58th MEETING OF THE EU- JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

Ankara, 21-22 November 2007

MINUTES

Contents

Page

1. Adoption of the draft agenda 2

2. Adoption of the minutes of 57th EU-Turkey JPC Meeting which took place 2 in Brussels on 27-28 November 2007

3. Political situation in Turkey and the EU 2

Introductory statements by - the Turkish Government - the Presidency-in-office - the European Commission - the Rapporteur of the European Parliament

4. The Treaty and its importance for Turkey's accession 9

5. Iraq and cooperation in the fight against terrorism 11

6. Any other business 13

7. Date and place of the next meeting 13

ANNEX: List of participants

PV/721908EN.doc PE 406.738 1. Adoption of the draft agenda

The draft agenda was adopted.

2. Adoption of the minutes of the 57th EU-Turkey JPC meeting which took place in Brussels on 27-28 November 2006

After an exchange of views the minutes were adopted with three modifications.

3. Political situation in Turkey and EU

The Joint Parliamentary Committee heard a welcome address by Mr Köksal TOPTAN, speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, in which he focused on the importance of the Turkish accession to the EU. In particular, he pointed out to the foreign policy dimension of Turkey's membership, which would strengthen the EU´s role on the international scene. Also, he underlined that the accession process is not only about the modernisation of Turkish society and economy, but also about values Turkey shares with the EU. In this respect, he referred to the importance of the "Alliance of Civilisations", launched jointly by Prime Minister Erdogan and the Prime Minister of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, on the floor of the United Nations. Before concluding, the speaker stressed that only full EU membership is acceptable for Turkey as the goal of the current process.

Following this opening speech, Mr Ali BABACAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chief Negotiator, addressed the committee on behalf of the Turkish Government. He summarized the efforts undertaken by the government on the road to accession since the EU Copenhagen Summit of December 2002, and reiterated that now the key issue would be to "digest" the reforms undertaken on paper. Referring to the 2007 political turbulences, he stressed that these demonstrated the deep culture and stable anchors of the Turkish democracy. He presented a picture of the development of accession negotiations since 2005, regretted political constraints imposed on the process by the Cyprus problem in spite of Turkish support for the Annan Plan and put emphasis on his expectation that the negotiations will go on along the principle of pacta sunt servanda. At the same time he recalled the plan of the government from April 2007 to realise all necessary reforms along an own timetable to the benefit of the Turkish people, without regard to the actual developments in the EU. Speaking about the currently prepared constitutional reform he assured the committee that other reforms would not be waiting during this work. The minister devoted the last part of his speech to the growing importance of Turkey in the broader Middle East.

Mrs Renate SOMMER drew in the following questions-and-answers session the attention of the Minister to the role of women in Turkey and in particular to possible considerations of the government to improve the rights of women in the prepared constitution.

Mrs asked on the same topic whether any concrete projects would be planned in the short time, and added a question concerning the plans to finally reform article 301 of the penal code.

PV/721908EN.doc 2 PE 406.738 Mrs Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN wanted to know how to reach, in the Minister's opinion, progress on the Cyprus problem. Also, while stressing that Turkey's strength in the region would remain diminished by the poor Turkish-Armenian relations, she asked how the EU could help Turkey lift the blockade of the Armenian border.

Answering these questions Mr BABACAN insisted that the real challenge as far as women rights were concerned was the implementation of amended legislation, ensuring that the real situation of women improves; in this regard the government would in particular focus on bringing education into poor families. On the question of the 301 he made clear that the government already had decided to change it, now it would be in the hands of the Parliament, who, as the Minister hoped, would deal with it as soon as the budget would have been adopted. Moving to the Cyprus issue he reiterated the good will of the Turkish side to resolve the problem and expressed his hope that 2008 would bring a significant step forward, provided this will was given on both sides. On the relations with Armenia he sketched out measures taken by Ankara in last years to help open dialogue with Yerevan. However, no dialogue could develop if linked to preconditions; it had to be up to historians to judge the past. Also, no parliamentary votes could establish what had happened nearly hundred years ago.

