AVRUPA KONSEYİ PARLAMENTER MECLİSİ 2002 YILI I. DÖNEM GENEL KURUL TOPLANTISI

 

21 OCAK 2002, PAZARTESİ ÖĞLEDEN SONRA OTURUMU

Campaign Against Trafficking in Women

 

     Mr TELEK (Turkey). – I congratulate Mrs Err on this very comprehensive report,   which draws our attention to a most important issue.  This report sheds light on the  enormous dimensions of what has now become a global crime and at the same  time explains how we can fight it.

It is astonishing to learn that in Europe the turnover in trafficking in women has reached third place, after drugs and weapons.  The magnitude of the problem we  are facing is alarming.

And it goes without saying that this issue necessitates an immediate action at  international as well as at national level.  It is necessary that we define the trafficking in women as a criminal offence and incriminate all activities linked to it.

In this respect, I extend full support to the proposals contained in the draft  recommendation.  And I want to put special emphasis on the recommendations  related to creating a European observatory and drafting a convention on trafficking   in women.   I agree with the rapporteur, who states in the seventh paragraph of the draft  recommendation that the main cause of the problem we are debating is poverty.  I   believe, however, that this is not enough and we have to be a bit more specific  about this point.  Under normal conditions no woman leaves her home to be a  prostitute or a domestic slave.  Dire economic needs force them to this tragic situation.  Therefore, the emphasis should be placed on the eradication of poverty.

At this juncture I would like to voice two concrete proposals:  first, we should try to  avoid economic imbalances among member states as well as among regions  around Europe.  Necessary financial assistance should be given to regional  development projects.  If some progress can be made in this regard there would be  no need to prepare reports like this.

Secondly, projects aiming at achieving social development in rural areas should be supported.  The Council of Europe Development Bank should mobilise funds for such projects.  I would like to mention the practice of “micro credits”.  With careful   planning and reliable feasibility reports it is quite possible to achieve considerable  social employment with very limited financial resources.  In other words, poor   women should be given the chance to have some kind of income to make their   living.

I believe that while keeping on fighting the criminal networks at the very beginning of  the trafficking process by introducing necessary criminal provisions to national  legislation, we should pay special attention to the point at which the victims are   forced into labour.  It is at this point that the victims need specialized help.

As a medical doctor, let me underline another important aspect of the problem:  public health.  As we all know, prostitution is one of the main causes of spreading  sexually transmitted diseases.  STDs, like AIDS and hepatitis, which threaten the   future of our societies, find fertile ground in prostitution.  For this reason I think that   sexual education must also cover knowledge about STD.

Before I conclude, I want to say a few words on the important role that the mass  media can assume in the campaign against trafficking in women.  There are  concerted efforts by international organisations and civil society both at national and  international level on this issue.  I believe this work should be made more public and    more accessible by way of the mass media, which should be encouraged to cover  the individual and collective work undertaken by non-governmental organisations, police services and the legislature and form an informative and educative link between the public and those who are in an position to take concrete action.

22 OCAK 2002 SALI, SABAH OTURUMU

Request for Council of Europe Membership: Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey), - I want to speak in the most positive terms in support of Bosnia and Herzegovina joining the Council of Europe. I have experience in Bosnia. I served there for three years on a voluntary basis and have observed that the people are determined and peaceful, with much to offer the European community. There is no reason why we should continue to wait, wondering whether to accept them. In 1994, Bosnia and Herzegovina was accepted as a candidate  and  sat here with special Observer status. In 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina applied for membership. In 1999 the Committee of Ministers prepared a positive  opinion. We are now in 2002 and have finally heard in the reports of both committees that Bosnia and Herzegovina is more than ready to join the group.

Between 1992 and 1995 Bosnia and Herzegovina endured a terrible war.  Hundreds and thousands of innocent people were killed or displaced. Life in Bosnia erupted in tragedy. The Bosnian people did not ask for that war. Bosnian people did not start the war. They suffered from the war and were its victims. However, some people have the audacity to say that Mladi? and Karadzi? are still at large and so  the people are at fault. That is a huge mistake. People who say that know nothing  about Bosnia. They know nothing of the history or the development of events.

Croats and Serbs and other groups of people are hiding in enclaves and even UN forces cannot enter those enclaves. Unless we know the truth we should never  pass judgment.

It is high time that Bosnia and Herzegovina was accepted into this auspicious environment. We must help them. We must give them the love, care  and support that they deserve. They have been waiting for that for a long time.

           

Mr ANDICAN (Turkey). – I wish to greet all the members of the Assembly with my warm respects. Bosnia and Herzegovinan continues to be a fragile country of the region.  A failure in the implementation of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, even after nearly six years of intensive efforts, will have dire consequences throughout the region  and even beyond.

  In this vein, today is an historic day for  Bosnia and Herzegovina.  We should thank Mr  Surján for his report, reflecting the positive approach of the Parliamentary Assembly to this issue.  However, we should also thank the leaders and peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina for their achievements.  The Council of Ministers has shown considerable effort to improve the social and economic situation in the country, with fundamental political and economic reforms.

