Proposition 54K2080

Proposition de résolution relative au gel de la procédure d'adhésion de la Turquie à l'Union européenne.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Peter Luykx
N-VA Rita Bellens, Peter De Roover
Open Vld Annemie Turtelboom, Tim Vandenput

Submission date

Oct. 11, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union Turkey resolution of parliament accession to the European Union

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 16, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, we have all witnessed the events in Turkey in the past few months, which we may all have a distinct opinion on.

The coup attempt in July 2016 has attracted global attention to Turkey, to the extent that this was not the case before. The positions that we should take in this Parliament on all matters must be related to the responsibilities that we as members of Parliament must take. When it comes to Turkey, our ties with that country are also clearly demonstrated with the European Union, and the impact on our own policies and our own state is direct.

The attitude of the N-VA faction in these has always been consistent. As far as we are concerned, Turkey is a country that is not part of the European Union for a number of reasons. First, it does not meet the conditions to be met, and moreover, there is little or no progress, there is even decline in some key points. Second, however, there is the demonstrable and identifiable lack of support from the public opinion for such an operation. Third, it is our opinion that a genuine European project is not served by an infinite spatial expansion. The floor, which is still necessary at some points, would therefore undoubtedly be hindered.

In the past, a number of views and decisions have been taken on this subject, such as the pre-accession aid. It was intended for the improvement of human rights, to stimulate democratic development, for the development of a legal apparatus, and more. If that aid was extended for that purpose, it is quite logical that we should review that aid, when we find that there is not only no progress in those points but in some points even a strong decline. This is an important part of this resolution.

We are aware of the potential impact that this resolution has, but it is quite obvious that not taking a stand in them actually means that we close our eyes and that, through that accession support, we de facto actively stimulate the negative developments in Turkey and attach our approval to them.

This resolution contains four questions. First, the cessation of pre-acquisition aid. Secondly – this is in accordance with the resolution adopted in the European Parliament on this subject – a reorientation of the resources allocated for this purpose to the independent Turkish civil society. Third, the request to freeze the accession negotiations to the EU. Finally, a clear red line because in the event of a possible reintroduction of the death penalty, we call for the immediate and definitive cessation of the accession talks.

With this resolution, we are moving on the line of the European Parliament. We hope that other European countries will follow us in this.

We will fully support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let’s look back to July 15, 2016, when there was a complete chaos in Turkey. Part of the military then made an attempt to light President Erdogan out of the saddle and restore constitutional order, democracy and human rights.

The result was: 265 dead and more than 1,400 wounded. Erdogan attacked the failed coup to clean a ship with dissidents. 43 000 people were arrested and 23 500 were arrested. More than 100,000 people in public and private companies have been dismissed. Among them are 4,500 military personnel, 2,400 academics and 40,000 teachers. Four billion real estate were simply seized, 170 media channels were closed, 25 municipal governments were taken over, 138 parliamentarians were removed from their immunity. While I list these numbers, they are undoubtedly already outdated because it is ⁇ difficult to keep track of everything.

Thus, it is poor with fundamental human rights and rights of freedom in Turkey. We still receive weekly reports indicating a further decline in the rule of law and democracy. Last week, 4,500 officials were fired due to suspicion of involvement in last year’s coup attempt.

For several years, a process has been going on where political parties and free media are getting less and less room to criticize President Erdogan’s ruling AKP party. We must look at how Turkey is evolving to an unliberal democracy, where elections are held, but civil liberties are struck with feet and any opposition is countered by the ruling party. All of this leads to an abolition of the legislative power, an abolition of the judiciary and an abolition of the independent journalism.

The European Commission also made a recent progress report on the accession negotiations with Turkey. I will give you a flower reading. There are very serious concerns about the conformity of Turkish legislation with European standards on the rule of law and democratic principles. It also highlights the removal of immunity and the arrests of parliamentarians, human rights violations by Turkish troops in Kurdistan, the repression of civil society organisations and human rights groups and the undermining of the independence of the judiciary. Gender-based violence and violence against minorities are too little punished. A recent bill, allowing rapists to marry their victims in order to escape their punishment, is an absolutely striking and above all very shocking example of this. Freedom of the media and freedom of expression is under heavy pressure. Arrests of journalists and the closure of media channels create major problems. These are all quotes from the European Commission report.

However, the Commission remains too cautious in its approach. It is time for Europe to send a clear signal to Turkey. We do not tolerate that one of our neighbors is sent to the abyss by an aspiring dictator. We cannot be blind to the rapid reversal of democratic steps in Turkey over the past decades, not if it depends on us.

The only possible option to suspend the accession negotiations is that the funds that Europe gives to Turkey to promote democracy, the so-called pre-accession aid, should be eliminated. The resources liberated by this should be used to support the Turkish civil society and NGOs. Only in this way can we effectively promote democracy and respect for human rights. In the meantime, the European Parliament also adopted that opinion, and on 24 November, with a vast majority, also approved a resolution.

Specifically, we ask: stop the pre-accession aid. Stop the comedy that Erdogan’s Turkey will one day become a member of the European Union. Stop the financial support to the Erdogan regime. Instead, support the Turkish civil society and the NGOs that promote true democracy.

We ask the government, from the committee and hopefully later also from this plenary session, to take this position unshortedly on the European level.

Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues for their cooperation with regard to this resolution. It was unanimously adopted in the committee, and I think we are sending a very strong signal to Turkey. In particular, we also say very clearly what our position should be at the European level in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to remind, as I do every time I speak in this assembly about Turkey, that this is a friendly state and that the historical, geopolitical, economic, social and human ties that unite us are, as we know, essential. Whatever we say or do, Turkey is and will remain geographically a country that is close to us. This is obvious. And it is precisely because we are friends and neighbors that we cannot admit, under no pretext, the violations of the rule of law that take place there, as the hearings we have just had in the committee have yet to prove.

I think of the mass arrests of political opponents, officials, journalists, political leaders, novelists, intellectuals, academics... The list is still long. I also think of the prohibitions of gay pride, the repressed demonstrations of the opposition, or even the desire to restore, as soon as possible, the death penalty; all this, while in parallel, the all-powerful President Erdogan validated the constitutional revision reinforcing his powers and that a popular consultation is scheduled on April 16. Will we witness further demonstrations of force and intimidation in this perspective? That is my fear!

As a member of the Council of Europe, I will never repeat it enough, it is not enough to be elected to do what one wants with the rule of law and the European Charter of Human Rights. I have held the same speech here, some time ago, about several European states, themselves, also members of the Council of Europe, as is Turkey since April 13, 1950.

Unfortunately, in another context, initiatives aimed at Poland, for example, could not take our assembly’s membership. Rightly, we always talk about Turkey and its candidacy for membership in the European Union but never about Turkey’s actual membership in the European Charter of Human Rights. I therefore expect our diplomacy and our Minister of Foreign Affairs to take concrete initiatives also within the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

I now come back to the resolution proposal that is submitted to us today and which my group supported in the Committee on Foreign Relations.

It is based on three very clear main requests, which are in line with the proposals adopted by the Socialist MEPs during the same debate in the European Parliament.

We want the government to advocate at the European level that part of the funds thus released be used to support Turkish civil society and non-governmental organisations through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights; that it advocate at the Council of the European Union for the temporary freeze of the accession negotiations between the European Union and Turkey; that it advocates at the European level for an automatic halt to the accession negotiations between the European Union and Turkey in the event that the country reinstates the death penalty.

As I said, if strong diplomatic measures are necessary within the framework of the European procedure of accession to the Council of Europe, we must be careful to leave the door open, hoping to see a rapid and definitive de-escalation of the autocratic delirium of the Erdogan regime.

We must also, imperatively, be careful that this strong attitude does not have even more detrimental consequences and isolation on the peaceful and democratic opposition or on civil society and the Turks themselves.

Remember that Mr. Erdogan – and I suppose it is to his great dam – does not represent 100% of the Turkish public opinion! Let us not further isolate the progressive and democratic forces of this beautiful country!

I would also like to remind that we are solidary with Turkey in its fight against terrorism and Daesh and that we condemn all acts of barbarism on its soil, of which a Belgian was the victim recently.

Similarly, my group condemned the military coup at the time as it occurred in Turkey, where civilians lost their lives and the parliament was bombed. Political change cannot come from force by force and by defaming the rule of law.

This cannot serve as an alibi. The rule of law and democracy do not negotiate, as do the rights of the opposition and minorities.

Of course, it is intolerable that some attempt by force to attack the institutions of a country, but it is up to the independent justice to do its job to judge the coupists or terrorists and not to Mr. Erdogan.

It is intolerable to see such use of state structures to carry out a major cleansing and to undermine fundamental rights and democracy.

What other analysis would be possible when facing such facts? How could one admit that it is possible to arrest ⁇ 20,000 people, hours after this failed coup, including judges, public officials, teachers and journalists? Would that be conceivable? How could one admit that such a purge is compatible with the rule of law? It is unlikely! Should we pretend to see nothing when the president of a member state of Europe and NATO openly pleads for the restoration of the death penalty? The answer to these questions is clearly no.

This resolution indicates it and traces a thick red line. I am afraid that Mr. Erdogan already has a foot on this red line. I hope that he will step back rather than cross it by turning an unacceptable military coup into a dangerous and often libertic political coup.

I will conclude by reminding that indeed, and that is the most important thing, our States are strongly linked. It is not because we are partners that the rule of law or European values are negotiated. The European Charter of Human Rights and the European Treaties are not vulgar paper clothes. Of course, this must apply to all Member States of the joint project. We have been trying to build this project for ⁇ 70 years, with all the difficulties we know, but it is equally obvious that these rules apply to those who claim to want to enter our project. It is to take or leave. We will be inflexible in this matter and it is therefore with force that all members of my group will support this text and call on our government to finally get out of its reserve, including within the European Council. It is really time.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, in fact, like my colleagues, I would also like to intervene on this proposal for a resolution which was unanimously voted in the Committee on Foreign Relations. This is rare enough to emphasize it. I would like to say how unanimous we are about the decisions we want to make today with regard to Turkey. In fact, not quite! Recent events, the July 15 coup d’etat, have led us to think that the first of Copenhagen’s criteria, namely the presence of stable institutions, the guarantee of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, the respect and protection of minorities, has nevertheless since then been heavily violated.

Through this resolution proposal, which has been unanimously adopted, we request that Belgium advocate within the Council that the enlargement process be stopped, the time that Turkey again meets the three above criteria.

How can we describe the current political situation in Turkey? Compared to the early 2000s, this country, ruled by the AKP, operated a 180-degree turn. From the opening of negotiations for accession to the European Union, the implementation of many reforms, the strong economic growth, the establishment of an open democracy on Islam, we have moved to a country that, according to all wise observers, is moving away from the secular ideological bases of Atatürk to conduct a more conservative, neo-Ottoman policy, leading to a tightening of the regime.

