EU- JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE 60th MEETING

Thursday, 27 November 2008 and Friday, 28 November 2008

ANKARA

Contents

1. Adoption of the draft agenda (PE 409.349) ......

2. Address by Mr Köksal TOPTAN, Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly

3. Address (on behalf of the Turkish Government) by and discussion with Mr Mehmet SIMSEK, State Minister, responsible for Economic Affairs

FIRST WORKING SESSION 4. Political situation in Turkey and EU-Turkey accession negotiations

5. Afternoon Session - Adoption of the minutes of the 59th EU-Turkey JPC which took place in Brussels on 27-28 May 2008 (PE 409.348)

6. Afternoon Session - Continuation of debate on the political situation in Turkey and EU Turkey accession negotiations

SECOND WORKING SESSION 7. Social policy, unemployment and the role of trade unions

THIRD WORKING SESSION 8. Black Sea and Caucasus Cooperation : Security aspects

9. Follow-up issues (Customs Union, visa)

10. Any other business

11. Date and place of the next meeting

ANNEX: List of participants

PV/EN PE 412.690 The 60th meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee EU-Turkey was opened the 27 November 2008 at 9.40 under the Co-Chairmanship of Mr Yasar YAKIS, Chairman of the Turkish Parliament's delegation to the EU-Turkey JPC, and Mr Joost LAGENDIJK, Chairman of the EP delegation. Mr YAKIS welcomed the EP delegation in Ankara, as well as the presence of Mr Köksal TOPTAN, Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, and Mr. Mehmet SIMSEK, State Minister responsible for Economic Affairs.

1. Adoption of the draft agenda (PE 409.349)

The draft agenda was adopted.

2. Address by Mr Köksal TOPTAN, Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly

Mr TOPTAN emphasised in his address that the current financial crisis requires solidarity and cooperation on the European continent, in particular between the strategic partners EU and Turkey. With reference to 2008, being the year of cultural dialogue, he underlined that the EU should become a multicultural structure and that Turkey will continue its reform- and alignment process with the EU.

3. Address (on behalf of the Turkish Government) by and discussion with Mr Mehmet SIMSEK, State Minister, responsible for Economic Affairs

State Minister SIMSEK gave a positive assessment and an optimistic outlook with regard to the State of the Turkish economy, despite the current financial crisis, thanks to the country's sound banking sector, continuing profitability, manageable external liabilities, limited and decreasing public sector gross debts, an improved investment climate as well as strong reserve accumulations.

In the ensuing discussion he replied to questions raised and comments made by Mr MATSAKIS, Mr HOWITT, Mr LANGEN, Mr HASSE FERREIRA, Mr LAGENDIJK and Mrs KOPPA.

With regard to Mr MATSAKIS's demand to reallocate money from the defence sector to other policy areas he argued that the defence sector was ranking only third in the allocation of public money.

In reply to Mr HOWITT's remarks concerning the impact of non-EU membership on the Turkish economy and trade and his appeal that Turkey should resolve the technical issues with regard to the corresponding chapters in the accession negotiations, the Minister replied that the EU integration process is crucial for Turkey's trade, given the fact that 57 % of Turkish exports go to the EU and that Turkey is the 7 greatest EU trading partner. He deplored that a number of negotiation chapters could not be opened because of the Cyprus problem and underlined that the transformation process, required for EU accession, is very useful for the Turkish citizens. With regard to enhancing Turkey's institutional capacity he stressed the need for more twinning projects.

PV/EN 2 PE 412.690 In reply to Mr LANGEN, who had asked for an assessment of the customs union after 12 years of being in place and for the future of the Turkish textile industry, Mr SIMSEK noted that Turkey has to comply with EU free trade agreements, emphasising at the same time that the customs union was a great achievement and that his country does not fear competition. In his view the outlook of the Turkish textile industry was positive thanks to high product quality, the proximity of export markets and an overall good competitive stance.

Commenting on Mr HASSE FERREIRA's remarks, which referred to IMF negotiations, the effect of a new labour code on Turkey's economy and future energy projects, Minister SIMSEK drew attention to the fact that two chapters of the IMF negotiations had been concluded and that the problem of US Dollar liquidity makes IMF very important for Turkey. As regards energy, he highlighted that Turkey is the key to European energy security, in its quality as natural corridor, and that the dependence on energy imports is Turkey's bottle neck. With regard to the new labour code, he stressed the need for more flexibility, a slim administrative burden and the reduction of informal economic activities.

