AVRUPA KONSEYİ PARLAMENTER MECLİSİ İLKBAHAR GENEL KURUL TOPLANTISI ESNASINDA TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİNİN YAPTIKLARI KONUŞMALAR

(25-29 Nisan 2005)

Guantanamo Bay

Mr ÖZAL (Turkey). – First, I thank Mr McNamara, our distinguished rapporteur, for his great work.

Dear colleagues, we all condemn terrorism as an evil of our time. The world witnessed one of the cruellest examples of terrorism on 11 September 2001. The threat that terrorism poses to mankind in today’s world is terrifying.

The existence of a global terrorist threat is now much more than established fact. The attacks on 9/11 were neither the first nor the last time that the world has encountered the horrible face of terror. The US is not the only country in history to have been subjected to such violence.

The magnitude of the violence of those attacks underlines once again the need for solidarity and international action in the global fight against terrorism. That is the reason why the international community has offered its support to the US to fight terrorism. Terrorism is an evil that strikes at the very core of democracy, and it must be fought without double standards.

The fight should be pursued through international co-operation and solidarity. In other words, the fight against terrorism does not excuse what is happening today in GuantánamoBay. The protection of human rights should lie at the heart of all democratic states, and I therefore share the concerns about the human rights situation of persons held in custody in Afghanistan and GuantánamoBay.

I agree with the rapporteur that conformity with human rights and humanitarian law is not a weakness in the fight against terrorism, but a weapon, which can be used to ensure the widest international support for action against terrorism. The circumstances surrounding detentions by the US at GuantánamoBay show unlawfulness and inconsistency with the rule of law on various grounds, which is reflected in the report.

In our time, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or ill-treatment which amounts to an official policy of systematic torture towards detainees can only be regarded as being as evil as terrorism itself. The current rights and status of detainees connected to the international armed conflict conducted by the US in Afghanistan should be independently determined by a competent tribunal, which is, unfortunately, not yet the case.

I believe that various international organisations should co-operate to improve detention conditions at GuantánamoBay and to ensure that detainees’ rights are respected. With good co-operation, the international community can change the situation.

I want to draw members’ attention to some small mistakes in Mr McNamara’s report. In Appendix III, paragraph 12, the rapporteur states that he is “concerned at the failure to reply of Turkey, which has been reported to have as many as thirteen detainees (including Murat Kurnaz)”. The number of Turkish citizens who have been taken to GuantánamoBay on the grounds that they are al Qaeda collaborators is six, not thirteen. Footnote 7 alleges that “only after intense lobbying…has the Turkish Government come to view him as their responsibility. Despite this recognition, the Turkish Government has shown little interest in pressuring the US Government over [his] case.”

The Turkish Government has been in contact with US authorities, and it has followed its citizens’ situation closely. In June 2002, a delegation from relevant Turkish governmental bodies went to GuantánamoBay to see the detainees. Following the initiatives introduced by the Turkish Government in both Ankara and Washington, it has been possible to ensure the release of four out of six Turkish citizens. There are only two Turkish citizens left, and efforts to have the last two set free are ongoing. The Turkish Government has therefore already observed the important recommendation in the report, which suggests taking “effective action in support and defence of any of their citizens, nationals or former residents who are or have been detained at Guantánamo”.

Human rights should always be protected. No distinction, discrimination or exception should be allowed in that regard. In the end, I strongly endorse Mr McNamara’s excellent report. The report states that “the US administration has strayed into unlawful actions in its zeal to pursue a world-wide campaign against terrorism”. I therefore fully agree with the recommendations.

Europe’s growing energy vulnerability and energy systems and the environment

Mr ÖZAL (Turkey). – First, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the secretariat for their invaluable work.

If there is one thing that the world is going to need more of in the coming years, it is energy. I therefore consider the interest of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in the rising challenge of Europe’s energy vulnerability timely. Europe’s future depends on a secure, affordable and ecologically sustainable energy supply. A constant energy flow has always been the precondition of a successful economy.

It is not a simple economic matter, which we can easily ignore and leave to the economists or the engineers. The problem of increasing energy consumption is so important that it requires a delicate touch in political, environmental, social and technical fields.

Today, global energy consumption still depends on the oil supply. The price of oil has long been a determinant of economic performance, with high oil prices associated with grave social and economic problems such as high inflation and high unemployment. That has drastic consequences in some Third World countries. It also undermines Europe’s economic competitiveness. Governments and other international actors should develop instruments such as renewable and non-emitting energy technologies, which reduce energy demand and dependence on imported fuel.