The election law has been adopted as a concrete result of these efforts, a key condition set by this Assembly, for the accession to the Council of Europe. Passage of the election law has proved the presence of the joint political will in the country to go forward and has secured her accession to this Organisation.  We hope that this will be followed by a speedy completion of the ongoing constitutional  reform.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the next elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina are scheduled for autumn 2002, when the reformists will again face the challenge of confronting the hardliners.  Within this framework, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s accession to the Council of Europe could be seen as a further  encouragement for the reforms.  This will encourage further essential reforms.  At this point, it would be more beneficial to accept the membership of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to assist the reforms within the mechanisms of the Council of  Europe, rather than insisting on additional pre-accession conditions.

Accession to the Council of Europe should be seen as a beginning, rather than an end of a joint endeavour for the politicians and the peoples of this country.  The crowded list of commitments contained in the opinion will require an even greater effort from them.  I would like to call the Serbian, Croat and Bosniak peoples of this country to join forces and get ready to work even harder from now on.  However, they should not be discouraged.  I can assure you that here, in this house, you will  be among friends.  You can depend on our support and co-operation in your      endeavour.  I want to say again welcome to our Bosnian friends.

22 OCAK 2002 SALI, ÖĞLEDEN SONRA OTURUMU

Situation in Cyprus

 

Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey). – In Cyprus, the Denktash-Clerides meeting of 4 December has started a new peace process. It was Mr Denktash who took the initiative and invited Mr Clerides to a face-to-face meeting. Mr Clerides’ response  was also positive and in a very short time the initiative turned into an intensive schedule for peace talks.

The two leaders are meeting three times a week. They seem determined to solve the conflict within six months. As a major step forward, they discussed how to investigate the mass disappearances. An agreement on the issue could greatly ease tension between the two sides as they prepare for new  talks on ending the division of Cyprus. Under those circumstances, it is crucial that  no outside intervention is imposed on the two leaders at the table. Mr Denktash and  Mr Clerides prefer co-operation to confrontation. The road ahead of them is clear.

They are able to solve the conflict. We have to give them that chance.

Besides, at this juncture, nothing should be rushed. Too often, when we rush to justice, we do not get it. In that context, acceptance of Cyprus into the EU  as a back-door Enosis will not help to solve the problem. It should be remembered  that Turkish troops were ordered to the northern third of the island in 1974 in response to a coup that aimed to unite Cyprus with Greece. That was not an occupation. It was an operation within the terms of international treaties to guarantee Turkish Cypriots’ right to life.

My political inclination is not to live in memories and bitterness for ever, but Greek Cypriots cannot demand an end to the presence of Turkish troops in the  north without first ensuring the right of Turkish Cypriots to live in a viable state of their own. Cyprus is the home of two separate peoples with different religions and languages. Their right to live in separate enclosures is a prerequisite for a just and lasting solution.

The two peoples of Cyprus can co-exist and co-operate within a new partnership structure based on the equality and sovereign status of the two partners. This new partnership structure will no doubt have a single international identity, with the competence assigned to it by the two parties. As a guarantee against the ethnic conflict of the past, the balance established between Turkey and  Greece with regard to Cyprus by the 1960 treaties must be maintained.

The partnership structure is also a new model based on the co-existence and self-governance of different civilisations. The international community should realise that this model is the key to peace in the twenty-first  century. After 11 September the threat of the clash of civilisations is recognised  everywhere. In Cyprus, however, that threat may turn into an opportunity. To this  end Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides gave us hope. Any artificial barrier, for whatever  reason – whether because of problems of international recognition or legalistic issues – that may kill this hope is unacceptable to Turkey.

This hope is not mere optimism. It is a way of thinking about our goals. I believe that we can define those goals and find routes to reach them. Hope is the engine of achievement. I urge us to learn to be hopeful of a just and lasting solution in Cyprus.

Mr TELEK (Turkey). – Given the importance of this issue, I shall speak  in my own language.

(The speaker continued in Turkish)

It was true that 30% of Cyprus was occupied by the Turkish army but there were reasons for that. The republic of Cyprus had been founded in 1960 but from 1963 to 1974 there had been an oppressive and undemocratic regime which had only been removed by Turkish intervention. Both communities wanted to live in peace together, but to do so it was necessary to forget the past. He found it hard to understand Mr Vis: since 1960 the United Kingdom had been a guarantor state but it could not fulfil its responsibilities if  it held such partial views.

Representatives from Cyprus were present in the public gallery who, he said, should have been allowed to speak in the Hemicycle but they not been allowed to do so. Disregarding one side was no way to reach a solution. It would be   a mistake for the Greek Cypriot side of the island to join the EU before an overall solution was found. In the report, Mr Bársony had tried to present a balanced view, and certain deficiencies would be corrected by amendments. In conclusion, he hoped the negotiations between the two leaders would lead to peace.

 

Ms GÜLEK (Turkey). – Many colleagues have spoken positively and encouragingly about recent developments in Cyprus, including meetings between the leaders of the two communities. I was saddened that some colleagues fell into the classical trap of suspicion and unnecessary negativism. I shall try to avoid doing that. If we want sincerely to encourage a resolution of the problem of Cyprus, we as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe must reflect that approach in our actions, in our speeches and certainly in our reports.