In the absolute, this turning point is disturbing, because Europe needs a stable perimeter and neighborhood in the Mediterranean, just as, it must be recalled, on its eastern flank. Now, in the case of Turkey, a candidate for EU membership, it is the red light that lights up today. The internal situation has deteriorated sharply since last summer. Politically, the aborted coup of 15 July caused ⁇ 250 deaths and more than 2,000 wounded. This coup attempt was presented as an act of Fethullah Gülen’s brotherhood, once close to the AKP, without any clarity being made on its sponsors.

We are witnessing a worrying deterioration of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, with massive and destabilizing purges. More than 120,000 civil servants were dismissed, about 40,000 people were arrested, 45% of the officers were dismissed, a quarter of the magistrates were dismissed, and more than 500 private companies were placed under custody. It should be emphasized that these purges do not only affect the perpetrators of the failed coup, but also Gülenist sympathizers, supporters of the Kurdish cause as well as opponents of the regime. They hit more and more professional circles. No one knows when the running ahead of the government will stop. This is problematic, because the removal of such a large number of officials mechanically weakens the state apparatus.

Journalists and HDP MPs were arrested. Turkish officers in NATO no longer want to return home.

The Council of Europe has regularly criticized these purges carried out outside of any legal framework.

President Erdogan has launched a repression of such a scale that it has overwhelmed both the alleged perpetrators, but not legally proven or condemned, but also any critical voice (journalists, teachers, intellectuals).

While the coup was bluntly denounced by the entire political opposition, this moment of national unity broke out, following the will of the power in place to embark on a witch hunt attacking all the discordant opinions within the entire state apparatus.

Political violence has recovered exponentially. Since the summer of 2015, the attacks have multiplied. They were claimed by the Islamic State, the PKK, the TAK, the DHKP. The resumption of hostilities by the PKK in July 2015 caused massive destruction in several cities in the Southeast and the displacement of the population.

Institutionally, after the elections of June and November 2015 that allowed the AKP to retain its absolute majority, President Erdogan wants to impose a new Constitution carrying a presidential regime. Its adoption by parliament on 21 January 2016 will be completed by a referendum in April.

In addition to questioning the respect for the separation of powers, this new legal framework would allow the president to be re-elected twice, until 2029. We are therefore facing an institutional reform that singularly limits the counter powers dear to Montesquieu within a presidential system and which risks to aggravate the authoritarian and personalised nature of the exercise of power in Turkey, all within the framework of a referendum campaign conducted under an emergency state system.

Economically, the country is in recession. The Turkish pound has lost one-third of its value and foreign investments are stuck in the face of so much legal uncertainty. This is, by the way, a crucial point of the future referendum that could be deviated from its purpose and become a vote sanction against the country’s economic downturn.

Foreign policy, too, raises a number of questions, given its erratic character dictated by the security prism. The Kurdish question in Turkey, Iraq and Syria remains central, alongside the struggle against the establishment of a Shia axis in the Iran-backed region, an obsession that has prevented Turkey from playing its role against the Islamic State.

Turkey is now at the forefront of fighting Islamic State, as evidenced by its military involvement in Syria.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, in view of this finding, we believe, all confused political groups, that it is necessary to pause in the accession negotiations and thus give Turkey time to reassemble and clarify a number of political issues and international positions.

Dear colleagues, everyone will have their own point of view on the very principle of Turkey’s accession to the European Union, but we can all agree that Turkey remains an essential partner of Europeans such as Ukraine or Russia, whose simple geography makes us eternally close.

We need the Turkish authorities to prevent the passage of Daesh fighters to Europe. Our police and intelligence services must work hand in hand. Turks play a key role in negotiations on the future of Syria. Since March 18, we have had an agreement on immigration that, if it is not perfect, brings the results we expect.

I note that the modernization of the EU-Turkey Customs Union towards agriculture, services and public procurement is presented as a promising track for this year. Nevertheless, we must maintain a frank and open dialogue with Ankara, keeping in mind our values that are the defense of democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of the media, the rule of law, impartial and transparent justice, the importance of counter powers, international treaties that prohibit the death penalty, a step that Turkey has not yet taken but which is, in the eyes of the reform movement I represent in this assembly, a redemptive act.

Thank you, dear colleagues, Mr. President, for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the resolution we adopt here today is an important signal. It is an important signal because despite the importance of Turkey as a partner of our country, the European Union and within NATO, we indicate that we disagree with various worrying signals, with the fact that the rule of law is increasingly under pressure, with the reduction of press freedom and with the infringement of human rights and freedom of expression.

No, the July 15 coup was not the answer to address these alarming signals, because democratically elected institutions should not be the target of a coup. It is therefore logical that this coup was strongly condemned, both by our country and by the European Union.

Since that coup, however, we have seen a further degradation of the rule of law and the repression of human rights. The state of emergency was proclaimed in the country and under that motto, very repressive action was taken, not only against the coup leaders, but also against the broad civil society such as journalists, human rights activists and academics. The legislative framework was also made even more restrictive, primarily the judiciary being continuously made dependent on the executive power. The checks and balances were further developed.

Within the European Union, clear messages have already been sent to Turkey. On the one hand, there is the annual progress report that already since 2013 identifies that decline. It also confirmed this in a publication in November 2016, after the coup, clearly indicating that there was an acceleration in those concerns about the rule of law and human rights. On the other hand, the European Parliament, which some colleagues have already mentioned, adopted a resolution on 24 November. Our colleagues within the EPP also approved this. It adopts a clear position on the temporary suspension of Turkey’s accession negotiations to the European Union if no further efforts are made to address that reduction in the rule of law and human rights.

