AVRUPA KONSEYİ PARLAMENTER MECLİSİ

OCAK 2004 GENEL KURUL TOPLANTISI ESNASINDA

TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİNİN   YAPTIKLARI KONUŞMALAR

Sırbistan Parlamento Seçimleri

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – Following the decision of the Bureau, I chaired the ad hoc committee to observe the elections in Serbia on 28 December 2003. That election was also observed by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.

On the whole, we considered that the elections were well organised and better conducted than previous elections, even if there are still numerous lacunae. The electoral campaign took place in a very calm atmosphere, with a relatively high turnout, without major incidents and in conformity with international democratic standards. We appreciated the warm welcome of officials at the polling stations, who took time to reply to our questions.

All the members and all the observers regretted deeply that Messrs Slobodan Milošević, Seselj and Pavkovic were allowed to stand for election while on trial for war crimes before the Hague Tribunal. We know that Serbian electoral law allows anyone not yet proven guilty to stand for election, but in this case we all felt that those people carry an important moral and political responsibility for the exactions committed during the wars, and that they have darkened the history of the Balkans. The fact that they could stand for elections and be elected gives a very negative message to the international community and shows a lack of political responsibility.

We also noted a clear resurgence of nationalism in all political parties, and a thrust from the radical and anti-Semitic parties. Concerning the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns, we regretted that the law passed at the end of the year will be implemented only early in 2004. We also regretted the lack of transparency concerning the lists of candidates because the voters did not know which candidates would sit in parliament – that is left to the political groups to decide.

Finally, we deplored that some people were prevented from voting because current legal restrictions disenfranchised voters who were homebound, hospitalised, imprisoned or temporarily living abroad.

In the name of the ad hoc committee, I express the wish that the new parliament will first be able to reach an agreement. Members of the ad hoc committee recommend that the new parliament take the measures necessary to amend that electoral law, and ask the Monitoring Committee to monitor the action that is taken by the new parliament.

Situation in Cyprus

Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – I would like to join in thanking the rapporteur, Mr Eörsi, for his valuable work, which I believe constitutes a good basis for our discussions today. I especially salute his open-minded attitude, which, I understand, very much facilitated the work of the Political Affairs Committee.

Our debate about Cyprus is taking place at a time when Turkey has launched a fresh effort for the settlement of the dispute. Prime Minister Erdoğan met Mr Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary‑General, in Davos the other day and expressed Turkey’s desire for the resumption of negotiations under his auspices. The Turkish side wants a functional and viable solution in Cyprus. We are genuine and determined in our desire for a solution. In this context, Turkey’s latest effort aims at a solution that is based on the Annan plan and is acceptable to both parties.

We hope that negotiations will resume soon and result in a just, comprehensive and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem. The international community has to facilitate this process. Our discussions and decisions are important in this respect. We all have to make a positive contribution to the solution of the Cyprus problem. We should refrain from any act or attitude that might undermine the efforts for a just and peaceful solution.

We are going through a delicate time in respect of the Cyprus problem. The stakes are high not only for both parties, but for international peace and security. Therefore, all the parties concerned, as well as the international community, need to act in a responsible and constructive manner. For this very reason, I once again thank Mr Eörsi for his work, which I hope will be a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts pursued with the aim of re-launching negotiations in the island.

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – I join those who expressed appreciation to the rapporteur for his report on the situation in Cyprus. He has been very co-operative and sincere from the beginning of the report’s preparation. That forthcoming attitude made it possible to adopt the draft report at the committee meeting in Paris unanimously, despite the fact that we had many reservations about the report.

Turkey’s views on the settlement in Cyprus are well known. We believe that a lasting solution to the issue can be found within the United Nations framework, through negotiations under the good offices mission of the Secretary-General. In that respect, the two sides can take the Annan plan as a reference.

The Turkish Government has stated from the day it took office that “no solution” could not be a solution in Cyprus. I also believe that the continuation of the current situation is in no one’s interest. I hope that my Greek colleagues share the same opinion as me.

As you all know, there is a new government in the TurkishRepublic of Northern Cyprus, which got a vote of confidence last Saturday. The main item in the government’s programme is to achieve a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus.

Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot authorities have for some time been working on the possibility of re-launching a new phase of negotiations under the auspices of Secretary-General Annan. In the National Security Council meeting on 23 January, the political determination rapidly to reach a solution taking the Annan plan as a reference has been renewed and a new national position on its modalities has been formed. That position has also been shared with President Denktash and the new coalition government in the TurkishRepublic of Northern Cyprus.