I sincerely believe that Mr Bársony has tried better to understand the issue and to be impartial. He has visited Cyprus on three occasions. Despite heavy pressures, he has visited and spent a night in the north. He met the President of the Republic of Northern Cyprus and other political leaders. However, the report contains some unfair judgments about the situation.

I cannot understand exactly why the rapporteur has taken up the issue from a European Union perspective. It is true that EU accession has brought a new dimension to the issue. However, EU interference in the Cyprus problem has further complicated the situation. The accession of Cyprus as a whole to the EU may create favourable conditions for both sides. On the other hand, to use the unilateral accession of the Greek Cypriot side as a threat against Turkish Cypriots amounts to nothing more basically than blackmail. That approach is not constructive and it creates unfair pressure.

Responsibility for the Cyprus problem does not rest on the shoulders of  the Turkish Cypriot side. It is unfair to apply pressure on one side only. In this respect, the political message that the Assembly sends to the Greek Cypriots and  to the EU becomes even more important.

It has been said that facts are indisputable. If that is so, I must point out that I am one of those who favour very much leaving behind talking on and on about history as long as we draw the necessary lessons from it, and as long as we are honest about facts and history.

I would like to know why the report does not mention more the inhuman embargoes that have been imposed on the Turkish Cypriots on the island. The embargoes date back to 1963. They have changed in effect from living in enclaves to at present denying the Turkish Cypriot people the right of representation at international forums, curtailing trade and tourism between northern Cyprus and the outside world, and hampering all cultural and sporting relations between the Turkish Cypriots and other countries, including even Turkey.

That affects young and innocent Turkish Cypriots who want to participate in sporting events. The sole aim of the campaign is to isolate Turkish Cypriots from the rest of the world. The embargos should be lifted as soon as possible if we are sincere about moving forward.

Fortunately, all news in Cyprus is not unpleasant. There are positive developments that shed a light of hope. The Denktash–Clerides meeting of  4 December has been a step forward. President Denktash took the initiative and invited Mr Clerides to a face-to-face meeting. Hopefully the understanding resulting from this meeting will lead to a tangible process. The constructive suggestions made by President Denktash are important and the political will and readiness to start a new process should be encouraged. The balance established between Turkey and Greece with regard to Cyprus by the 1960 treaties is crucial and must be maintained in every respect.

It is also important to note that the two peoples of Cyprus can co-exist and co-operate under a new partnership structure based on the equality and sovereign status of the two partner states. The new partnership structure will have a single international personality with the competences assigned to it by the two parties. This could be the basis upon which the parties can build.

The international organisations should stop intervening in the process. If we are sincere about this subject we should allow our Turkish Cypriot colleagues to be here.

 

Mr MUTMAN (Turkey). – Dear colleagues, I want to congratulate Mr Bársony on his timely and comprehensive report. It is regrettable that Turkish Cypriot representatives are not allowed to speak here in this plenary session, although we listened to both sides' opinions in terms of the middle east and  Kosovo. The Turkish Cypriot representatives are watching from the gallery.

To assess the situation in Cyprus fairly, we must look to the past and understand what is going on now. We need to express all views and a few speakers today have been wrong with some of their statements. First, there has been a Turkish presence on the island since the sixteenth century. After Britain transferred sovereignty to Greek and Turkish Cypriots with equal rights of self-determination, the Turkish-Greek partnership state was founded in 1960. This partnership state lasted for only three years. By then, the 1960 constitution and the founding agreements had been totally violated by Greek Cypriots. The Turkish side  was thrown out of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Some Greek Cypriot hardliners in the government of the day had an obsessive ambition to dominate the whole island. Therefore, systematic repression was directed at Turkish Cypriots in the forms of intimidation, violence and killing by 1974. In the aftermath many massacres of Turkish Cypriots took place across Cyprus. The international community, including guarantor states, sat back and let this happen.

In 1974 the coup engineered by the then military junta in Athens was aimed at ethnic cleansing the Turkish Cypriots. Turkey then came to the island, based on its guarantor right, in order to prevent massacres and the annexation of the island by Greece. To those who say that the Turkish army occupied Cyprus, I ask whether your state would have acted otherwise. We remember what took place in the Falkland Islands. The Turkish army merely created a safe haven for Turkish  Cypriots. In fact the UN Security Council has never accused Turkey of occupation. The Turkish army is providing safety and security there.

We must not forget what has happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo where hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives in ethnic clashes. The Bosnian Government was destroyed and the new state of Bosnia and Herzegovina was formed. The new borders have been drawn up according to the Dayton Agreement. In the light of historical facts, we should find a solution. Turkish Cypriots should not put themselves back into danger. With the acknowledgement of the existence of a Greek-Cypriot state and a Turkish-Cypriot state on Cyprus, the recognition of the political rights and sovereignty of Turkish Cypriots remains fundamental.

 

Mr GÖNÜL (Turkey). – I wish to express my deep appreciation of the efforts of our distinguished rapporteur, Mr Bársony. Although there are many points in the report that I do not agree with, it also contains precise observations and factual information.