Opening the second round of questions, Mr. Joost LAGENDIJK returned to the issue of the reform of Article 301 asking when exactly the government would intend to send the amendment to the parliament, and whether the government was in disposal of an analysis on reforms needed to fully guarantee the freedom of speech.

Mr. Marios MATSAKIS appreciated the will of the Turkish government to intensify the confidence building measures on Cyprus and asked whether more could be done, in particular as far as the number of troops deployed on Cyprus were concerned.

Mr. Richard HOWITT spoke highly of the reception of Hamas by the Turkish government and asked whether Turkey could play a stronger role in relation to Hamas. He also congratulated the government on the restraint it showed in reaction to PKK terrorism, but deplored the lack of progress in the area of Kurdish rights.

Mr Vural ÖGER was interested in the cooperation of Turkey with the new ten EU Member States, potential strong advocates of Turkish accession. Secondly, he wanted to know whether Turkey had a strategy concerning the Turkish minorities in EU Member States.

The questions of Mr Andrew DUFF were aimed to learn the timetable of the constitutional reform and to hear the Minister's opinion on the possible closure of the DTP.

Mr Nils LUNDGREN inquired for the strategy of the government to strengthen the loyalty of the Kurdish population to the Republic while terrorism had to be fought.

Mrs Eleni KOPPA focused her intervention on rights of and protection for religious minorities in Turkey.

Limited by time constraints Minister BABACAN managed to answer only a part of the questions. On the issue of Article 301 he made clear that given the loud voices from

PV/721908EN.doc 3 PE 406.738 within the EU who put Turkish accession into question and given that there was no clear accession timetable, any pressures from outside introduced rather additional obstacles for reform. Concerning Turkish troops on Cyprus he explained that their decrease could be part of settlement negotiations; unilateral withdrawal could not be expected.

After the minister had left, the session continued with introductory remarks of Mr Yasar YAKIS, Co-chairman of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee, who underlined the role of the JPC as facilitator of the Turkish accession to the EU. Therefore he reminded the Members of the agreement reached by the Bureau to pursue a constructive dialogue and not to give space to unconstructive criticism of partners. He appreciated the contribution made by the European Parliament to the Lisbon Treaty, which helped make the EU-Enlargement possible again. The Turkish side intended also to carry on the reform with determination and to contribute with its accession to the enhancement of the political and economic profile of the EU. However, the EU had to prove that it was not an introverted club based on cultural values.

Mr Joost LAGENDIJK started with sharing his belief that Members came together to get to know each other better and not to convince each other. He continued with comments on the key political issues in current EU-Turkey relations: Turkey was expected to pursue the reform process as there was no excuse any more for delaying it. He assured the Turkish partners that a huge majority of the European Parliament condemned the PKK terrorism and understood that Turkey had to defend itself. However, no disproportionate military violence must be used. He appreciated the declaration of Prime Minister Erdogan that closing the DTP would be of no solution and stressed the importance of involving the Kurdish population into the political process. At the same time he made clear that the DTP had to distance itself from the PKK.

The round of opening remarks continued with the contribution of Mr José Manuel de CARVALHO LAMEIRAS, Ambassador of on behalf of the Presidency-in- Office of the EU Council, who presented a picture of the recent developments in the negotiation process and summarised the key findings of the Commission regular report as far as expected reforms were concerned. He also appealed to the Turkish side to search for a broad national consensus on the constitutional reform.

Mr Marc PIERINI, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission in Ankara, addressed the committee on behalf of the Commission. He elaborated on the implications of the recent Commission regular report and presented an overview of the assistance implemented in Turkey under the Pre-accession Instrument. In reaction to doubts expressed by several Turkish speakers concerning the final goal of the process and voices from within the EU putting this goal into question the Ambassador reminded the audience that the binding base of the process was the Negotiating Framework, clearly aimed at Turkish EU accession. He also shared his belief that in the longer run EU citizens will see Turkey much more as a part of the solution than as a part of the problem.