Turkish Prime Minister Mr Erdoğan met Secretary-General Annan in Davos. At that meeting, he reiterated Turkey’s support for early resumption of negotiations. He also assured the Secretary-General that, in that process, the Turkish side would not be less forthcoming than the Greek side. The Prime Minister will meet President Bush today and is expected to give the same message during that meeting.

Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side are giving a clear message that they are committed to a just and early settlement in Cyprus. Now it is the turn of the Greek and Greek Cypriot side to confirm their commitments so that the negotiations start as soon as possible. I was glad to hear that from Mr Papadopoulos in the Hemicycle earlier.

It is true that there have been tragic occurrences. Nevertheless, at this juncture, the future of the island cannot and should not be based on the unfortunate events of the past. Now it is time to be forward-looking.

The international community, including this body, can and should play a constructive role in all this endeavour. An objective approach is a prerequisite for such a role. It is not time, nor is it the right way to try to make unilateral gains. It is time for a solution, and the solution requires mutual trust and compromise.

I hope that the positive climate related to the adoption of the report by Mr Eörsi in the relevant committees will continue to prevail under the roof of this Hemicycle, which eventually will be a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts pursued with the aim of re-launching the negotiations on the island.

Turkey, for its part, is determined to continue to do its best to contribute to the peace process which will, in the end, result in a viable and comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem. Thank you.

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteur for his report. So far as we are concerned, the decision that we take today will be a gigantic step towards solving the Cyprus problem. On the other hand, there is another important point that I would like to mention. This Hemicycle is an international arena – it is not a national parliament, so in order to send messages to our constituencies, we should use our national parliaments. Coming to this international Hemicycle to send messages to our electorates is not a good method and solves no problems. Unfortunately, some of the members of this Assembly have a habit of using this Hemicycle to send messages to their constituencies. I condemn such attitudes.

Never before in the history of the Cyprus problem has so much effort and energy been invested by political leaders, civil society and the international community. But equally important is the fact that never before has there been such a confluence of preconditions to arriving at a comprehensive settlement to this long-lasting problem. Most of us in this Assembly are well aware of the fact that at the root of the Cyprus problem lies the deep crisis of confidence between the two sides. This factor has obstructed all efforts to reach a comprehensive solution.

The essence of the problem in Cyprus is to reach a viable solution that guarantees that the bitter experience of the Balkans, successfully avoided on the island since 1974, will not take place in future. This is a moral and humanitarian mission that will not tolerate half-solutions, or a formula that does not take into account the realities on the island.

The fact is that there exists on the island two distinct peoples who experienced bitter ethnic conflict, and who are in search of a lasting peace based on a viable partnership. The previous partnership state between Turkish and Greek Cypriots was set up in 1960 according to the international agreements signed by the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot leaders, and by the Turkish, Greek and British Governments. This lasted only three years, as in 1963, the Turkish Cypriots were ousted by force from all organs of the new republic by the Greek Cypriots, in contravention of the founding agreements and of the constitution.

A long period of ethnic confrontation – an early version of the strife that took place in the Balkans – ensued. This escalation peaked in a coup, instigated by the rulers of Greece in 1974 in order to overrun Turkish Cypriots and annex the island. Turkey reacted as a matter of exigency, in accordance with the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. Turkey has helped to set up a secure environment for the Turkish Cypriots to foster their democracy, while continuing the search for reconciliation.

Today, we all want a solution, but it will not be realised at the expense of the rights, equality and sovereignty of the Turkish Cypriot people. It should be a freely negotiated, mutually acceptable, comprehensive and viable settlement. The ultimate decision rests with the two constituent peoples on the island.

There are two main considerations that Turkey’s interest in, and involvement with, this issue are bound by. First, protection for the afflicted Turkish Cypriots in their quest for a dignified life, enjoying full security, political participation and prosperity, is a must. Secondly, given Cyprus’s impact on relations between the two motherlands – Turkey and Greece – maintaining the balance of interests between the two is critically important.

It is now high time, and it is the responsibility of us all, to encourage the other party to reciprocate responsibly, and to adopt a more constructive and accommodating approach. We maintain our hope that the two peoples of Cyprus will soon be able to co-exist peacefully, and to share power under a new partnership.