Cyprus is a sui generis case and the solution will also be sui generis in line with local realities. The candidature of Cyprus for membership of the European Union is not like that of any other country. It has two different nations, two different languages, two different religions and its two peoples are constitutionally and physically separate. The imbalance and inequities of the misinformed approach of the European Union is also seen in the report. There can be no just solution on the     island unless the political identity of both parties is recognised. If one side is treated favourably against the other, there can only be an imposed solution that will not succeed.

Turkey, based on the international agreements that created the partnership state in Cyprus, cannot and will not accept any decision that would undermine the security and ruin the equal status of the Turkish Cypriots living on the island. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the rapporteur that membership for the Republic of Cyprus of the European Union will assure the rights of Turkish Cypriots.

In recent years, we have witnessed the abuse and unreliability of guarantees given by the European Union on certain incidents in Europe itself.

The observation that the Turkish-Cypriot population suffers deeply from its isolation is a fact, but it is not the whole story. Turkish Cypriots are suffering economically and socially not because the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey, but because the Greek side has imposed an embargo on the Turkish side. The embargo imposed on the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus by the Greek administration is unacceptable, inhumane and does not fit the standards of the Council of Europe.

With respect to the suggestion about the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, I can agree – at least on that point – with the opinion report prepared by Mr Jurgens that says that the political solution to the Cyprus problem will be instrumental to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on cases concerning Cyprus. On the other hand, I remind Mr Jurgens that Turkey’s intervention in 1974 was in full conformity with her treaty obligations under international agreements establishing the “Republic of Cyprus”.

I hope that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will give a clear message to our colleagues in the European Parliament that the two sides on the island – not only through their official representatives but, as our distinguished rapporteur Mr Bársony put it, people to people – should resolve the issue before accession to the European Union is realised.

 

  This sensitive problem has been at an impasse for many years now, in spite of the intensive efforts of the international community to find a fair and durable solution to the problem.

Any attempt to find such a solution to the Cyprus problem or to contribute to the efforts to this end, necessitates a thorough knowledge of the history of Cyprus  as well as a balanced and unbiased approach.

Having said this, I now want to turn to the report in front of us.  The report by Mr Bársony has some factual errors as well as some misconceptions which may lead to misunderstandings.  I will not go into political polemics, and discuss these statements here.  However, I cannot let it pass without mentioning that statements like “the internal political situation in the northern part is becoming increasingly uncertain”, or that the ideas put forth in the 17th and 23rd paragraphs of the  memorandum are very far away from the truth.  These do not reflect an accurate     understanding of the situation there.

Similarly, I regret that the draft resolution does not pay the tribute that is deserved to the process of face-to-face talks between the two leaders, which began on 4 December last year, upon the invitation of the President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Mr Denktash. These talks are of particular importance for anyone who is acquainted with the historical perspective of the Cyprus problem.

The first round of the talks created a positive atmosphere and provided the possibility of searching for a common ground on which further progress could be achieved.  The process, thus engaged, contributed to the hopes and aspirations for  a durable solution.

Given the present situation, I would have expected the rapporteur to pay more attention to an ongoing and more promising process in the operative paragraphs of the resolution, rather than dwelling upon UN proximity talks.

Everyone has a shared responsibility to give President Denktash and Mr Clerides, the personalities who are best equipped to address this issue, an opportunity to succeed.

In this framework, I want to touch upon an issue to which I attach utmost importance and which is a great source of concern and sensitivity for the citizens of  the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Unfortunately, our friends and colleagues at the European Union have not contributed much to the achievement of progress for the settlement of the Cyprus question so far.  Their short-sighted and partial approach prevneted the Greek-Cypriot side from seriously engaging in the search for a possible solution.

We all know that any unilateral membership of the EU will deepen the already existing cleavages in the island and make it more difficult to reach a solution acceptable to both sides.

It is for this reason that when I read Mr Bársony’s report, what struck me most was that he exposed these biased EU positions, and spoke for the EU rather than for the Parliamentary Assembly.

However, I should also mention one observation, among others, contained in the report, to which I extend my full support, and that is the proposal to integrate the Turkish Cypriots more effectively in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly, not only in the Committees but also in the Plenary.  This indeed should be given careful consideration in today’s discussion.

 

Ms AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey). – Cyprus holds a unique place in the eastern Mediterranean and it holds a unique place in the politics of Turkey, Greece and various other Middle Eastern states.  Cyprus has a long history intertwined with the historical developments of world history.  Today Cyprus stands at an important crossroads of history and has a crucial impact on many other political events.

The leaders of the two communities in the island are making efforts to find acceptable solutions for both communities. The people of Cyprus express their wish to live in peace and prosperity – that is important. The mother countries, both Turkey and Greece, express their wish for peace and a solution through negotiation.  That is important. To be able to express all these things directly, frankly and distinctly, here in a forum such as the Council of Europe is important.  It is like an open oath towards positive progress.  Now it behoves us to applaud, support and help such a constructive moment.

At this time, it is important that all members of the Council should refrain from making any remarks regarding the solution of this critical problem until the two leaders come to a firm understanding and agreement with each other.  This is the greatest help we can render to people who are trying to solve a very delicate and long-standing problem.

We have to look to the future, to the world of the 21st century.  It is going to be a different world.  It will be more a world of co-operation and sensible compromises.  We are in the swing of a powerful globalisation that is affecting all aspects of our lives.