Last opening remarks were presented by Mrs Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN, the European Parliament rapporteur on Turkey, who commented on what was said by previous

PV/721908EN.doc 4 PE 406.738 speakers in the light of the recent resolution adopted by the European Parliament. She reminded Turkey on the commitment undertaken at the beginning of the process, stressed the importance of checks-and-balances in the reformed constitution and elaborated more closely on the need to strengthen the social cohesion of the Turkish society.

The following debate was opened by Mr Gündüz Suphi AKTAN who assessed the speech of Minister BABACAN as too idealistic; the problems came however to surface in the questions that followed. What was needed was the political will on the side of the EU - it would be impossible to change things without a move on the EU side. There were too many problems - such as the visa policy of several EU Member States, or the support provided to the PKK by several groups and media in the EU. These were also the reasons for diminished public support for the EU in Turkey.

Mr Margaritis SCHINAS declared that the EU enlargement was a win-win situation and reminded the Turkish partners to read the recent EP resolution which showed that the atmosphere in the EU towards Turkey had improved.

Mr Onur ÖYMEN assured the EP side that the resolution was read very carefully in Turkey. However, he disputed the positive assessment of the democratic quality of recent Turkish parliamentary elections. Also, he questioned several other points in the resolution and the overall EU approach to Turkey (freezing chapters in accession negotiations was without precedent, no explicit commitment to the final goal of accession, no visa free regime with Turkey, slower negotiations in comparison to Croatia, Turkey not party of the Middle East Quartet, etc.)

Mrs Emine BOZKURT brought in the debate the issue of so called green funds/ Islamic funds, in which 400 000 people in lost their savings. She informed the audience about her exchange of views with Members of the investigation committee set up by the Turkish Grand National Assembly to examine this issue and expressed her disappointment about the lack of a realistic perspective that the criminals who caused this lost will be brought to justice in Turkey. She appealed on her Turkish colleagues to cooperate on this issue and suggested that the next JPC should deal with it deeper.

Mrs Renate SOMMER, who also participated in the meeting with representatives of the investigation committee, joined this appeal.

(Meeting adjourned to 15.00.)

Mr Osman COSKUNOGLU devoted his intervention to the issue of the possible DTP closure and the PKK terrorism. He urged the EU to cut off finances provided from the EU to the PKK and stressed the importance of the European Parliament efforts to convince the DTP to distance itself from the PKK.

Mr Sükrü M. ELEKDAG turned the attention of the committee to the "Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law", agreed by the EU Council in April 2007, claiming that with this decision the EU goes too far behind its original intention and violates international law, in particular the UN Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

PV/721908EN.doc 5 PE 406.738 Genocide, by enabling national courts of the Member States to establish crimes the denial of which was punishable under this decision. Mr ELEKDAG accused the EU to have opened the way for the Armenian lobby to exploit this decision against Turkey.

Mr. YILDIZ drew the Committee's attention to the role of DTP in the election, and as a result of the election of independent candidates to the National Grand Assembly in sufficient numbers to formally found a political group according to the rules of TNGA, and he also raised the issue of the Kurdish population.

Mr CAKIR continued to comment on the PKK activities and the fight against PKK terrorism, with a view to EU and Turkish authorities as coordinator of those measures.

Mr DEMIRKAN underlined the AKP election results in particular in Kurdish regions, such as the constituency he represents himself in the South East, with an overwhelming majority also with his Kurdish electorate.

Mr HOWITT referred to the EU reform process concerning immigration, climate change, business cooperation and the energy sector, and invited Ankara to settle on a proactive reform course with a roadmap of economic reforms until 2013. As for the Turkish territorial integrity, he called upon the DTP to stick to dialogue of democratic means.

The common values and strengthening of democracy were at the centre of Mr KAZAK's intervention.

Reacting to the intervention of Mr ELEKDAG on the EU decision on combating racism and xenophobia, Mrs OOMEN-RUIJTEN explained that the framework decision adopted by the Council does not identify any specific historical events as incidents of genocide, and creates only abstract offence elements. It was clear that the establishment of what constitutes genocide or a crime against humanity was determined by the definitions contained in the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945. She also specified that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court clearly stipulates that only crimes committed after the entry of this Statute into force can fall into its jurisdiction.