This Parliament should also give such a signal and with this resolution we also give this signal.

The resolution contains three important elements.

First, the temporary freezing of negotiations. As the situation is today, we cannot continue the accession talks with Turkey. To become a member of the European Union, one must take our values to heart and strive for them. This is not the case today.

Another important element is the death penalty. This is a clear red line for us. If the death penalty is reintroduced, Turkey will unwaveringly admit that it does not want to become a member of the European Union.

Third, the resources currently allocated for pre-accession assistance must be reoriented. They must now be able to be reoriented to the middle field in Turkey, to further strengthen it, now under pressure. It is important that the European Union pay attention to civil society and that its critical voices are also supported.

Our policy towards Turkey is at a crossroads. This is because Turkey itself is at a crossroads. With this resolution, we want to send a signal to Turkey that, in order to become part of the European Union, it must also share the values of our European Union.

Therefore, our group will approve the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, it is surprising that during the discussion that has just taken place, no one has mentioned the agreement of 18 March 2016 which binds the European Union to Turkey regarding migrants. But this agreement is essential and we have discussed it long here.

It entered into force on 4 April 2016 and provided precisely for a resumption of the accession process in exchange for the transfer of Syrian asylum seekers from Greece to Turkey, against the sum of 3 billion euros granted to NGOs for their reception in that country. Today, 2.8 million Syrians are already in camps in Turkey, in disastrous humanitarian and social conditions.

As stated by De Roover, Turtelboom and Jadin, Turkey is not respecting the fundamental principles of human rights such as, for example, the Geneva Convention, which provides for the reception of refugees and that each asylum seeker can benefit from an individual assessment of his or her path and journey.

What flies have this government bitten for having concluded such an agreement with, as you said, a state that does not respect freedom of the press, freedom of association, the rights of women or homosexuals?

A state, as Ms Jadin said, which is waging a war against the Kurds in the east and which has played, until its agreement with the regime of Bashar al-Assad, a troubling, if not troubling, role in the emergence and strengthening of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

We knew all this before the conclusion of the Leonin Agreement of 18 March 2016 between the European Union and Turkey. This agreement has made us, Europeans, dependent and hostage of an authoritarian political regime, that of Mr. Erdogan, which you denounce today.

This political agreement, of which no one has spoken, was aimed at ensuring that Europeans do not welcome on European soil an impressive mass of Syrian migrants.

Nowadays, the majority is apparently taken with remorse, finally! Today, finally, the majority breaks a Leonin agreement. But be prepared because, as soon as the deal is broken, Erdogan will open the valves and send back to the European borders those refugees who have been sent back from Greece to Turkey. You become completely dependent on this autocrat, the Greens are always called, both at the Belgian and European level. Madame Jadin, we can do that!

In the background, that is, the possible accession of Turkey to the European Union, the Greens believe that the Turkish people have a long-term future in the European Union, like any state that meets the Copenhagen criteria. But today, Tayyip Recep Erdogan’s Turkey does not comply, far from that, with the Copenhagen criteria. As long as Turkey has a despot at its head and therefore an authoritarian regime, Turkey will not enter the European Union!

We will vote for this resolution because we think it is the best way to be able to support the Turkish Democrats in Turkey. Nevertheless, we remind the majority parties that they signed this immoral agreement in March 2015 and that they struck the same Turkish Democrats in the back.

Many substantive arguments have already been developed by colleagues. I join these arguments that now justify the freezing of the accession negotiations of Turkey to the European Union. It actually seems to us that by eliminating democracy and the rule of law in Turkey, President Erdogan has long turned his back on the European project and its values.

I will not go back on all the elements. My intervention was rather an interpellation against the Minister of Foreign Affairs since this resolution is supported by the vast majority of our colleagues.

I would have wanted to know what initiatives he would actually take in order to be able to implement it.

In particular, there is the first point in the resolution’s dispositif, which calls for the effective cessation of subsidies for reforms in the field of justice and human rights in Turkey. This is completely wasted money today. These are considerable sums, since only in 2016, it is a sum of 250 million euros that has been completely unnecessarily spent in relation to the Turkish authorities in an attempt to restore or strengthen the rule of law. The least we can say is that it is a terrible failure. I think it’s time to close that robinet. Overall, for the period 2014-2020, more than €4.4 billion is planned for human rights reforms in Turkey. When can this mess stop?

The second element of our resolution calls for at least part of this amount to be spent on civil society. It is known that there are obviously Democrats in Turkey, many people who want freedoms to be preserved. How can we help the Turks in need of freedom? How can Europe ensure that this country does not completely sink under the fern of the current regime and that there can still be, there, NGOs, associations, a civil society, media that can defend fundamental freedoms?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, my questions are as follows. What is the current state of the debate at the European level, since the European Parliament has voted a resolution that is similar to ours? What will be the timetable in relation to the freeze of the accession negotiations of Turkey with the European Union? This is the main thing I wanted to say and the questions I wanted to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to say to the presenters of this draft resolution that our group will approve it, as was the case in the committee. The simple reason for this is that the collapse of democracy and the rule of law in Turkey is ⁇ problematic. Under the given circumstances, there can absolutely be no question of the accession of that country to the European Union.

However, I would like to add that the applicants are quite late in proposing this position. I explain myself more closely. Last year we witnessed that the Belgian government supported the reopening of a number of negotiating chapters for Turkey’s accession to the European Union. We then said in the plenary session, during the questioning hour, that this was not a good idea because the signals were already so serious that for our group there could actually no longer be a question of an accession of Turkey to the European Union. Moreover, the European Parliament already approved a similar resolution on 24 November last year. This resolution is valuable and we will approve them, but in fact it is a bit behind the facts. Indeed, in the meantime, this position has already become bon ton in Europe, in the European Parliament. It is the consensus that has been signed for several months.