Commenting on Mr LAGENDIJK's surprise with regard to Turkey's IMF attitude, his remarks on the situation of the Turkish Labour Unions and on Turkey's attitude towards the Nabucco-Pipeline project, Minister SIMSEK referred to the IMF pre-conditional standby arrangements; admitted that the Turkish Labour Union legislation was not yet fully up to European standards and therefore should be adapted in a balanced way and not affect the country's competitive stance. Regarding Nabucco, he deplored that the EU seems to treat Turkey just like a transit country and not as an economy, on the whole.

Mrs KOPPA's remarks focussed on the risk of building nuclear power plants in seismic areas and on problems related to waste management. Concerning waste management, the Minister argued that a draft law addresses the shortcomings. As to the energy policy he emphasised that Turkey needs to diversify, has already implemented an energy market reform, and though the country possesses the 2nd highest potential of wind energy, needs nuclear plants, which have to be constructed following "best practices".

FIRST WORKING SESSION

4. Political situation in Turkey and EU-Turkey accession negotiations

Mr. YAKIS' opening remarks to the working session confirmed that Turkey continues to aim at becoming a full member of the EU and will carry on with the reform process. Remaining shortcomings should be brought to the floor and reforms serve the purpose of improving the living standards of the Turkish population, he said. Furthermore, he emphasised that the two JPC Delegations are not conflict parties but partners, both engaged for Turkey's accession to the EU. He expressed satisfaction with the EU Harmonisation Committee's enhanced activities, increasingly open and healthy lines of communication between the partners and progress made to improve the internal working methods of the GNAT. Referring to assessments in the European Commission's 2008 Progress Report, Mr. YAKIS highlighted Turkey's role in energy policy and as an actor for regional stability. In this context he characterised the guidelines of his country's foreign policy as "soft power" approach aiming to implement peace in the region, in particular in the South Caucasus.

PV/EN 3 PE 412.690 Making reference to the forthcoming EP report on Turkey, Mr. Lagendijk focused his remarks on achievements, worries and criticisms with regard to the state of play of internal developments in Turkey and to the accession process. Mentioning e.g. the Kurdish problem, the Alevites issue and the DTP closure case, he highlighted e.g. that Turkey should become a first class democracy and speed up the reform process. Deploring that internal turmoil in Turkey has slowed down progress, he emphasised that the hard core of accession negotiations is about democracy and called for more national consensus in Turkey for EU membership. In his view the majority of EU citizens can be convinced of the utility of Turkey's EU membership, despite growing insecurity concerning necessary institutional reforms in the EU for enlargement and sometimes unhelpful EU statements.

Speaking on behalf of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the , the Ambassador of France, H.E. Mr. Bernard EMIÉ, evaluated the European Commission's 2008 Progress Report as neutral and constructive. He emphasised the importance of a national programme in Turkey for taking over the "acquis communautaire" and of new dynamics in the internal reform process. In particular, he mentioned judiciary reform, fight against corruption, administrative capacity, torture and ill treatment, freedom of expression and religion, protection of minorities, women's and children's rights and Turkey's resolutions of its problems with its neighbours applying to the International Court of Justice if relevant. Furthermore, he welcomed that, in the Commission's assessment, Turkey is by now a stable market economy and emphasised that parliamentarians have a vital role to play in the reform process.

After the Ambassador's presentation, Mr. YAKIS thanked the French Presidency for having separated national positions from its attitude as Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union.

Addressing the JPC on behalf of the European Commission, Mr. Marc PIERINI, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Turkey, assessed the Commission's Progress Report as fair and balanced. However, criticism of the report in Turkey had to be expected. In his view, the accession process is not an unfair imposition on Turkey and alignment to EU rules and values takes time. Making reference to 250 pre-accession projects currently carried out by the EU, he argued that the EU agenda is in the interest of the Turkish citizens and that the accession process is not falling into recession. In his perception and against the background of important common interests shared by Turkey and the EU, Turkey is already part of the EU's future.

Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, Mr. Jean-Christophe FILORI, Head of Unit, DG Enlargement, explained why the accession negotiations are slow and emphasised that every decision in the accession process requires unanimity in the Council. In his view, six negotiation chapters need enhanced efforts: Social policy and employment (Trade Union Laws meeting ILO standards); Competition Law (mainly revision of state aid regulations); taxation (reduction of gaps for e.g. liquors and tobacco, in accordance with Customs Union stipulations); environment; public procurement; food safety. Furthermore, deploring that the EU did not manage to define the conditional framework, he pleaded for the opening of the energy chapter.

The following Members of Parliament participated in the ensuing debate:

Mr CAKIR, Mr ELVAN, Mr HASSE FERREIRA, Mr HOWITT, Mr IRBEC, Ms KOPPA, Mr MATSAKIS, Mr ÖGER, Mr ÖYMEN, Mr SCHINAS, Mr YILDIZ, Mr YÜKSEL PV/EN 4 PE 412.690 Mr. ELVAN expressed awareness of shortcomings in the reform process and the need to make progress, in particular to meet the political Copenhagen criteria. Furthermore he deplored the slowness of the negotiation process and raised the question of benchmarks for the opening of new negotiation chapters.

Ms KOPPA and Mr SCHINAS deplored a considerable number of illegal immigrants from Turkey to Greece despite the bilateral protocol of 2001 and asked why the European Commission did not take care of the problem.

Mr IRBEC, with regard to the international financial crisis, drew attention to the threat of protectionist measures and called for precaution. Furthermore, he pleaded for an increase of pre- accession financial support.

In Mr HOWITT's view Turkey has to accelerate its reform process; this also with regard to the fact that the next financial perspectives will envisage the country's accession to the EU.

Mr YILDIZ drew attention to tensions in South-Eastern Turkey because of the forthcoming elections and asked whether the EU Council does envisage proactive measures in this respect.

Mr YÜKSEL called for joint action to fight the global financial crisis, for an increase of the per- accession aid and for access of Turkish SMEs to EIB loans.

Mr MATSAKIS deplored a lack of progress to settle the Cyprus issue and blamed constant Turkish interference for that. He called on Turkey to confirm its agreement with the respective UN and EU texts and to support a federal solution.

Mr HASSE FERREIRA raised the question whether the new Turkish Labour Code respects EU and ILO standards.

Mr ÖYMEN deplored e.g. misinterpretations and omissions in the Commission's Progress Report concerning e.g. the role of the Turkish army, long term detention and gender inequality and called for the setting of a target date for Turkey's accession to the EU.

In Mr CAKIR's view Turkey is victim of increased preconditions and double standards, compared to previous enlargement rounds for accession to the EU. Furthermore, the EU has to clarify its enlargement strategy and should determine a target date for Turkey's accession to the Union.

Mr ÖGER criticised that discordant voices in the EU Council and the slow process of opening negotiation chapters have created a bad public opinion in Turkey with unforeseeable consequences for the future of the accession process.

In reply to the points raised by the Members of Parliament, Ambassador EMIÉ referred to answers given in the Commission's Progress Report. Moreover, he expressed understanding for Turkey's frustrations and confirmed that France was prepared to open new negotiation chapters.

Mr FILORI stated that many answers to the questions raised, as for example on immigration, can be found in the Progress Report. PV/EN 5 PE 412.690 Mr PIERINI focused his replies on the economic and trade aspects discussed. He informed that the European Commission is very active to fight the effects of the financial crisis and pays great attention to the FTAs. Turkey's point of view is understood in this respect and Turkey is one of the major interlocutors, he said.

5. Afternoon Session - Adoption of the minutes of the 59th EU-Turkey JPC which took place in Brussels on 27-28 May 2008 (PE 409.348)

Mr ÖYMEN proposed an amendment to the minutes of the last JPC meeting, namely to delete in his contribution (page 5) "certain parts of" before the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".

The minutes were adopted, taking Mr ÖYMEN's amendment into account.

6. Afternoon Session - Continuation of debate on the political situation in Turkey and EU Turkey accession negotiations

With reference to several points discussed before, Mr KAZAK expressed understanding for some preoccupations and frustrations of his Turkish colleagues. Furthermore, he asked for Turkey's stance concerning the Union for the Mediterranean initiative.