Mr ELEKDAG said that “what has been said by Mrs OOMEN-ROOIJTEN does not reflect reality. In the first place, the wording of Art. 1, paragraph 2 of the Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia implies that the national court of a member state would be accorded with the jurisdiction to establish whether an act could be characterized as genocide. This is what a thorough analysis indicates. Secondly, Art. 1 paragraph 2 in constitutes a flagrant violation of the obligations deriving from the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As a matter of fact, the UN Convention in question specifically delineates the crime of genocide, designates the methods of enforcement against its perpetrators and specifies in articles 6 and 9 the competent tribunals to hear cases alleging genocide. According to Art. 6 the competent tribunal is the competent court in the territory of which the act was committed or the international penal tribunal the jurisdiction of which has been accepted by the parties. Furthermore disputes relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment of the said Convention and particularly those dealing with the responsibility of a state should be submitted to the International Court of Justice.

PV/721908EN.doc 6 PE 406.738 Here, the jus cogens nature of the UN Convention should be underlined. In other words these provisions of the Convention are binding for all EU member states and strictly forbid the competence of any tribunal other than the ones I mentioned. Consequently, Art. 1 paragraph 2 of the Framework Decision clearly contravenes international law. It appears that the drafters of the Framework Decision deliberately by-passed any reference to the 1948 UN Convention for the purpose of arbitrarily modifying the well established rules of international law. Thirdly, the original definition of genocide was codified not by the definition contained in Article 6 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court but essentially by the 1948 UN Convention. Indeed the crime of genocide which is defined in Art. 6 of the Rome Statute is essentially a copy of Article 2 of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. Furthermore, Article 6 of the Rome Statute somewhat deforms the definitional integrity of the crime of genocide. Because, Article 3 of the UN Convention on Genocide adds four additional categories of punishable acts: conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide. Finally, although it is true that Art.11 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court prescribes that “The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute” as there is no direct reference to this article in the Framework Agreement there is no guarantee that the European countries’ national courts will consider themselves bound by this provision.”

Further debate on this issue amounted to a dispute on whether this EU decision enabled national courts to determine a concrete historical event as genocide and whether this would mean violation of international law. Given the complex legal nature of this problem, Chairman LAGENDIJK promised to request a legal analysis from the Legal Service of the European Parliament and to inform the committee at its next meeting.

Mr Vural ÖGER intervened to explain nearer the complex and difficult debate which takes place on the floor of the European Parliament and appreciated in this context the work undertaken by the rapporteur on Turkey, Mrs OOMEN-RUIJTEN. He encouraged the Members of the Committee to continue a sincere and open dialogue.

Mr Algan HACALOGLU thanked Mrs BOZKIR and SOMMER for bringing up the serious problem of the green funds; he was member of the investigation committee, intended to pursue the investigation and expected the judiciary to react. For him this problem was connected to other steps backwards which took place in Turkey since 2002, and mentioned politicisation and islamisation of the judiciary in this context. He recalled that Leyla Zana and Ahmet Türk were in 1992 elected on the list of his party, but were not able to carry the responsibility. He appealed to the EU to condemn the PKK as a terrorist organisation.

Mrs SOMMER welcomed the declarations by previous Turkish speakers that Turkey was undertaking the reforms for the benefit of the own people. She stressed her understanding of the accession process as open-ended, very much depending also on the absorption capacity of the EU. Nobody could say today how the process would end. She also refused the idea that Turkey would be handled by the EU differently than other candidate countries.

PV/721908EN.doc 7 PE 406.738 Mr SIVACIOGLU referred to the minutes of the last meeting and Mr OYMEN's intervention, to the Portuguese ambassador's remarks on free movement and the Customs Union, and to Islamic financial holdings in the EU, to Cyprus' negative result of the referendum.

Mr OYMEN clarified that his using the word "we" in his earlier intervention referred to "social democrats".

Mr MATSAKIS honoured the election results and spoke on the values of the EU, strongly supporting Turkey's membership, and in particular favouring Turkish as an official language of the EU.