We have set clear paradigms to handle crucial issues such as fairness, co-operation, regional peace and achievement, steps toward a more united world and better prosperity. So we should try to implement the following:  co-operation not conflict; collaboration not drifting apart; consideration of others, not confiscating their rights. I am sure these steps would lead us where we all wish to go.

Let me conclude my words by thanking Mr Bársony for his excellent work in preparing this report and his sincere efforts to be fair towards both sides.

     

Implementation of Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

 

Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey). – To begin, I thank Mr Jurgens for his presentation, but I cannot thank him for his report. I am distressed and somewhat angry at the way in which the report has dealt with the matter. This report is not well-documented research, especially when it refers to Turkey. It is over-politicised and, I am sorry to say, it is somewhat prejudiced and full of double standards.

Therefore, it will not be a good contribution to the general aim of implementation of  the judgments of the Court. As the leader of the Turkish delegation, I have welcomed at every stage the debate on how my country can intensify the implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. However, for that debate to be fruitful, it needs to be grounded in the facts. The facts about Turkey are omitted from the report.

Instead, they are published as an annex to the report. If you do not want the report to mislead you, I suggest that you read and study the annex carefully. It is an indispensable part of the report.

In Turkey’s case, there may be some problems, but overall the implementation of judgments is satisfactory. Turkey is determined to implement all the decisions of the Court. There is only one judgment, out of thousands, which has not been implemented, and the reason for non-implementation is very specific. I refer to the Loizidou judgment. As everyone knows, that judgment was exceptional, as was even pointed out in the judgment of the Court, and it requires exceptional treatment.

Turkey is unable to implement that judgment because the area in question is outside Turkish territory and there is a separate state in existence there. That should have been recognised from the outset. An appropriate assessment of the Loizidou judgment is needed. The Committee of Ministers should deal with the issue from a wider perspective, taking into account the political realities of Cyprus.

That would contribute to the general aim of implementation of the judgments of the Court. Turkey has implemented extremely difficult judgments in the past and continues to do so. It has never encountered a problem with any of the previous and present judgments. Turkey has even changed its constitution so as to comply with previous judgments. It should not be forgotten that, because of our respect for the Court, Turkey is waiting for the outcome of Mr Öcalan’s application to the Court.

Omission of those facts is a clear example of double standards when dealing with Turkey. Another example would have been paragraph 7 of the report. Thankfully, Mr Jurgens has agreed to delete it. I fully support that proposal. As Mr Jurgens said, the problem was a misunderstanding between us. Our misunderstandings are not matters to be deplored by the Assembly.

I wish to remind you of a principle that I am tired of repeating in this hemicycle. Double standards are a symptom of a diseased political culture – a political disease that threatens the very concept of politics itself. Double standards should not be our leaders.

 

MS GÜLEK (Turkey). – It is understandable that the Assembly wants to become more involved in the effectiveness of the control mechanism in general. In representing one of two political organs of the Council of Europe, we must be sure that the different activities and monitoring functions continue to be effective. It is our responsibility to be aware of the risks and challenges threatening the main functions of the Committee of Ministers and the Council. On the other hand, we should be very careful about becoming directly involved in mechanisms that are the express responsibility of other organs.

In the draft recommendation, the rapporteur repeats suggestions made in Recommendation 1477(2001), which were examined thoroughly and seriously by the Human Rights Steering Committee. Apparently, it hesitated over agreeing fully with the Assembly’s suggestions. Therefore, if we want our suggestions to be as effective as possible, we must advance more cautiously before proffering controversial measures.

Although I appreciate Mr Jurgens’ good intentions in trying to rectify certain mistakes and misunderstandings, the report is still unacceptably outdated, especially in the explanatory memorandum concerning Turkey. The statement that numerous decisions have not been executed and the list of unimplemented judgments are erroneous. I hope that that will be corrected. We expect more serious analysis of the current situation in a report written more than two months after the adoption of a major package of constitutional amendments in Turkey. As politicians, all of us appreciate the implications of changing thirty-seven articles of a     constitution. I am sorry that not enough attention has been paid to the information provided by my delegation’s Secretariat or to the very productive meetings that we have had. Many of the decisions have been compensated for but, owing to fluctuation in exchange rates and stamp duty, they have not dropped off the book. I hope that that will be corrected, too.

Colleagues who have spoken understand clearly that apart from a special case, on which even the rapporteur has accepted that a political solution must first be found, Turkey has shown an unwavering commitment to implementing all the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. At a time when political dialogue is being embarked upon, we should not, as we have stressed before, resort to the Court as a means of resolving political matters until all other avenues have been exhausted. The fact that the decision is exceptional should be reiterated. Turkey has made great efforts and shown great willingness to execute all the judgments, including those posing legal problems. As I said, we have even changed our constitution. Such willingness should be strongly supported and     encouraged. Please look at the reply of the Committee of Ministers to

Recommendation 1529 on the commitments and obligations of Turkey. You will clearly see the progress attained. Under such circumstances, and given that we  work together in this Assembly, it is very important that our work has maximum effect. After all, I assume that that is what we want. We need to get the facts straight, otherwise we will discredit the Assembly’s impartiality and prevent further progress. We should all work together to make such progress. I hope that matters can be corrected as accurately as possible and that we can continue healthy dialogue.