In that context, I fully support the draft resolution, which can be considered as a sort of guideline to this end. The measures, if applied by member states and especially the European Union, will contribute to removing the connection between economic growth and energy consumption, improving diversification of energy sources and thus improving energy security in the long term.

Before concluding, I should like to mention another crucial aspect of our energy problems – energy security. We all know the importance of energy security, and I shall therefore confine myself to the actual threats.

There are two fundamental threats to energy security. The first is the risk to the climate caused by the world’s increasing consumption of hydrocarbons. The evidence of the link between energy use and climate change is now sufficient to justify precautionary action.

In that matter, the EU is in a position of leadership. It has said that it will apply the Kyoto Protocol and it has adopted internal emissions targets. Its new system for trading emission rights will have an impact beyond Europe, through demonstrating that climate change can be addressed without threatening competitiveness and prosperity. In that context, I confirm that Turkey has not signed the Kyoto Protocol but I believe that, in the near future and through negotiations with the EU, we, too, will apply the protocol.

The other risk to energy security is that available supply will not match growing demand. As we all know, the demand for energy is driven by demography and economic performance. The world’s population – more than 6 billion today – is growing by almost 10 000 an hour. By 2015, there will be 7.2 billion people on the planet, according to United Nations predictions.

I congratulate the rapporteur and the Assembly on their attention to this global threat, which will greatly influence our children’s lives.

Iran’s nuclear programme

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – As you have just mentioned, Mr President, the title of the report is “Iran’s nuclear programme: need for international response”. As you all know, Iran’s nuclear programme has been on top of the international agenda and on the front pages of major international media for a while. What we have recently learned from all this information is that, for almost twenty years, Iran – without informing the International Energy Agency – was developing a secret nuclear programme, including uranium enrichment.

In doing so, Iran has failed in its commitments under the non-proliferation treaty and has created suspicion that its nuclear programme has a military purpose. Iran has claimed, and continues to do so, that its nuclear programme, including uranium enrichment, is exclusively designed for peaceful purposes in accordance with paragraph 1 of article IV of the non-proliferation treaty.

Even if that is true, according to the agreement a member country has the right to develop and research the production and use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes only under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Therefore, in this respect, Iran has failed in its commitments because it did not declare the work and the enrichment programme. It took a long, long time.

There is a large international consensus that Iran should be prevented from becoming a new nuclear weapons state. There is also overwhelming agreement between the members of the international community that if Iran becomes a nuclear weapon state that would not only change the balance of power in the sensitive area of the Middle East but have far-reaching repercussions for international stability as a whole.

In the report, I rely mainly on the IAEA position on Iran and on the basis of its documents and my visit to the agency headquarters in Vienna. Those are the major sources on which the report is based.

The main messages that I suggest in the report are that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, a negotiated solution is a better option than a military one and all Council of Europe member states should do their best to create a better chance of finding a political solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.

The European three – E3 – and Iran have continued the talks, but so far have made no substantial progress. The latest round of talks was held on 23 March and the parties agreed to continue negotiations. On 29 April, there will be another, high-level meeting in London. We do not know what the result will be; we will have to wait and see.

Under those circumstances, it is all the more important that all our countries should join their efforts in support of the E3 and make use of any influence they might have to convince Iran to accept the deal. Of course, the deal must be fair and satisfactory to all parties. After the visit of President Bush to Europe, the American Administration announced that it had decided to give US backing to the diplomatic efforts of the E3.

As a sign of a start being made, President Bush announced that the US would drop its opposition to the opening of Iran’s World Trade Organisation accession process and allow sales of spare parts for Iranian civil aircraft.

That is a welcome development that is in line with the spirit of negotiation being followed by the E3, but it is only a beginning. That is why I urge all Council of Europe member and observer states – let us not forget that the Americans are observers with our Organisation – to enhance the diplomatic efforts of the E3.

We should convince the Iranians that they do not lose if they accept the deal. On the contrary, everybody may be a winner. However, the scope of the talks should be broadened to include not only nuclear matters, but the economy, technology, security and political dialogue.

Through more contacts with Iran, we might contribute to a greater opening in Iranian society and help those in the country who stand for democratic values. After all, a democratic Iran would be a threat no longer. That should be the ultimate goal of our European policies.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – First, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Ateş, for his excellent report, which gives a fair and objective picture of Iran’s nuclear activities and the position of various actors in the international community. I welcome the interest shown by the Assembly in the issue, which is extremely important at a time when the international community has offered active resistance and opposition to this very threat. Indeed, the inspection and verification activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency make it clear that Iran has not only breached her obligations following the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but the IAEA’s nuclear safeguards agreement by failing to inform the agency of many aspects of her nuclear programme over the past twenty years. The agency made it known that Iran has acquired the know-how for the full nuclear fuel cycle. The agency is far from making a judgment about the real scope and purpose of Iran’s programme.