Mrs KOPPA articulated the issue of illegal immigrants who were trying to reach the EU territory on boats while risking their lives. 500 people a day would come on this way to the Greek islands from the Turkish coast. This serious humanitarian problem had to be addressed in cooperation between Turkey and the EU.

Mr AKTAN returned to the progress report issued by the European Commission, pointing out that there were many inaccuracies. The financial aid provided by the EU was very low. At the same time, the letter of the EU-Turkey customs union agreement was not respected, but Turkey was not compensated for its losses. Also, Turkey was forced to undertake reforms on the situation of non-Muslim foundations, whereas Turkish foundations on the Balkans would have to survive in poor conditions. When concluding his remarks, Mr AKTAN supported the argument of Mr ELEKDAG concerning the EU framework decision criminalising expressions of racism and xenophobia.

Mrs OOMEN-RUIJTEN reiterated her will and the will of the whole EU to be open to Turkey and to have a fair dialogue. She asked the Turkish partners to recognize that both this year's reports of the European Parliament and the Commission had a different language. She encouraged them to stick to their plan and to realise reforms mainly for Turkey itself. Respect for minorities would be of major importance for any functioning democracy. Referring to the Armenian issue she underlined that Turkey had to undertake a sincere and open debate of its past and maintained that only people with the knowledge of their history have a future. Concerning the debate on the DTP she informed the colleagues on her meeting with DTP representatives several weeks ago, in particular about her offer to engage in favour of their nomination for the Sakharov Prize, provided they clearly distance themselves from the PKK.

PV/721908EN.doc 8 PE 406.738 4. The Lisbon Treaty and its importance for Turkey's accession

Mr. Andrew DUFF introduced this topic to which all members had received his written note/Resume in Turkish and English. As a first conditionality he referred to the ratification procedure, which should be concluded before 1st January, 2009, already a difficult target to meet. He underlined the following points as of particular interest for Turkey and its accession: - the extension of the "community method" to new fields of policy making such as asylum, immigration, control of external frontiers, fighting organised crime to name the most important ones; - the increased budget powers of European Parliament by including farming policies into joint legislation powers shared with the Council; - the Charter of Human Rights to be of legal value; - in CSFP the High Representative will in one person the Deputy Commission president in charge of international relations and also chair the Council - and he will have the new "European External Service" at his disposal; - new Common Policies will strengthen the EU competencies in the fields of energy, environment, and others and thus affect enlargement. He also pointed out the specific importance of the December European Council where a decision is to be expected with regard to the request of President Sarkozy to install a "Groupe des Sages" and to the mandate and timeframe of this group, together with the agreement on the Reform Treaty.

After Mr. YAKIS having commented on this link between the approval of the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of this "Groupe des Sages", Mr. ÖYMEN referred to the European Convention, where Turkey had been invited tom participate and where he himself had served for Turkey, which had not been the case with the procedure of drafting the Lisbon Treaty. He argued that the new Treaty had provisions concerning in particular Turkey's accession as if to make accession impossible, for example the provisions on the member states representation in the different EU institutions such as the European Parliament with this new ceiling of seats and members. He inquired in his intervention for the cost of this new treaty for Turkey with rules of accession being subject of change even during negotiations, or with new challenges for Turkey as a system of EU border guards on the external borders - as are most of Turkeys borders, notably with Iran, Iraq, and Syria are. The French proposal for a Mediterranean Cooperation would not be acceptable for Turkey. In summa, he would have liked to receive a clear message as to whether the new Treaty will make Turkey's accession impossible.

Mr. AKTAN also referred to President Sarkozy's position on Turkey's accession and questioned the Lisbon Treaty provisions with regard to the EU's future identity and the "cost of Europe" for Turkey.

Mr. MATSAKIS underlined the character of compromise inherent to the draft Treaty and asked whether any particular Treaty provision would significantly prejudice or even jeopardise Turkish membership.

