WRITTEN QUESTION E-0028/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Human rights in Turkey.
C 280 E/162 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 (2000/C 280 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0028/00 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council (20 January 2000) Subject: Human rights in Turkey The world has become no more peaceful in the post-Cold War period. Despite the appearance of new actors on the scene, states are still responsible for the great majority of instances of torture. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in London has for a number of years been taking care of victims of torture and (military) violence. By far the largest group of patients of the Foundation are from Turkish Kurdistan. The Foundationís Alex Sklan described Turkey in De Morgen of Friday, 24 December 1999 as a átorture stateí. Torture is endemic, routine, inherent in the enforcement of so-called law and orderí. 1. Is the Council aware of the activities of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in London with regard to the victims of torture and violence? If not, will the Council seek full information on the Foundation given its importance in the light of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the enlargement of the European Union? If it is aware of trhe Foundationís activities, can the Council confirm the statement by Mr Sklan that By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistaní? Does the Council feel that the term átorture stateí used by Mr Sklan is applicable to Turkey? If not, 2. does the Council belief that a member of a body specialising in victims of torture and (military) violence is wrong to apply the term átorture stateí to Turkey? If so, how does the Council explain the statement by Mr Sklan that: By far the largest group of patients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan? Does the Council endorse Mr Sklanís view that 3. in the enforcement of so-called law and orderí in Turkeyí? If not, why not, and how can the Councilís position By far the largest group of patients of the Medical be reconciled with the fact that, as Mr Sklan says: Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistaní? Torture is endemic, routine, inherent Reply (28 March 2000) The Council welcomes all the efforts in Member States contributing to the situation of victims of torture and violence, including those mentioned by the Honourable Members. It is not aware of the statements on Turkey by Mr Sklan, referred to by the Honourable Members. The Council is not in the habit of evaluating the work of non-governmental organisations, but considers that this falls within the competence of national authorities. The Council continues to be concerned about the situation of human rights in Turkey. In the spirit of the European Parliamentís request made to the Council in the context of the EPís assent to implement the final phase of the Customs Union, the Council continues to closely monitor human rights and democratic developments in Turkey. the Council believes that Furthermore, the decisions taken by the Helsinki European Council will encourage Turkey to take further steps in the field of human rights and democracy. The Helsinki European Council decided that Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States. Compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria is a prerequisite for the opening of any accession negotiations. The Council underlines that stability of institutions guaranteeing human rights and respect the Copenhagen political criteria. for and protection of minorities is one of 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/163 According to the Helsinki European Council conclusions, building on the existing European strategy, Turkey, like other candidate States, will benefit from a pre-accession strategy to stimulate and support its reforms. This will include enhanced political dialogue, with emphasis on progressing towards fulfilling the political criteria for accession with particular reference inter alia to the issue of human rights. In practice, in all the political dialogue meetings with the Turkish authorities at the level of Foreign Ministers and Political Directors the Council addresses human rights issues. (2000/C 280 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0030/00 by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Monitoring of the referendum in Western Sahara (19 January 2000) For more than seven years, the Sahrawi people have been waiting for news from the Moroccan authorities about a referendum on the future of Western Sahara. The Moroccan authorities have more than once broken agreements they had with Polisario regarding the date of the referendum. However, registration of those entitled to vote has now resumed, and a referendum campaign is being planned that is expected to be concluded on 31 July 2000, which is also the date on which the referendum is scheduled to take place. The risk of electoral fraud is great, and an international team of monitors needs to be sent in order to ensure that the referendum takes place in a democratic manner. Will the Commission assist in monitoring the referendum on the future of Western Sahara? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (14 February 2000) The Commission is keeping track of developments in the implementation of the plan adopted by the UN Security Council for the settlement of the Western Sahara conflict. The UN Secretary-Generalís efforts to find a just, equitable and lasting solution for the Western Sahara have its full support. It is therefore ready to provide assistance at every stage of the planned settlement. On the specific issue of the referendum, the Commission is aware that its organisation is threatened by problems with the finalisation of the electoral lists. As the UN Security Council pointed out in resolution 1282/99 of 14 December 1999, these problems á. seem to allow little possibility of holding the referendum before 2002 or even beyondí. (2000/C 280 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/00 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council (20 January 2000) Subject: Nuclear threat of Akkuyu Further to previous questions and ahead of Turkeyís final decision on the construction of a nuclear plant in the earthquake-prone region of Akkuyu, Canadian Federal MPs opposed to Canadaís intention to supply Turkey with nuclear reactors have made public the following further reasons for their position: ü the financial burden on Canada of a 1,5 billion dollar loan to Turkey, ü the possibility of Akkuyu developing into a second Chernobyl which will pose a serious threat to the lives of 144 million people in the eastern Mediterranean, ü the fundamental fear of providing Turkey with the means of manufacturing nuclear weapons through related technology, as occurred with India and Pakistan