In that regard, I would like to ask all parties to think about adopting resolutions in the Foreign Affairs Committee, which go a little further, which stimulate something, which effectively also encourage the government to conduct a foreign policy that is not being conducted today, and that which goes beyond the European consensus. I do not need to tell you that within the European Union there is very often a status quo, business as usual, a bit of paralysis as well. We are no longer able to reach a strong foreign policy because of a lack of consensus within the European Union. Certainly in these circumstances it is up to the Belgian Parliament to solve a shot in the bow, to go beyond the European consensus and to encourage our Belgian government to do the same.

Regarding Turkey itself, I would like to say that the country of course remains an important interlocutor because of the geostrategic position it occupies. I think we have waited too long to give Turkey the signal that an accession in these circumstances can actually not be possible. We kept them on the line for months, years. This has caused a lot of frustration on the Turkish side.

This should be avoided in the future. With such countries, which clearly do not respect the criteria of Copenhagen, we must be able to develop other partnerships, other partnerships, with all clarity, without keeping each other in line and without reflecting each other things that can never be realized.

Our heart must also be with the Turkish people. The Turkish people are the victims of the degradation of democracy and the rule of law in Turkey. I think we have every interest in ⁇ ining good ties, good contacts, with the Turkish people and with the Turkish civil society. Especially with those organizations attached to democracy and human rights. I think we should give a clear signal to Turkey, but we must ⁇ not let the Turkish people fall.

I listened carefully to what my colleagues said. I searched fruitlessly whether I could add something to that. And so I limit myself to say, on behalf of my group, that I support all that the colleagues have said.

As in the committee, we will adopt the draft resolution in this plenary session.

I also listened very carefully to my colleagues. I give them wholeheartedly right, but unlike colleague Van der Maelen, I have a lot to add.

Since 1999, and every legislature again, the Flemish Interest has submitted a similar draft resolution. Each time, you persistently defended the accession negotiations with Turkey.

The resolution proposal we have submitted goes far beyond the proposal that is being voted today. We are not in favour of a temporary freezing of the accession negotiations with Turkey, but rather of a definitive cessation of them.

I will also motivate you why. I will do that with the words of Karim Van Overmeire.

In November 2004, a book from my colleague party vice-president Philip Claeys came out, a very readable book, titled Turkey in the European Union, a bridge too far. When that book was officially proposed, Karim Van Overmeire pointed out “that the discussion about Turkey’s accession threatens to revolve around whether Turkey meets the criteria of Copenhagen, such as stable democratic institutions, respect for human rights, a well-functioning market economy, the adoption of European laws and regulations, and just mention.” “But of course, the European Union is not open to any country that meets those criteria, because then Japan, Canada and South Korea could just as well join. Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union clearly states that EU membership is reserved for European countries. Turkey’s accession is therefore ⁇ not only related to the Copenhagen criteria, but above all to the demand for our identity.”

We have always been consistently opposed to the fact that, without any public support, a new Member State, which geographically for 97 % is not even in Europe, which historically has never belonged to the European civilization, except as a cruel occupier, which economically does not meet any criteria, which is also Islamic, and of which 80 million inhabitants could freely flood our continent.

I still agree with the 2004 opinion: Turkey does not belong to the European Union. Karim Van Overmeire may have changed his mind because his current party has no problem with Turkish accession, if those Copenhagen criteria are met.

In fact, today, with the present proposal for a resolution, you advocate a temporary freeze of accession negotiations and not a definitive cessation of accession negotiations, which in fact should never have been started.

Colleagues, in all that you have stated today and wrote in the explanation of your draft resolution, you are absolutely right. You have finally come to that understanding. It is quite logical that the budget for pre-accession assistance to Turkey is deleted. This should have happened for a long time.

Mr. Minister, maybe you can in all transparency, of which this week everyone has suddenly become in favour – isn’t it, Mr. President? –, indicate how many millions of euros have already flown to Turkey in recent years as part of the accession negotiations. The public is looking forward to that.

The resolution comes too late. I have questioned you and your predecessors countless times about the crushing situations in Turkey. I have asked you about the Turkish Kurds, who are the victims of large-scale government violence, and about Erdogan’s statements that women are not equal to men. According to him, women differ so much that they can absolutely not be placed at the level of men. I have questioned you about the scattering of a demonstration for women’s rights in Istanbul and about all other protests, which are crushed by brutal violence. I have questioned you about the fact that newspaper editions are being transformed into regime press chambers. Remember how the editorial room of the opposition side Zaman was stormed with tear gas and water cannons. I have questioned you about the fact that critical journalists in Turkey are being prosecuted legally. Nowhere in the world are so many journalists and individuals imprisoned for their opinions as in Turkey. I have questioned you about the censorship and blocking of social media websites and more, as well as all other types of restriction of free expression.

All of the above cases have only led to a kind of permanent state of concern. After all, that was the only answer I received from the current government, namely that it shared our concern. However, no appropriate conclusion was linked to. All of the things I have just listed have not prevented the government from concluding another blackmail deal with Erdogan last year. He is still prominent on the list of members of the Leopolds order. He was awarded by you in 2015, but that side.