Mr. LAGENDIJK expressed his satisfaction about the new Treaty provisions for more common actions, even though in his eyes still not enough in the field of CFSP, and

PV/721908EN.doc 9 PE 406.738 clarified the sectors where Member states will have strengthened their competencies. He argued that Turkey could accept EU integration with more ease, in the knowledge of the new Treaty respecting more clearly its national sovereignty. With a view to the "Groupe des Sages" he encouraged the members to dare the confrontation with those wise men on the Future of Europe, this being an upcoming debate that should neither be feared nor avoided.

Mr. HOWITT regretting the absence of any British conservative MEPs in this debate, spoke about the importance of this Treaty for the future Europe, which Turkey wants to join. The new Treaty should not bring the enlargement process to a stop, and any such menace should not be employed as means of pressing for the ratification of the Treaty.

Mr. ÖGER reminded the committee of the fact that 404 Members of the European Parliament had voted in favour of opening the accession negotiations with Turkey, and argued that this majority will grow with the new Treaty. Turkey's full membership was not put into question as the final objective.

Mr. DEMIRKAN commented on the prior speakers and put forward a question about the functioning of the double qualified majority decision making procedure and the Polish reserves and the therefore retarded application of certain provisions.

Mr. HASSE FERREIRA expressed his doubts concerning the credibility of the project of a "Mediterranean Union".

Mrs. ERBATUR expressed her wish that the accession process be speeded up as to have it completed in her lifetime, and wanted to know whether the new Treaty will pave Turkey's way into the Union or whether the accession train was rather stopped by it.

Mr. DUFF resumed by reassuring that the draft Lisbon Treaty being a compromise was however a good compromise, not creating any particular obstacles for Turkey's accession. The process of pooling competencies at EU level and of transferring sovereignty from the member states to the EU would be completed by this compromise, and the new equilibrium between common and national competencies should also be appealing to Turkey as a national state. President Sarkozy should also be credited for having handled the very difficult situation of the French "non" of the referendum by leading the Council towards a more manageable situation.

He proposed that President Gül might accept to address the European Parliament in the near future, and he responded to questions on the number of seats in the European Parliament, on Frontex, and on the decision making procedures.

The meeting on 22 November started at 9h30 with an intervention by Mr. ELEKDAG, who referred to the question of the Turkish-Armenian border and reiterated the proposal to put into place a committee of international historians to evaluate archives in Turkey as well as in Armenia and elsewhere with regard to the alleged genocide. He also commented on the functioning trade relations between the two countries, and reminded the committee of the refusal by Armenian authorities to allow Turkish

PV/721908EN.doc 10 PE 406.738 international observers to enter the country and observe the parliamentary elections in 2007.

Mr. LAGENDIJK informed the committee of a document which had been elaborated by TEPSA, an international think tank, on the economic, social and regional effects of the closure Turkish-Armenian land border on the two countries, which he proposed to transmitted to all Turkish members of the committee.

Mr. MATSAKIS inquired about Mr. Elekdag having used the term "colonising power" for the EU, and Mr PIERINI stated for the record that there was no doubt about the accession process being definitely oriented towards full membership.

5. Iraq and cooperation in the fight against terrorism

Mr. YAKIS introduced the topic of Turkey's policy towards Iraq and the need for international cooperation in the fight against terrorism, referring to the different high level meetings between Turkey and Iraq and other involved interlocutors such as the USA and the neighbouring countries. He also pointed out that all communications with North Iraq are channelled via Bagdad at highest level. He discussed the terms of "disproportionate use of military force" as being used in official EU statements, and referred to the fund raising activities of PKK in different EU member states.

Mr. AKTAN based Turkey's right for military intervention in Iraq on international decisions at UN level, and mentioned also Turkey's diplomatic efforts and various other undertakings to stop PKK operating out of North Iraq without the use of massive military intervention but respecting Iraq's border.

Mr. HACALOGLU reiterated his intervention of the 57th meeting, evoking again the heavy losses of lives Turkey had suffered from through terrorist acts, and raised also the historic background of the Turkish national state with citizens of different ethnic backgrounds, different cultural identities and different languages.

Mr. ÖYMEN emphasized the shortcomings of Iraq as a national state with 3 different armies operating inside a country which is not a real democracy either. The terrorism in North Iraq being of unique character, and PKK being internationally regarded as a terrorist organisation, their TV channel Roj-TV should be stopped from broadcasting in and from the EU, concluding his intervention with remarks concerning the Berg- Karabach conflict and the closure of the Turkish-Armenian border.