Nuclear power is a threat to humanity. Any activity geared towards acquiring nuclear weapons capability is extremely detrimental to security, but it is particularly detrimental to peace and stability in the region to which the country that wishes to acquire a nuclear weapons capability belongs. We have seen the destructiveness of that threat and its consequences for human beings in Chernobyl, not to mention the devastating results for humanity of Hiroshima in the Second World War.

All those things reveal the urgency and importance of the issue, especially for neighbouring countries. It is for neighbouring countries first and foremost to ensure that they speak with one voice against the nuclear threat if we are to counter it in a resolute manner. If there is one thing that the report brings to our attention, it is the fact that Iran has failed to abide by its international obligations.

The international community should act together, and speak with one voice, against that threat, and it should use all its means to keep Iran fully engaged with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That is how we can best handle the matter.

We should also ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme is oriented exclusively towards peaceful purposes. It is also important to pursue a dialogue with Iran that will ensure that its views are heard. If Iran’s activity geared towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is dangerous and detrimental to world peace and security, it would be equally dangerous and detrimental for the international community to fail to take a firm stance against that threat. We should therefore ensure that Iran honours its responsibilities under the non-proliferation treaty and the IAEA’s nuclear safeguards agreement. Iran should be encouraged to ratify the agency’s additional protocol on the application of safeguards with a view to ensuring full transparency in its nuclear activities.

I support the consolidation of the IAEA’s political authority and the strengthening of its verification mechanisms, as proposed in paragraph 82 of the report. That would enhance the chances of securing better implementation of the non-proliferation treaty.

On behalf of the Group of the European People's Party, I thank the rapporteur for his valuable and important work and give our support to the report and the draft resolution.

Discrimination against women

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey) drew attention to the absence of most of her male colleagues and many of her female ones too. She congratulated Mrs Čurdová on her report. She wanted much greater access for women to the workplace and encouragement for them to enter the labour market and the decision-making process. This would happen only if there was public support, including that of the Council of Europe and its members. Turkey was moving strongly in that direction. Eighty years ago when the modern country had been founded, discrimination against women had been outlawed. Recently, revisions had been made to the civil, legal and labour codes. Maternity leave was now sixteen weeks, which was longer than in many other countries; paternity leave was now available; and dismissal on grounds of pregnancy was illegal. Many families had made changes to the way in which they organised their lives. In Turkey, 36% of academics, 31% of architects and 29% of doctors and surgeons were women. However, only 4.4% of Turkish parliamentarians were women and there was only one female minister.

Turning to the second report, she felt that the development of sport in schools was fundamental to the promotion of women in sport generally. It was now compulsory for both boys and girls to do physical education in school and classes were mixed.

Migration and integration

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – On behalf of the European Democratic Group, I thank the rapporteur for his excellent study and his interesting presentation.

As is widely acknowledged, migration has been a common pattern of human behaviour throughout history. Over centuries, individuals and families have crossed borders, either by choice or by force. The migration phenomenon gained new dimensions following the Second World War, with the growing need for foreign labour in the western world. A series of work force and social security agreements have been concluded with countries concerned to regulate migration movement and provide migrants with social security.

Global contrasts inevitably lead to continuing migration pressures, which add to those of the legacy of half a century of immigration in western Europe. Labour immigration, followed by family reunion and the increasing number of asylum seekers have been the new concerns of the policy-makers since the 1990s. Consequently, the integration of regular migrants has become the core of the migration policies that countries have started to develop.

Experience shows that a successful integration process involves three main elements: adaptation by immigrants to the host society; adaptation by the host society to immigrants; and adequate communication strategies between the two populations as well as between their respective governments. However, efforts made over the past ten years in Europe to implement active integration policies, including promotion of equal opportunities, vocational advancement, access to social services, socio-cultural integration and civic anticipation by immigrant communities, do not seem to be commensurate with the intention to achieve successful migrant integration.

Unfortunately, the practices of major host countries regarding migrants overtly contradict their obligations under numerous international convention instruments. Such practices generally concern restricting family reunions and access to equal educational opportunities, limiting native language courses for migrants, disparities in wages and discrimination in business life.

Today, Europe is characterised by the withdrawal of minorities into their shells, partly in response to their rejection by host populations, the over-representation of immigrant populations in the increasing unemployment figures, their social exclusion and increasing public hostility to their presence. There is a clear increase in racism, xenophobia, discrimination and Islamophobia. That environment inevitably sponsors disintegration. A major problem as regards integration is that public opinion appears to be increasingly negative about the integration problems of migrants; and the more negative public opinion becomes, the harder it is for political leaders publicly to address the issue in positive terms.