This government agreed last year to the principle of giving concessions to Turkey in exchange for an agreement on tackling the asylum crisis, namely more than three billion euros from the European Union and the abolition of the visa requirement for Turks. You also agreed to the principle of reviving and even accelerating the negotiations. At that time you saw no grades in an agreement that aims to accelerate a Turkish accession.

In an official Turkish-Belgian statement following the visit of you, Mr. Reynders, and of Jambon, Francken and Geens to Turkey, there was even a “welcoming of the new momentum in Turkey’s accession process to the European Union”. You are always following the European Union as a slave. I have the impression that for you it is a kind of holy cow, a religion that should not be questioned and to which no criticism should be given, because then you end up on a kind of virtual fire stack. Only now, when the good tone has become in the European Union, will you dare to come up with a resolution yourself.

The things I have just listed, and even the fact that President Erdogan is openly stopping human rights and cleaning up all aspects of democratic society and being replaced by a totalitarian Islamic state, have never made this government intervene, not a single time in recent years. However, there were enough indications and incidents.

Just like the conclusions of the European Commission in each annual progress report – in practice a recession report – your conclusion was also wrong. The wrong conclusion was always drawn. The answer I received from you every time on behalf of the government, Mr. Minister, was that Turkey needs more European commitment to help the country become a modern European state. This is the world on his head.

I am pleased that you have finally come to repentance, that there has already been a little progressive realization that this was indeed not the right conclusion. It is ⁇ unfortunate that a large-scale cleansing operation by Sultan Erdogan was needed first, after the failed coup last summer. That was the ideal occasion for Erdogan to rapidly expand and perfect the cleansing, which he has been carrying out for years in the military and in the Justice Department. His black list was finished. I will not repeat the number of victims. Colleague Turtelboom has already listed everything.

Your progressive understanding is not going far enough. Temporary freezing of these accession negotiations is not the solution. Please consider it more broadly than a mere application of the Copenhagen criteria. North Korea on the Bosphorus, this Turkey, belongs historically, geographically or culturally to the European Union. Not today, not tomorrow, never!

If you share that opinion, you should support our amendments. We extend the explanation with these arguments and in your four questions we replace the temporary freezing with a definitive halt. If you really mean what you just said, if you really mean what you said, Mr. Turtelboom, namely that Turkey cannot belong to the European Union, then you can only support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons already invoked by my colleagues and which justify that the European Union is showing greater determination with regard to the deviations of the Erdogan regime, which not only departs from democratic criteria and standards, as required by our process of accession of a country to the European Union, but which gradually slides towards an authoritarian regime, it is indeed necessary to show a new will.

Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, it is true that by this resolution you are the missi dominici of our parliamentary assembly to persuade the European institutions and, in particular, the European Council for Foreign Affairs, to take commitments to force Turkey to hear the voice of Europe if it wants to continue the process of negotiation with the European Union. I don’t know if you will consider it a result obligation, when you are asked to advocate on four precise points, but I dare hope that, not only will you use it – knowing you, I know what your pugnacity can be – but that you will also find in your European colleagues, more than listening attentively, a capacity to finally converge their views on this matter. Sometimes this ability is lacking.

As other speakers have recalled, the willingness to resolve the issue of migration of political refugee candidates or migrants from certain northern African countries or the Mediterranean basin has enabled Turkey to establish a relationship of strength with the European Union which is not in the advantage of the latter. It was not the honour of Turkey to have concluded, under such conditions, the agreement concerning the takeover by Turkey of certain candidates for political refugees or immigration.

As our former prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, once said, the keys to the European borders have been handed over to Sultan Erdogan. Wide subject, it is true, but here, what you are asked is ⁇ not to go as far as denouncing the agreements made, but to signify more clearly, with the European Union, to Turkey, that its claim to get closer to Europe cannot be pursued unless there is simply respect for all international conventions and all our European treaties in the field of protection of human rights, the ⁇ defamated minorities in Turkey, the principle of equality between men and women ⁇ threatened under the Erdogan regime and also the freedom of expression and the press which, today more than ever, is the subject of scandalous intimidation by this regime.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. First, on the question of membership or not, we are not for the current European Union. We are in favour of European integration, but not this one. Nor are we in favor of its strengthening through Turkey’s accession because neither the workers in Turkey nor the workers in Belgium nor the workers in other European countries, in general, have anything to gain from the expansion and strengthening of this zone of all-round competition, hypercapitalism and austerity. This has nothing to do with the Turks specifically but we challenge the very nature of the current European Union and therefore, obviously, any discussion about its enlargement regardless of the sense in which one pronounces itself.

On the very situation of Turkey, I again had the opportunity to return to it recently in the Committee on Foreign Relations during recent parliamentary hearings of the HDP whose members have come to Belgium to talk to us. The situation is very worrying and very serious.

Turkish journalist Can Dündar, of the Cumhuriyet newspaper, spoke of "the greatest witch hunt in Turkish history." He and his colleague were sentenced to life imprisonment for spying, belonging to a terrorist organization and disseminating state secrets, because they had denounced, in May 2015, the fact that trucks of Turkish intelligence services delivered weapons to Syrian rebels, photos and videos in support.

While acts that look like real purges in education, the judiciary, the press, the Peace Movement, etc. are taking place, the upcoming referendum on constitutional reforms aims to further centralize power in the hands of Erdogan. And we have not yet said anything about the foreign policy of the Turkish state, which invaded Syria and Iraq, which supported all sorts of radical armed groups, etc.

Our position on Turkey is clear, but we do not support this resolution today. In addition to the mentioned aspect on the nature of the European Union, we do not support it for another reason: because it avoids fundamental issues and is fundamentally hypocritical. Indeed, this resolution silences two fundamental agreements our governments have concluded with Turkey, which they continue to support. These are two fundamental themes for the well-being of the Turkish, European and Belgian populations.