23 OCAK 2002 ÇARŞAMBA, SABAH OTURUMU

Conflict in the Chechen Republic

 

Mr GÖNÜL (Turkey). – Please allow me to congratulate the distinguished rapporteur, Lord Judd, on his excellent report. The report is extremely helpful in giving us a valuable insight into the situation in the Chechen Republic which is not getting better.

The Northern Caucasus continues to be an area of instability. Unfortunately the Chechen Republic  is totally devastated and today reminds me of events in the late  nineteenth century when nearby Circassia was devastated and the whole population forced out of their homes after the defeat of ?eyh ?amil’s forces by the Russian Imperial Army.      Unfortunately, at that time we did not have the Council of Europe to defend the rights of those suffering people and the term human rights was unfamiliar to the rulers.

I would like to remind you that it is the responsibility of the Russian authorities to let  justice reign in the Northern Caucasus and to let the rule of law prevail in the Chechen Republic. But that is not enough. We all have a collective responsibility in terms of bringing the situation back to normal. We must prepare the necessary conditions to enable civilians to return to their homes and to normal life. In this respect, we should not ignore the problem of the Chechen refugees in the whole region. They continue to be a source of concern and the  pretext of illegal activities by certain groups.

It is our task to create an atmosphere conducive to healing the wounds of the present aggravated humanitarian situation in the region caused by the military operation. In this regard, we welcome the recent human rights seminar concerning the Chechen Republic organised by the Council of Europe, which is a positive step in the right direction.

At the seminar it was pointed out  that there is a lack of confidence and trust among the Chechen civilian population towards the Russian authorities. A solution should be found to this problem and Russian federal and local authorities in the region should deal carefully with the issue. To regain the trust of the population, the Russian authorities should bring     before the law the people responsible for violations. We expect a transparent investigation process for those accused of the violations.

It is also important for the Russian authorities to adopt a more co-operative attitude vis-à-vis international organisations in monitoring human rights and addressing problems. On the other hand, in every search for a solution Mr Maskhadov, the last elected representative of the Chechen people, must be involved.

I wish to dwell on one more issue – the reconstruction work that will be carried out in the Chechen Republic. The consultative council of Chechen administration can be used for this work. Chechens who return home could take part in it. That will reduce the high unemployment rate, and the administrative structure and the industrial sectors will start    working again. However, achieving that is conditional on establishing sufficient security, which still is not the case, and that is the primary responsibility of the Russian authorities.

 

Mr KALKAN (Turkey). – Distinguished parliamentarians, I would like to than you for giving me this opportunity to express my views on the report prepared on  “Conflict in the Chechen Republic”.

The ongoing gravity of the situation and conflict in Chechnya are still of deep concern to us.  Serious human rights violations are still being committed in Chechnya.  There are still cases of missing persons which should be tackled.

Unlawful detentions are of special concern to us.  Violence against inhabitants of the Chechen Republic by the Russian forces is totally unacceptable.  These are clear violations of the basic principles of international law – for example, the perpetrators of the shelling of Grozny University which took place in December 2000 have not yet been found.

It is of the utmost importance that everything is done to prevent violations and to identify their perpetrators.  Criminal investigations should be carried out in a proper manner.  Any delay in solving problems in Chechnya may potentially turn the existing instability in the region into lasting instability. Chechen society is losing its confidence in the federal authorities.  This should be rectified.  The problems of the Chechen people, such as high unemployment, inadequate administrative infrastructure and lack of industrial sectors, should be addressed in a proper manner.  As to the reconstruction of  Chechnya, all Chechens who had to abandon their homeland should return to Chechnya and participate in the reconstruction work.

Indeed, a lot needs to be done with a view to re-establishing normal life and confidence in Chechnya.  The Russian Federation should, therefore, be given a clear message from our side that, as a member state of the Council of Europe, it is supposed to abide by the rules and principles of the Council of Europe.

Thank you very much.

     

Mr ANDICAN (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteur and his colleagues for this well-prepared report. What happened in Chechnya has long been out of the headlines. The attention of the international media and the public has rightly been diverted to issues elsewhere. Especially after the events of September, hardly anyone spoke about that part of the world. However, that does not change the fact that Chechnya’s problems continue. Those     problems concern all of us closely, because they are  related to the protection of human rights.

This Assembly has still not been furnished with enough evidence that the grave human rights violations that took place in Chechnya have been or are being investigated effectively. Nor have we been assured that the Russian authorities are doing their part in bringing those who are responsible for the human rights violations to justice. It is true that the Russian authorities have taken several measure s to deal with that issue. The special representative of the Russian President, Mr Kalamanov, who is responsible for the human rights situation in Chechnya, has been in office for more than a year now. We understand that the special representative has been co-operative with the Council of Europe. The Krashninikov    commission was set up by the federal authorities to investigate complaints about violations of human rights.

However, I return to what I said a moment ago. What is the result of the work of all those bodies and of their investigations? How many of those responsible for what happened in Chechnya have been found guilty, and how many have been brought to justice? We still know very little about the mass killings that took place there. Unfortunately, we must admit that we

have no satisfactory answer to any of those questions.