We in Turkey therefore support the view that there should be good co-operation with the host countries to meet the needs of Turkish people living abroad in social and educational fields for their successful integration. Within that framework, my country encourages Turkish people living abroad to integrate with local societies and hence contribute to the political, economic, social and cultural life of the society they live in.

About 1.2 million of the 3.5 million Turks living in Europe are of education age. As a modest contribution to integration efforts, and considering that education is the first step for successful integration, Turkey has prepared an education action plan and begun its implementation together with Germany and other western countries. Learning and speaking the local language are the two integral parts of the plan.

It is our firm belief that the success of integration depends on a strong will and determination on the part of all parties.

With those thoughts in mind and in view of the importance of the issue, we congratulate the rapporteur on his well-prepared report and give our support to the report and the resolution therein.

Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) said that the subject of the report was very important. Immigrants had not always been received well by host countries, but they had made an important contribution. Their legal status had to be regulated to promote a harmonious result. A focus on training and citizenship would improve integration and ensure that both the host countries and immigrants would benefit from the resulting harmonious relations.

Following the report, what was required was a serious immigration strategy. A policy of assisting integration through employment would allow all member states to use the labour pool. He wished to highlight the fact that the report stressed that no racist attitudes should be allowed. He thanked the rapporteur and supported the report. Even though people might look different they shared a common humanity.

Freedom of the Press

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – On behalf of the European Democratic Group, I thank the rapporteurs for their comprehensive work. Freedom of expression, particularly in the media, has always been an outstanding issue in democracies in every society. Having a free, pluralist and independent media, in conformity with the responsibilities derived from professional principles, is an essential indicator of the democratic maturity of nations. Today’s debate on the freedom of journalists in crisis zones is topical, timely and important.

During times of war and conflict, ensuring the free flow of information, as well as freedom of expression, takes on a heightened importance. At such times, members of all media often face difficulties in meeting the public’s growing need for accurate information. The international regulations governing freedom of information show that, whereas in general that freedom enjoys strong protection, the situation during times of crisis is not so clear. In the light of the increased responsibilities of journalists during such periods, there seems to be a need for new legal measures. If journalists abided with particular care by principles of professional ethics, that would contribute as much as laws and regulations to the cause of responsible journalism.

With the awareness of that responsibility, media institutions and journalists can play an effective role in helping to prevent wars and conflicts, as well as in defusing rising tension in the promotion of peace. Legal texts should be reviewed and legal documents within the framework of European standards should be improved in order to guarantee freedom of expression and information in times of crisis. Appropriate mechanisms could be established to perform regular reviews and take the necessary action to improve the free movement of media professionals and address questions of their rights and responsibilities in times of crisis.

Media organisations and professionals should be encouraged to set up information centres in Europe, with common standards of accreditation, for training journalists in times of crisis. Member states’ implementation of the texts adopted by the Council of Europe on freedom of expression and information in times of war and crisis should be monitored. In parallel with all those measures, any interference with the work of journalists in such situations must remain the exception and be strictly in line with the conditions set out in the relevant international human rights instruments.

I stress that we all condemn attacks on freedom of expression, on the free and unhindered exercise of journalism and on the physical integrity of journalists, which recently occurred in some conflict zones. The safety and security of media professionals is a matter of continuing concern, especially in times of crisis. All cases of violence against journalists or the media should be fully and independently investigated. Media professionals and their professional organisations should be appropriately assisted to take measures to reduce the risks that face media personnel.

In view of the urgency and importance of the issue, we support the report and the resolution, which, we hope, will contribute to and assist the legislative work, as well as efforts to remedy situations in which media professionals encounter threats to their safety or freedom when covering crises.

Children Seeking Asylum

Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) said that an important topic was being discussed. Recent events had shown the tragic side of the subject. On behalf of the Socialist Group he wished to speak about the topic of children separated from their parents or guardians who were seeking asylum in other countries. That showed the refugee problem in its most extreme form, including the trafficking of children. The problems of countries of transit and target countries needed to be tackled by economic and financial means. He shared the views of the rapporteur that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees should require family protection for these children. When such children fled to a foreign country they required protection. All relevant organisations, including NGOs and public bodies, needed to bring those matters to public notice. The rapporteur had rightly stressed the issue of how refugee children were received. Such children required medical and legal assistance and had to be specially protected. Transit and target countries must be given economic aid, and international organisations should provide assistance.