Mr Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I begin by thanking the distinguished rapporteur for his report on the situation in Cyprus. He deserves our appreciation for his valuable work. It is impossible to ensure 100% satisfaction for everybody concerned in respect of such a contentious issue. Although I can hardly agree on the entire substance of the report, I feel obliged to stress that his approach is clearly distinct from past ones.

I agree that we should not talk about the history. If we go back through history, everybody will have many things to say. For example, people will talk about what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. We will also end up discussing what happened to Turkish women and children on the island during those years. Instead, we should look to the future and seek a solution.

Needless to say, everybody wants to reach a solution in Cyprus – a solution that will be lasting, comprehensive and acceptable to both sides on the island. I am sure that we will reach such a solution, and in this respect I recommend that our colleagues, such as Mr Cox, find new messages to send to our constituents. This is not the place in which to send messages to our national parliaments and constituencies.

We are in a very important period, and there is certainly an acceleration in the efforts to reach a lasting settlement on the island. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot authorities have been working on the possibility of launching a new phase of negotiations, under the auspices of Secretary-General Annan. Our prime minister had an exchange of views with the Secretary-General just a few days ago, in Davos. It is clear that Turkey supports the early resumption of negotiations. It is also clear that in order to progress towards a settlement, all sides should be equally forthcoming. The openings created by the Turkish Cypriot side present a real opportunity for, and the possibility of, a settlement. It has the necessary instruments to pave the way for the re-establishment of confidence, and thus a just and sustainable settlement will be made easier.

The path towards a settlement in Cyprus should necessarily proceed from equality, and from an acknowledgment of the realities on the ground on the part of all concerned. Therefore, a lasting settlement should definitely ensure the preservation of security and political equality on the island. In that context, we will continue to support the mission of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a viable solution.

There is a clear message from Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side that they are determined to find a just and early settlement in Cyprus. It is now high time for the Greek and the Greek Cypriot side to display their commitment. I hope that that will pave the way for the resumption of negotiations as soon as possible. It is now time for mutual compromise and sacrifice on the island.

Mr TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteur for his report. I read it with interest. I specifically welcome his co-operation during the preparatory work on the report and appreciate that he did his best to reflect the realities. As a result, discussions in the Political Affairs Committee took place in a very positive atmosphere.

First of all, I regret that my colleagues from Ukraine and the Russian Federation talked about “terrorist action” taken by Turkey in Cyprus. I condemn that term. It is more than unacceptable.

All of us desire a lasting political settlement establishing a new partnership in Cyprus. The Turkish Government strongly encourages the resumption of talks between Turkish and Greek Cypriots following the elections held in the TurkishRepublic of Northern Cyprus. We urge all other parties concerned to contribute to a just and lasting solution of the Cyprus problem – a solution that will safeguard the rights and security of both parties.

Following such a solution, Turkey’s vision for the future entails a perspective in which Turkey, Greece and the island of Cyprus will constitute a strong foundation of the European Union in the region as well as a pillar of stability and prosperity in the eastern Mediterranean.

We continue to support the good offices and the mission of the United Nations Secretary-General. A new partnership in Cyprus should be based on a compromise between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, with equal status for both parties.

It is clear that any act or attempt that might have negative repercussions on the process of peace and reconciliation should be avoided for the sake of creating much needed confidence between the two sides. That confidence will serve as a fertile basis for re-launching negotiations.

In that regard, I cannot conclude without expressing my view on the legislation adopted on 5 December 2003 by the Greek Cypriot House of Representatives, which declared 14 September as the official remembrance day for Asia Minor Hellenism and the Asia Minor catastrophe. I do not think that such a parliamentary decision is either necessary or constructive at a time when efforts to achieve a settlement in Cyprus have intensified, and when peaceful co-operation between Turkey and Greece has developed.

It is my sincere belief that all sides should act in as responsible a manner as possible.

While I once again wish to thank the rapporteur for his valuable work, I hope that a solution that is acceptable to both sides will be reached in the very near future, bringing confidence, peace, security and prosperity to the island of Cyprus.

Terrorism: a threat to democracies

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – Terrorism, whether carried out individually or collectively, poses one of the greatest threats to international peace and security. It violates fundamental rights, particularly the right to live, and can have no justification under any circumstances. It is an evil that strikes at the very core of democracy, civil society and economic and social development.

It is clear that terror does not have a religion, a geography or a nationality. It cannot be justified by any argument: the threat that it poses must be fought without double standards, but with co-operation and solidarity at the international level.