Let us all remember that it is the responsibility of the Russian authorities to let justice  reign in that part of the world and to allow the rule of law to prevail in Chechnya, but we should not forget that it is our collective responsibility and the responsibility of this Assembly to put pressure on the Russian authorities to find and punish those responsible for violating human rights in Chechnya. Unless those responsible are found and tried, we cannot say that we have been successful in our task of upholding the principles of the Council of Europe, and we cannot be convincing in our efforts to persuade others that our work is credible. We must put pressure on both sides to reach a solution through negotiations.

 

24 OCAK 2002 PERŞEMBE, SABAH OTURUMU

 

Combatting terrorism and Respect for Human rights

 

Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey). – I fully agree with the work of the rapporteur. We do not want a totalitarian Europe; we must stick with our open societies. Therefore, our fight against terrorism must respect human rights. Efforts to prevent and defeat terrorism should not lead to excessive curbs on our common value of democracy. Any anti-terrorist legislation that violates human rights and undermines fundamental freedoms is unacceptable. We cannot place everyone under suspicion. That would put at stake the moral credibility of our fight against terrorism.

That is one side of the coin. The other side of it is that we face a risk. On occasion, human rights are being used for terrorist reasons. Today, terrorism is highly sophisticated and terrorists play the human rights card against western democracies. We should not let that happen. Human rights should not be turned into a safe haven for terrorists from which they can freely commit crime. There can never be justification for resorting to terrorism.

The fight against terrorism is a war, but not a neat, gentleman’s war. If our sincere intention is to stop terrorism, specific measures are required. We cannot go soft on terrorism. Fighting terrorism and respecting human rights is not a black and white matter. It is more of a  grey compromise, and a very sensitive balance must be struck. Given that, we must promote      international co-operation in the fight against terrorism. In doing so, experience might be  valuable.

Since I come from a country that is fed up with the bloody campaign of terrorism, suffering the loss of at least 30 000 lives as a result, unfortunately, I have sufficient experience of such matters. That is not something about which I am happy or of which I am proud – quite the contrary. Our past is full of pain, bitterness and tragic stories. Owing to the

pain that we have suffered, such experience is important and must be shared. I therefore believe that immediate steps should be taken.

Top terrorist gangs such as the PKK and the DHKP-C have been excluded from the list of terrorist organisations that has been prepared by the European Union. That is a scandal. I do not know the reason for the exclusion; it might be fear, it might be ignorance. I hope that it is not an indication of racial prejudice against Turkey. Whatever the reason, no     European country should be silly enough to harbour terrorist gangs.

Apart from the fact that terrorism is sponsored by rogue states, it must be recognised that it has always fed on ignorance and fear. Friends of the PKK and the DHKP-C have exploited both. The two gangs are among the deadliest terrorist organisations in the world. What perhaps distinguishes them from an organisation such as al-Qaeda is the fact that they have unwitting friends in some European countries. The only way to defeat terrorism and its threat to our way of life is to end such tolerance. Otherwise, our fight against terrorism may be blocked.

 

Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey). – It is clear that 11 September has become a turning point in international efforts against terrorism. For those countries that were combating terrorism before 11 September, international co-operation against terrorism was a utopic idea. Now, however, everybody agrees about the necessity of resolute and joint action against terrorism.

It goes without saying that in the fight against this crime, we must adhere to the principles of national and international law and respect human rights. Terrorism has no religion, no geography and no ethnicity. It can strike anyone in any country for any absurd reason. There can be no justification for terrorism. Terrorists show no mercy and act with     impunity. Terrorism is the scourge of our times, and it is the ultimate violation of human  rights.

Despite these facts, there are still those who try to adopt a selective approach towards terrorists. The members of some circles still have the audacity to claim that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists. These unfortunate persons now constitute a minority. I appeal to them to stop defending terrorists. The draft resolution and the recommendation prepared by the rapporteur have my support. I have doubts only about the suggestion to extend the status of the International Criminal Court to include the act of terrorism. The court has yet to function and prove itself.

I applaud the decision of the Committee of Ministers to set up the Multidisciplinary Group on International Action against Terrorism. It is high time to update the existing legal instruments and to create new ones. We need better instruments that will not allow unco-operative states to provide immunity to terrorists. If a country cannot extradite a terrorist, it can try him itself. In any case, it must not let them walk free.

Naturally, in order to fight terrorism we must agree on a definition. In this respect, I fully support the approach adopted in the report. The European Union has drawn up an excellent definition of terrorism and the Group on International Action Against Terrorism should use that definition in its work.

Eliminating every kind of support for terrorism is a must. We must target not only terrorism’s financial resources; moral support for terrorism should be eradicated as well. It is alarming that terrorist organisations have set up shell companies to finance their activities. It is even more alarming that some of these shell companies have been established in some    member states of the Council of Europe. This must stop. In this regard, member states should support and adopt the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering.

Acts of terror did not begin on 11 September. Terrorism existed long before that and I am afraid that it will continue in the future. However, it is up to the international community to determine how much more damage it will inflict upon us. United, we stand against terrorism.

Divided, we fall prey to it.

 

Mr KALKAN (Turkey). – My speech will be in my own language of Turkish.