Mr YÜKSEL referred to Turkey's geopolitical situation placing it at crossroads of regional importance and making Turkey thus an active if not proactive global operator for peace. Turkey had, however, a long history of being challenged by terrorism and therefore also a long history in fighting it.

Mr. MATSAKIS underlining the EU's and all it's member states' stance against terrorism, commented on the EU measures to fight terrorism. He emphasized that DTP should clearly condemn terrorism as well.

PV/721908EN.doc 11 PE 406.738 Mr. ELEKDAG spoke up for the preservation of Iraq's territorial integrity as of major importance for the geopolitical situation of the entire region, and invited the £EU to be more active in this respect.

Mr. ÖGER addressed the confrontations within this meeting in a more general way with members expressing their personal views, and called for a more optimistic approach in politics, and also warned against closing down DTP.

Following the coffee break, Mr. DILEK took the floor referring to his South East origins, where an electorate composed of different ethnic groups had voted for him without any difference.

Mr. LUNDGREN compared this situation with what he had experienced in national political circumstances in Sweden, or the UK, whereas Mr. DEMIRKAN rather pointed towards the distinction between PKK and other terrorists, and called for better distinction notably between the PKK and the Kurdish people. He reiterated the measures recently undertaken by the Turkish government and pointed out the importance of cost of anti terrorist measures, citing also the Prime Minister in an AK- Party statement on the fight against terrorism.

Mr. LAGENDIJK directed a question to the Turkish colleagues concerning the future of Northern Iraq and whether Turkish authorities should deal directly with the North Iraq government, and also with regard to the mistakes committed in this fight in the past. He also mentioned the recently more rigid attitude of the EU towards PKK.

Mrs. ERBATUR pointed out that a general peace agreement in Iraq would be instrumental to fighting successfully terrorists in North Iraq, describing in particular the miserable situation of women and children in that region, referring also to the situation of IDPs and migrating people, and proposed the committee to issue a written declaration condemning PKK terrorism. After an intervention by Mr. ÖYMEN in response to Mr. Lagendijk's questions, making distinctions between the populations of Northern Iraq and PKK, and warning to abstain from dividing Iraq, Mr. LAGENDIJK with reference to Mrs Erbatur proposed to make a joint oral declaration as Co-chairs at the press conference, condemning unanimously PKK terrorism.

Mr. HASSE-FERREIRA resumed the different possible anti terrorist measures, in particular cooperation in the financial and intelligence field.

Mr. KAYATÜRK indicating his Kurdish origin argued that a sound discussion of the situation in Iraq should also take into account the political problems in the Middle East.

Mrs SOMMER pointed to the link between prosperity respectively poverty and terrorism and the need for stability, and spoke about the recruitment possibilities PKK had throughout the EU.

Mr. COSKUNOGLU proposed that the next should adopt a joint declaration, and new initiatives by Turkey and Iraq to be discussed by the EP delegation, with a view to avoiding disintegration of Iraq and to cutting off all logistical support for PKK.

PV/721908EN.doc 12 PE 406.738 Mr. KAVAZ concluded the debate by informing the committee on relocation measures for people in the concerned Anatolia region who loose all their property caused by terrorism.

6. Any other business

None

7. Date and place of next meeting

Mr. YAKIS announced that the 59th meeting would take place in Brussels on 27-29 May, following the meeting of the Cooperation Council.

Both chairs thanked all participants for this excellent meeting, and closed it at 12h30.