The existence of a global terrorist threat is now a much more established fact. Indeed, the attacks on 11 September 2001 are neither the first nor the last time that the world has encountered the horrible face of terror.

The recent terrorist bombings in Turkey and the Russian Federation have demonstrated once again the level of threat that terrorism poses to mankind. They underline the need for solidarity and concerted international action in the global fight against terrorism.

Despite the constant lack of a consensus on the definition of terrorism, the detrimental effect of any kind of terrorist act is still the most important issue in the world. The discussions in the United Nations to achieve a comprehensive convention on terrorism have been stalled for a long time because of the differences on the definition of terrorism. Nothing should condone or sanction terrorism. Certainly, the lack of an internationally accepted definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to effective global counter measures.

I am convinced that the motive behind an act of terrorism does not change the nature of the act. In democratic countries, terrorism has no justification and must be considered illegal, abhorrent, unacceptable and a crime against humanity.

Considering that terrorism is a long-term phenomenon, I believe that the problem of definition must be overcome as soon as possible.

There is a real need for us to act together on a common platform and take concrete and determined steps to eradicate terrorism. Condemning terrorism or conveying sympathy to the victims is not sufficient.

I believe that, in the light of the continuous threat of terrorism, it is imperative that the co-operation of Council of Europe member states that share the same values must be reinforced, and depoliticised in all cases. While that happens, our Organisation should and could be more forthcoming than others. For that reason, and taking into consideration the work carried out by our organisation so far, I believe that much stronger co-operation between our member states should be encouraged.

There is a real need to depoliticise co-operation among our member states. I note that, although it has recently been amended with a new protocol, the 1977 Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, in its amended version, still fails to meet entirely the need to depoliticise co-operation between contracting parties. It has still maintained the right to reservation, despite the various incentives of our Assembly since the beginning of the 1990s to lift that reservation clause.

As the Assembly has consistently stated in the past, action against terrorism must at all times be consistent with the fundamental freedoms and human rights that it is designed to protect. That is particularly the case in the member states of the Council of Europe, whose governments should also be sensitive to the deep-rooted reasons for the changing nature of terrorism. Member state governments should also promote dialogue between cultures and religions.

I am convinced that the root causes of terrorism – poverty, exclusion, disparity and desperation – provide fertile ground for the emergence and spread of terrorism, and should be properly addressed.

Given the difficulties encountered in the discussions in the United Nations on the subject, and the present impasse in them, I believe that the Council of Europe should envisage adopting a new and more comprehensive anti-terrorism convention without delay in order to strengthen international co-operation. Such a convention should be based on the normative acquis of the legal instruments and other texts of the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union. It must also include all the provisions listed in the draft recommendation.

Terrorism is a challenge against which we must continue to struggle. Therefore, I believe that we can achieve our goals only by adopting a far-reaching approach, and not by continuing with the same restricted range of action.

Colleagues, it is with deep regret that I must inform you that I have been given a note to the effect that this morning there has been a bomb explosion near the house of Mr Sharon in Israel. More than ten people have been killed. That incident demonstrates the importance of the subject under discussion. It also demonstrates how important it is that the member countries of the Council of Europe unite in producing a convention on terrorism and the way to combat it. The ministers of the Council of Europe must get together and introduce this convention as soon as possible.

Mr TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteur for his work. Simultaneous deadly bomb attacks in Istanbul have shown once again that there is no “good” or “bad” terrorism, and that terrorism cuts across political, geographical and religious boundaries. These attacks have acted as a reminder of terrorism’s worldwide reach, and of the need for united international action against it.

Turkey has always maintained that, no matter what pretext terrorists may use for their evil deeds, terrorism has no justification whatsoever and should be treated as a crime against humanity. The attacks in Istanbul have also confirmed the urgent need for international solidarity and co-operation in order to win the fight against terrorism. States cannot fight global terrorism individually. The antidote to terrorism is international co-operation – this is what the world requires now. We must act together on a common platform, and take concrete and determined steps to eradicate terrorism.

Full compliance with the provisions of the international conventions is vital if we are to succeed in the fight against terrorism. We expect all states to demonstrate strong commitment to international efforts, and we expect all member states to contribute effectively to the fight against terrorism.

The first issue should be to overcome the problem of the definition of terrorism. I greatly regret that United Nations discussions on the comprehensive convention on terrorism have stalled, precisely because states have differences of opinion about the definition of terrorism.