(The speaker continued in Turkish.)

He said that the report shed light on the discussions taking place in the wake of 11 September. The terrorist attacks aimed at people in the United States and elsewhere had not been the first and would not be the last. Turkey was a country that had suffered from terrorism and would have liked to see action sooner. The resolution and recommendation from

the rapporteur could have been stronger, but both contained elements that the Assembly should take seriously.

The European Convention on the suppression of terrorism needed to be reviewed and a definition of terrorism established. The financing of terrorism had to be investigated. Education, better living standards and human decency were the best means of tackling  terrorism. Longer-term as well as medium-term actions were needed. Standards and the rule of law had to be maintained. Over 30 000 people had been killed in Turkey by PKK. Some nations did not recognise those terrorists as terrorists but gave them shelter and, even within the Assembly, engaged in dialogue with them. A balance had to be struck. Terrorism had to be fought, but not at the expense of human rights.

     

 

24 OCAK 2002 PERŞEMBE, ÖĞLEDEN SONRA OTURUMU

 

       Political Prisoners in Azerbaijan      

Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteur for his effort in preparing the report. The report stresses the general principle that there can be no political prisoners in any member state of the Council of Europe. It is a correct principle and one with which I strongly agree. The EPP group agrees with the majority of the findings contained in the report and the draft resolution. However, the report does not appropriately address the real situation of alleged political prisoners in  Azerbaijan in general.

Azerbaijan has a rich culture and a history that dates back many centuries, but democracy is new to it. The country celebrated yesterday its first anniversary as a member of the Council of Europe. The report is not a good gift of congratulation for this anniversary.

Only a year ago, upon the accession of the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan undertook the commitment to release, or to grant a new trial for, persons regarded by human rights organisations as political prisoners from 1999 to date. The Azerbaijan Government released more than 350 prisoners and granted a pardon or an amnesty to more than 300. Whatever the figures may be, it is a fact that Azerbaijan made significant steps in implementing its commitment.Of course some  more remains to be done in this respect, but we should appreciate the measures  undertaken by Azerbaijan while it has been in a state of war with Armenia.

The country has implemented significant reforms in legal, human rights, social, media, education and other fields. That is why, as is stated in the report, we should support Azerbaijan in its efforts to achieve a democratic way of development.

It might be asked whether Azerbaijan has acted quickly enough on its commitment to release or grant a retrial to the political prisoners. However, the definition of “political prisoners” is not clear enough. Some of the non-governmental organisations in Azerbaijan have presented a list of so-called “political prisoners”, which includes members of terrorist

organisations.

It is the opinion of the EPP Group that no one should be imprisoned for his political opinions. Therefore, it is not acceptable for any member country to have “political prisoners” according to its clear definition. Azerbaijan is doing its best in the matter. For instance, I was informed that, recently, President Heydar Aliyev had pardoned and released another group of thirty prisoners. In addition, there seems to be a new procedure in order to re-examine the cases of Gaziyev, Gumbatov and Gamidov.

New members such as Azerbaijan need encouragement and we have to adopt a more constructive approach. We should encourage the Azerbaijani authorities to be more co-operative with the Council of Europe.

 

25 OCAK 2002 CUMA SABAH OTURUMU

 

Right to Family Life for Migrants and Refugees

Mr TELEK (Turkey). – It seems that the problems of migrants and refugees never leave our agenda. It is certainly true that this complex problem deserves our constant attention.

The problems pertaining to the family reunion of migrants and refugees are among the many facets of that complicated issue. The main cause of the problem seems to be the highly restrictive measures taken by European countries to curb migration – be it legal or  illegal.

I thank Mrs Aguiar for her concise but comprehensive report which deals with both  aspects of the problem: the reunion of families of migrants and refugees; and the forced separation of families in the event of the repatriation of illegal immigrants or rejected asylum seekers. I fully agree with the list of recommendations in the report.

The European Convention on Human Rights has secured the right to respect for family life. According to Article 8 of the Convention, everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, and there can be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of that right. Apart from the Convention – as is rightly pointed out in the report – most   international human rights instruments contain provisions for the protection of the family,  which is, after all, the nucleus of the community at large. There are thus no doubts as to the legal basis for family reunions.

Unfortunately, it seems that Europe does not think that it is important to grant migrants and refugees the right to enjoy their family. Strict restrictions imposed on family reunion indeed give cause for concern. The statistics in the report prove that such concern is well founded.

I shall touch on an issue that has not been elaborated in the report. The principles of law dictate that no one can be punished twice for the same crime. However, migrants who serve prison terms are extradited when their sentence is completed – a clear example of double punishment. Furthermore, that procedure results in divided families and that becomes another form of punishment. That is a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

The draft recommendation includes a suggestion that member states facilitate administrative procedures and reduce any waiting period to a maximum of twelve months for young couples. I sincerely believe that that period is too long. As an obstetrician – as  someone who knows how hard it is to wait – I think that we must be more tolerant in the case of such people.

I congratulate our rapporteur on taking into account the concept of de facto family members when examining the issue. We should remember that most migrants and refugees come from countries where traditional extended families, with elders and other close relatives, form an inseparable part of the natural family.

Ms Aguiar has my full support.

Thank you.