Europe, in co-operation with other international organisations, will contribute to the establishment of a democratic and peaceful order in Kosovo.

Cyprus

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – First, I thank the Greek and Turkish Cypriots who voted yes for the Annan plan in the referendum. I get a sense from some speakers that they blame the Annan plan and that they suggest that it worked against the Greek Cypriots. That is not the case. The Annan plan had three important advantages.

First, if the Annan plan were accepted, all the refugees of 1974, from both sides, could return to their homes in a short time. That was settled. Under the plan, property rights would be restored.

Secondly, the Annan plan dealt convincingly with the question of demilitarisation. The local forces in Cyprus on both sides would be completely disbanded. Turkish peacekeeping forces would be decreased immediately to 6 000, and ultimately to 650 or fewer. They would be balanced by Greek troops and monitored closely by the United Nations. That proposal has been rejected. The third advantage of the plan was the pay structure of a government of, I underline, a united Cyprus republic. That proposal was both workable and raised the imminent prospect of European Union membership.

The plan has been criticised by some of our colleagues, but their criticism is not fair. Many peace plans in Europe, such as those for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro, do not begin to compare with it. Turkish Cypriots believe in the Annan plan, although it has not fulfilled all their expectations. Inevitably, it is a compromise. However, they accepted it because they want to live in peace with the Greek Cypriots in a united Cyprus. They want prosperity and integration with the outside world. They want to get rid of the unfair and unjust embargoes which have been going on for the past thirty years. They want to end the international isolation to which they have been subject.

Given the Cypriot rejection of the Annan plan, the Turkish Cypriots warn that their fate will be changed. However, they wonder whether the international community will hear their voice, the unbearable embargoes will stop and their isolation will end. It is a high priority for international community to address all those questions in a fair and impartial way. The Turkish Cypriots did what they were asked to do to reunite Cyprus, but others did not want that. They should not be made to suffer because of the rejection by the Greek Cypriots. The fact that reunification will not take place is not their fault.

What more can the Turkish Cypriots do to end their isolation and humiliation? As a pan-European organisation defending human rights, democracy and the rule of law, the Council of Europe, particularly our Parliamentary Assembly, must take a leading role in recognising the democratic rights of the Turkish Cypriots. They are people too and have human rights that should be respected. We cannot tell them that they are isolated or that they cannot sell the things that they produce. We cannot tell them that they cannot take an aeroplane to Europe, England or Germany from their country. We cannot tell them that their harbours are going to be closed and that no vessels can enter them. Those are all human rights violations, and I leave the matter, colleagues, to your conscience

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – I sincerely wish that the atmosphere of this discussion had been different and that the Annan plan had been accepted by both sides. Then we would be cheering the united state of Cyprus, and the fact that EU enlargement would go through smoothly and happily. Only today I read in The Guardian an article that spoke of the sorrowful effect on EU enlargement.

It is true that we must respect the will of the people, but did we not discuss and denounce the outcome of the Serbian elections that took place several months ago? We criticised, here in this Hemicycle, the fact that some of the elected members were war criminals. Did we not release a press statement on that matter? Is it not right, therefore, for us to express our disappointment about the result of the referendum? We should not criticise the will of the people, but we should at least show our disappointment.

Secondly, in the previous part-session, did we not decide that the Annan plan was the basis for a solution – that it was a good solution, and even that it was the only solution? I can show you the reports and the resolution. Now the time has come, and the Annan plan has been rejected – and now I am hearing some opposition to that plan. The Annan plan did not satisfy us, either, but my government has learned how to negotiate, compromise and come up with a solution, rather than exacerbating problems that have been neglected for several decades.

Some of you, my friends, have said that the Greek Cypriots have concerns about safety. Have you ever seen the people of a European Union country fighting each other within that country? What better guarantee can there be than belonging to the European Union? The number of Turkish troops would have been reduced to the level agreed in the 1968 treaty, and if both sides agreed they would all have been completely withdrawn. In that case, all the problems with the displacement of people in Cyprus that we have been discussing would have been solved.

Are we not allowed to express our disappointment? A conclusion of the European Council of Ministers said, “The Council noted the results of the referenda in Cyprus…and expressed its strong regret that the accession to the EU of a united Cyprus will not now be possible on 1 May…The Turkish Cypriot community have expressed their clear desire for a future within the European Union. The Council is determined to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus”– we still have that idea; we are not going back on it – “by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community. The Council invited the Commission to bring forward comprehensive proposals to this end, with particular emphasis on the economic integration of the island and on improving contact between the two communities and with the EU.”

I emphasise that last sentence. Let us work towards that end. Let us try to improve the relationship between the two communities, and the relationship between each of those communities and the Council of Europe.

            Mr. TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey) I thank the Rapporteur for his report.  I also thank the Bureau for proposing this issue as an “urgent debate” for the agenda, which can never be more timely than today.

The outcome of the two separate referenda held in Cyprus is very indicative both for the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots. It is a reflection of the real intention of the people whether they wanted peace or not, whether they were prepared to build a common future for themselves or not. The outcome of the referendum in the northern part is self-explanatory; the will of the people is in favour of a settlement. The same has not proved to be the case for the South; people in the south have opted simply for “no settlement”.

With this result, the Greek Cypriots failed to achieve what they have propagated for 30 years – namely the end of the partition of the island.  They themselves missed the extraordinary opportunity to resolve one of the most intractable inter-communal disputes since World War II.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, in presenting his final plan to the parties concerned, had stated that the time for negotiations was over; the time for decision and action had arrived. He had underlined at that time that the choice was not between this Settlement Plan and some other magical, mythical solution. In reality the choice was between this settlement and no settlement, he had added.

Turkey from the very beginning supported this process and the Plan believing that it has been an inevitable compromise. Therefore, it does not meet all the aspirations of either party.

However, the influential voices in the Greek side who aired their disappointment about the plan, unfortunately succeeded in their aims. It is also clear that the Greek Cypriot authorities not only failed to display real political leadership, but also officially they conducted a campaign of pressure and intimidation supported by the extreme nationalist groups aiming to deter Greek Cypriot citizens from voting in favour of the Peace Plan.

It was the hope of the whole international community to have this Plan endorsed by both parties in the island; unfortunately, this golden chance has been missed.

Now, we should look at the future and consider what to do. This is such an extraordinary situation that we should be creative and open-minded about the steps to be taken.

One thing is clear: The Turkish Cypriot people who supported the Plan by great majority should not be allowed to find themselves in such a situation that, they have to shoulder all the negative consequences of the “no” vote of the Greek Cypriots.

The policies that the Turkish Cypriots have been subjected for years now namely, “total exclusion from the outside world” and “being subjected to embargoes” should not be allowed to continue.

We should find a way out of this situation.  The international community should show its good-will, to display its wisdom and should find ways to integrate the Turkish Cypriots to the rest of the world. This can be done through a more open and direct dialogue with them. In this regard, our Assembly will be of great value in overcoming this difficulty. With these thoughts in mind, I support the resolution believing that this will be an important opportunity for the Turkish Cypriots to be able to get involved into the work of this august body.

I thank the Rapporteur once again for his valuable efforts on this subject.

Thank you.