I therefore believe that, in the absence of a global convention on the fight against terrorism, we should intensify our work and our co-operation with the Council of Europe. We should aim at creating a solid and comprehensive convention basis for combating terrorism.

I welcome the work that has been done so far and that is still being carried out by the Council of Europe to explore further possibilities and means of intensifying co-operation and co-ordination among member states in the fight against terrorism. I appreciate the ongoing discussions in this organisation on the idea of creating a new and more comprehensive legal instrument that would constitute a good basis for further intensification of work and co-operation in that fight.

No room should be left open for anybody to provide impunity for terrorists, as nothing can justify any of the horrific attacks targeting innocents.

We should solidly reaffirm our commitment to fight against terrorism under all circumstances regardless of its alleged motives. We should act together on a common platform with a view to eradicating its root causes.

Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – I thank Mr Mercan for his comprehensive report and the information that he has provided. He sheds light on the threat that we all encounter and that we must fight against with a strong will, determination and resolve.

As a representative of people who have long suffered from terrorism, I wish that the conscientious attitude recently adopted on the international scene had been adopted before things got out of hand. Terrorism has no religion, no geography and no ethnicity. It can strike anybody, in any country, for any reason. There can be no justification for terrorism. Terrorists should find no mercy or impunity. Terrorism is one of the evils of our time. It is the ultimate violation of human rights.

For that reason, and taking into consideration the work carried out by our Organisation to date, I believe that we should encourage much greater co-operation between the governments of our member states. We must all act with the same determination and demonstrate that our priority is to preserve the rule of law in our societies and combat any threat to democracy.

I want to emphasise the importance of eradicating the source of funding, which is vital in preventing this crime. Eliminating all support for terrorism is a must. We must target not only financial support but moral support for terrorism. It is alarming to see that terrorist organisations have set up shell companies to finance their activities. It is even more alarming that some of those companies have been established in reputable countries.

It is clear that, if the social and economic roots of this breeding ground are not eliminated, there is no hope of stopping terrorist groups.

I applaud the work that is still being done by our Organisation to find ways and means to strengthen co-operation between member states. I think that it is high time to consider how this co‑operation could be made much more effective and efficient. We should be flexible in our thinking, and consequently not exclude the idea of creating new legal instruments that would contribute to and compensate for the existing legal instruments in this field without prejudice to fundamental freedoms. We need to create new and better instruments that will not allow unco-operative states to provide immunity for terrorists.

Mr Yüksel ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I begin by thanking the rapporteur for the work that he has done. Despite the continuing lack of consensus on the definition of terrorism, the impact of any kind of terrorist act is still the most important issue that the world faces. It is true that the lack of an internationally accepted definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful global counter-measures. Time has proved that the events of 11 September were neither the first nor the last terrorist acts. The horrific attacks in Istanbul have again demonstrated how evil that threat is, cutting across political, geographic and religious boundaries.

For the fight against terrorism to succeed, terrorism has to be seen in the right perspective. Turkey has always maintained that terrorism, whatever the reason for it, should be seen as a threat to humanity, regardless of race, religion, ideology or country. We are renewing our call for international solidarity and co-operation.

Universal rules should prevail in the fight against terrorism, but terrorism is not classified in any way. One of our priorities should be to find a single definition of terrorism that applies throughout the entire world, along with fighting terrorism not only on a global level but regionally. Given the new dimension to terrorism that humanity faces, I certainly support the strengthening of co-operation between states. The best way to ensure that is through the renewing and reinforcing of legal instruments. The creation of a new kind of legal instrument that opens the way for better co-operation between states therefore merits due consideration.

Any new legal instrument that would provide a new perspective in terms of co-operation between states should undoubtedly focus on concrete areas of effective co-operation between contracting parties.

Although I fully acknowledge the importance of the existing instruments of the Council of Europe, they still have shortcomings that might create obstacles that stand in the way of effective co-operation in the fight against terrorism. For example, the protocol amending the 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism still includes the right to enter a reservation to the convention. The suppression of terrorism requires full co-operation and the effective fulfilment of commitments. The right to a reservation far from contributes to this aim.

Terrorism is a challenge, and we have to continue to struggle against it. Therefore, I believe that we can achieve our goals only by adopting a far-reaching approach, instead of by continuing with the same constraints on our actions.