First, I want to talk about military cooperation between European states and Turkey, especially within the framework of NATO. It can be said that Western and Turkish interference in Syria has facilitated the emergence of a series of radical and terrorist groups. The same terrorist threat is now used to tackle the rule of law in Turkey, but also in the European Union, as detailed in an Amnesty International report published on January 17. The report highlights disproportionate measures and the deterioration of the rule of law in EU countries.

Questioning military cooperation with Turkey and interference in Syria could therefore have a positive impact on the security of the Turkish, Syrian and European populations.

It is incomprehensible that this resolution proposal does not even consider this option and prefers to punish the Turkish population, while ignoring the suffering of the Syrian population, including the Kurds.

Secondly, this proposed resolution makes the impasse on the EU-Turkey refugee agreement, which offered the second three billion a year to ensure that the first does not have to comply with the Geneva Convention. Apparently, this cooperation does not pose a problem for the authors of this proposal.

Finally, I would like to finish by clarifying that we also want to distance ourselves from all those who, through this kind of text, intend to nourish an identity and Islamophobic agenda and whose motivations consist of surfing the anti-refugee and anti-Muslim climate instead of cling to democratic considerations.

That is why we abstain.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing Mr. Van Hees, I would like to answer him and to clarify that through this proposal for a resolution, our ambition and our will are to preserve the European project, the European construction – all that we believe is a vector of the values we share.

I would also like to say to Mr. Van Hees that he is still a little swollen! This way of re-reading the history of Europe with the glasses that are his is surprising. You have opposed a kind of rich Europe that brings nothing to its workers, its inhabitants, etc., to the one you advocate. Mr. Van Hees, I would like to remind you that the Europe you are defending through a kind of project PTBisto-communisto-I-ne-know-what has already existed. It was called Eastern Europe and was placed under absolute control of the Soviet Union.

While there was that wall between the Europe of freedoms and the Europe you call your wishes, you have never seen a citizen of Western Europe trying to cross the wall to get to the other side. It was the opposite, Mr. Van Hees! All Europeans have fled the system you are trying to defend and sell to the citizens!

We must respect history a little. Europe has liberal ideas. He is a social-democrat. It responds to the needs of citizens. We are all interested in trying to defend this project.

On March 13, 2017, in a few days, dear friends, it will be exactly forty years since the communism of Mr. Van Hees, that the communist police of Mr. Van Hees killed one of the great thinkers of Europe, of the Europe for which we work today. I am talking about the Czech philosopher Jan Patocka. This is what you killed. This is what your project carries: a populist and dangerous project!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Miller because, when he attacks me, I always feel reassured and I say to myself that I am on the right path.

We are talking about killing people. In that assembly, in that House of Representatives, there was a Communist representative named Julien Lahaut who was murdered for his ideas, because he defended the workers. Who is responsible for this murder? A recent investigation was conducted.

Mr. Miller, you choose your victims! I would like to remind you of this case. A book came out. I invite you to read it. It describes the thorough investigation that has been carried out.

Minister Laruelle had tried to block this investigation by not releasing the funds. I recognize here the action of your party in relation to the historical truth. Fortunately, the funds were finally released and this investigation was conducted. It is discovered that the Belgian establishment of the time – notably the Société Générale, Brufina, the Prime Minister of the time Pholien, the judicial police – was involved in the assassination of Julien Lahaut.

You choose one victim, I choose another.

As to the nature of this European Union, I do not hope to convince you, Mr. Miller. For me, the European Union is the European Union of multinationals, of social dumping, of ultra-liberalism that is detrimental to all workers in all countries.

Finally, I am surprised by this position that exists in relation to Turkey in the European Union. Turkey in NATO doesn’t bother you. And all the abuses that Turkey can carry out, especially in support of terrorism, that doesn’t bother you! And we continue to be Turkey’s ally within NATO. This is hypocrisy, Mr Miller!

There was this assassination of Julien Lahaut, it is a historical element that I do not reject. I will not deny the historical truth. I think you would also be interested in not denying the historical reality of the project you carry. You have just cited a book and an inquiry but I recommend you read the two huge volumes that have just been published on the history of the communist crimes. These are thousands of pages of the project that you make up as being the carrier project.

That is what I blame you for. Not only do I blame you for this, but I blame you for not addressing the substantive questions of the project you are carrying. You popularize it, you make it incredible!

Mr. Van Hees, I propose you to stay there, but when you accuse me of not taking into account all the historical truth, I can tell you that every time you speak, you have a way of gumming millions of murders, decimated populations, population transfers, crushed cultures.

I wondered if it would be inappropriate to apply to the Ethics Committee.

Mr. Nollet, if 50 members ask for it, we can consider it!

In view of the reaction of the Turkish regime after the latest events in the summer of 2016 and the recent decisions adopted on the political structure consisting in strengthening the power of President Erdogan alone, in view of the treatment reserved to the population, military personnel, public officials, police officers, by the abolition of fundamental rights, up to deprivation of liberty, the People’s Party will vote in favour of this proposal for a resolution, especially since all financing, whether for the pre-accession process or otherwise, must be terminated promptly, as the European Union is currently busy financing the establishment of a dictatorship.

I would like to make a few comments because the discussion was a long one. It was also interesting in the plenary session. And we have had a lot of discussions about Turkey at other times, in the Foreign Affairs Committee or in the plenary.