*****

PV/721908EN.doc 13 PE 406.738 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Annex 58th MEETING OF THE EU-TURKEY JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE Ankara, 20-22 November 2007

Participants Members

Mr Joost LAGENDIJK, Chairman Verts/ALE, Mr Andrew DUFF, 2nd Vice-Chairman ALDE, United Kingdom Ms Renate SOMMER, 3rd Vice-Chair EPP-ED, Germany Ms Maria Eleni KOPPA, 4th Vice-Chair PES, Greece

Ms Emine BOZKURT PES, Netherlands Mr Joel HASSE FERREIRA PES, Portugal Mr Richard HOWITT PES, United Kingdom Mr Metin KAZAK ALDE, Bulgaria Mr Nils LUNDGREN IND/DEM, Sweden Mr Marios MATSAKIS ALDE, Cyprus Mr Vural ÖGER PES, Germany Mr Margaritis SCHINAS EPP-ED, Greece

Mrs Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN, rapporteur EPP-ED, Netherlands

Secretariat

Mr Stefan PFITZNER Head of Secretariat Ms Eva PALATOVA Administrator Foreign Affairs Committee Ms Emma MOLLET Administrative assistant Ms Claudia SIEGISMUND Administrative secretary

Secretariat of Political Groups

Mr Rune GLASBERG ALDE Ms Stavri KALOPSIDIOTOU GUE/NGL Mr Luuk van der MEER Verts/ALE Mr Rob van de WATER PES

European Commission

Mr Jean-Christophe FILORI Deputy Head of Unit

Council

Mr Christos KATHARIOS Head of Unit Enlargement

Assistants

Ms Aukje BERDEN Assistant to Mrs Oomen-Ruijten Mr Yiannos CHARALAMPIDIS Assistant to Mr Matsis Ms Deniz DEVRIM Assistant to Mr Öger Mr Franz KRAUS Assistant to Mrs Sommer Ms Hülya TAPTI Assistant to Ms Uca

PV/721908EN.doc 14 PE 406.738 Interpreters

Turkish Booth Ms Belgin DÖLAY Ms Hande GÜNER Mr Ali ÖNEN

German Booth Ms Natalia PALACIOS-EHRLICH Ms Bettina MARA

English Booth Ms Juliana HOGAN Ms Evelyn HORNIK (team leader)

Greek Booth Ms Daria TSAGARAKI Mr Panayotis MOUZOURAKIS

******

PV/721908EN.doc 15 PE 406.738 Annex TURKEY-EU JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

MEMBERS OF THE TURKISH DELEGATION

1) Yaşar YAKIŞ (Chairman) Deputy for Düzce

2) Lütfi ELVAN (Vice-Chairman) Deputy for Karaman

3) Onur Başaran ÖYMEN (Vice-Chairman) Deputy for Bursa

4) Fazilet Dağcı ÇIĞLIK (Member) Deputy for Erzurum

5) Osman ÇAKIR (Member) Deputy for Samsun

6) Burhan KAYATÜRK (Member) Deputy for Ankara

7) Yusuf Ziya İRBEÇ (Member) Deputy for Antalya

8) Cevdet YILMAZ (Member) Deputy for Bingöl

9) İbrahim KAVAZ (Member) Deputy for Erzurum

10) Mustafa ÖZTÜRK (Member) Deputy for Hatay

11) Mehmet Sait DİLEK (Member) Deputy for Isparta

12) Mehmet Beyazıt DENİZOLGUN (Member) Deputy for

PV/721908EN.doc 16 PE 406.738 13) Taha AKSOY (Member) Deputy for İzmir

14) Musa SIVACIOĞLU (Member) Deputy for Kastamonu

15) İsmail Hakkı BİÇER (Member) Deputy for Kütahya

16) Cüneyt YÜKSEL (Member) Deputy for Mardin

17) Afif DEMİRKIRAN (Member) Deputy for Siirt

18) Çağla Aktemur ÖZYAVUZ (Member) Deputy for Şanlıurfa

19) Nevin Gaye ERBATUR (Member) Deputy for Adana

20) Algan HACALOĞLU (Member) Deputy for İstanbul

21) Mustafa Şükrü ELEKDAĞ (Member) Deputy for İstanbul

22) Osman COŞKUNOĞLU (Member) Deputy for Uşak

23) Bengi YILDIZ (Member) Deputy for Batman

24) Mithat MELEN (Member) Deputy for İstanbul

25) Gündüz Suphi AKTAN (Member) Deputy for İstanbul

PV/721908EN.doc 17 PE 406.738