First and foremost, I would like to repeat that on the day of the coup in July 2016, we immediately clearly condemned the situation, not only Belgium, but the entire European Union. At the same time, we have asked the Turkish government to respond proportionately. Unfortunately, immediately after the coup, we had to conclude that there were many arrests and other decisions made without any form of proportionality with regard to the various perpetrators of the coup.

I would also like to reconsider, however, our relations with Turkey. Some have mentioned it in the framework of NATO: we are allies within NATO. It is a data.

But there is also the debate on migration. Indeed, the debate on migration and the agreement of 18 March 2016 began much earlier, with more than one million refugees arriving in the European Union in 2015. Some will remember the pictures of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi, who died on the beach of Bodrum. At that time, I heard requests from all banks to stop this, so that there are no more deaths in the Mediterranean between Turkey and Greece, so that there can be a concrete reaction on this issue.

The agreement that was concluded – one can talk about it at a loss of sight – in March 2016, well before the month of July and the events that followed, has in any case ensured that there are no more deaths, today, in the Mediterranean between Turkey and Greece, that there is actually a follow-up investment of the European Union to improve the reception of refugees, because the amounts that we talk about are used for investments in schools, in hospitals, for the reception of refugees.

The same reasoning applies to our fight against terrorist attacks, not only here but in many other places and also in Turkey. We must continue to cooperate properly with Turkey. We try to do that too. We have had a number of trilateral meetings, not only with Foreign Affairs but also with Home Affairs and Justice, to have concrete contact with Turkey, to exchange intelligence.

I have heard many questions here in the hemisphere whether it is possible to have closer contacts with Turkey, a more precise exchange of intelligence, in connection, for example, with the expulsion of foreign fighters to Belgium and Europe. Without contact with Turkey, it is impossible to do so. We will therefore go on with that, with regard to NATO, with regard to migration, with regard to the fight against terrorism, not only here but also in Turkey.

Mr. Blanchart, we have already talked about this several times, we have spoken at the Council of Europe. There is no need to ask us to do it. Since last autumn, the request has been clearly formulated. I even expressed this to the Turkish Minister of European Affairs. Its government must commit – and has done – to spread information to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. I expect that he will play his role and that, on the basis of the information that will be provided to him or not, a follow-up will be organised by the Council. I assume that not only the Committee of Ministers, but also the parliamentarians who sit in the Council, will be attentive to this development. This approach has been repeated and supported. In addition, Turkey has pledged to comply with the ongoing investigation procedures at the Council of Europe.

And then, as far as the resolution proposal is concerned, I would like to be very clear. I would like to thank Parliament for taking this path. I will start with the end, the fourth point, that is, the red line. It was recalled since last autumn. I did, as did the European authorities. It is obvious that any restoration of the death penalty in Turkey simply prevents any discussion of a future membership. This is a prerequisite for participation in the European debate: it is out of question to include or re-insert the death penalty in its legislation. In this regard, I reassure Mr. Maingain: not only will I advocate in this direction, but it is already a unanimous line within the European Union.

As for the other aspects of the resolution, I would like to point out that this debate took place last year. In November, the Commission released a report on Turkey, which showed very clearly the deterioration of the rule of law, the significant restriction of freedoms and the weakening of democracy in the country. Together with several of my counterparts, I requested that the debate be brought to the Council.

It took place. There was a debate in the Foreign Affairs Council, but most importantly, since this is where the debate takes place in the General Affairs Council, I can tell you that the conclusions of the Presidency, which we have supported, clearly indicate that it is about reducing the funds now allocated under the Instrument of Pre-Accession Assistance. This is a first thing. In addition, it is about reorienting them towards civil society and thus supporting the actors of democracy and the rule of law in Turkey.

The misfortune about these concrete demands that we have made with others is that there was no consensus in the General Affairs Council and that there is no consensus in Europe to go in that direction. The Slovak Presidency, and I congratulate it, has nevertheless accepted to take these conclusions as conclusions of the Presidency. I repeat, we support them and will continue to do so.

We will continue to support the freezing of a number of funds, but also reorient funds to other activities in Turkey to support civil society, actors contributing to the evolution to a rule of law, and more – it is now impossible to say that – democracy in Turkey. However, it is clear and clear: this is what we ask.

This was also requested at the European level, but there was no unanimity, as I have already said, to go in that direction. It may also be the task of politicians to try to move in the same direction in their European political groups.

In the General Affairs Council, I found that there was a very broad majority in favour of not supporting these proposals. With regard to the freezing of negotiations, it is the same approach. The freezing is actually there. No more chapters have been opened and in these conclusions it was recalled that there would be no chapters to be opened in the current situation and for a long period, given the situation in Turkey. But it is obvious that we will need to gain wider support within the European Union if we want to move to the more advanced stage of clearly announcing this decision to freeze negotiations. They are in fact, but they are not yet in right.

Thank you for moving in this direction. It is clear that as far as the elements of the resolution are concerned, the death penalty aspect is already a unanimous decision of the European Union. There is no question of continuing or resuming discussions if Turkey should imagine reintroducing the death penalty in its legislation.

On other points, we have a number of countries, including the Slovak Presidency, that have agreed to reduce and reorient pre-accession aid funds, but there is still no consensus in this regard. We will continue to advocate to try to reach this consensus.

I urge all political groups to hold the same plea with their European political groups. There are many other governments in Europe, with different majorities, who do not advocate the same approach as the factions in this hemisphere.

I would like to thank all those who will support this proposal.

I will not answer questions that are very distant from the problem of Turkey. We may have the opportunity to hold talks on these topics at other times.