In reply to the question raised by Mr KAZAK, Mr YAKIS explained that Turkey was reticent because this initiative was perceived by many as a substitute for EU-Membership, however, Turkey has confirmed its interest to participate, he said.

Although the item was not on the agenda of the meeting, there were a number of comments with regard to the Cyprus issue. Mr LANGEN said that the additional protocol to the Ankara Treaty has to be put in practise in order to fully implement the Customs Union, which constitutes a major problem. These comments were not shared by Mr ÖGER, who argued that without the 1974 military intervention Cyprus would possibly be part of Greece. Furthermore, he drew attention to the fact that Cyprus EU Membership makes a coherent EU approach to resolve the problems difficult. In his view, a solution of the problem can only be found if the parties concerned confess their own mistakes. Mr MATSAKIS expressed the opinion that the implementation of the Ankara Protocol was an obligation for Turkey, which is not negotiable, that Turkey can not ask for anything in return and that the country had to make up its mind. Mr YAKIS disagreed with this assessment, because the Protocol was a reciprocal obligation, which had to be respected by both sides. Furthermore, he mentioned that Turkey will soon come up with a proposal to help resolving the free market access issue, expressing hope that the Commission will take this proposal up. Mr DEMIRKIRAN expressed the view that a solution to the Cyprus issue necessitates good will from both parties and that everybody should stick to the promises made. Mr MATSAKIS emphasised that the "Republic of Cyprus" is part of the EU and that one should look into the future and not to the past. This statement triggered a reply by Mr ÖYMEN who argued that the Cyprus Treaty of 1960 had established Cyprus as a country. In view of the fact that all Turkish Cypriots had been eliminated from the public service afterwards, Cyprus could not claim to represent the whole island and was not a republic of all Cypriotes. Further, he stated that Cyprus' admission to the EU was in clear contradiction to international law. Mr LANGEN recalled that Mr MATSAKIS was present at PV/EN 6 PE 412.690 the JPC as representative of the EP and not of one of the Union's Member States. In his view the problem is grounded in the Constitution of 1974, when the Turkish population of 20 % was matched by 30 % of Turkish origin civil servants.

In reply to Mr LAGENDIJK, who had stated that the European Parliament welcomes the Ergenekon investigations, Mr ÖYMEN said that the EU should not take a position on the issue, in particular since the second enactment of Ergenekon was not yet done.

In his contribution, Mr YLDIZ said that the AKP did not hold its promises, that extrajudicial killings as well as torture go on and that the protection of minority languages, guaranteed by Art. 39 of the Lausanne Treaty, is not respected.

Mr DEMIRKIRAN argued that the Kurdish population in South Eastern Turkey is by no means oppressed and that Turkey had democratic elections in the region. Further, he pleaded to zero tolerance with regard to torture and explained that a change of mentality takes time.

Mr ERBATUR raised the questions why numerous negotiation chapters were not yet concluded and expressed concern because there was a growing perception in Turkey that EU Membership would never happen.

With regard to the setting of a target date for Turkey's EU accession, as was requested in various Turkish interventions, Mr ÖYMEN regretted that the EU's attitude was biased because target dates had been set for all previous enlargement rounds.

Mr SIVACIOGLU raised a question concerning the state of play with regard to the French draft law on genocide denial and the related EU Council framework decision on racism and xenophobia.

In reply to Mr SIVACIOGLU, Mr LAGENDIJK drew attention to two contradictory legal opinions on the issue. Furthermore, he argued that the French Senate has not yet adopted and will never adopt the bill and that the interpretation of history should be rather left to historians than to politicians.

SECOND WORKING SESSION

7. Social policy, unemployment and the role of trade unions

In his introduction to the agenda item, Mr IRBEC pointed out that the new Turkish Trade Union draft law has been under consideration for a long time already ad that there are attempts to find a large consensus on the issue.

Mr AKSOY focussed his remarks on the global financial crisis and, making reference to the adaptation of Turkey's fiscal policy in reaction to the 2001 crisis, emphasised that the EU and Turkey should closely cooperate to minimise the impact of the present crisis.

Mr DEMIRKIRAN drew attention to EU-Turkey economic relations in general. Expressing concern that the present crisis might trigger unfavourable developments and also with regard to future enlargements of the EU, he highlighted that Turkey's accession to the Union would bring considerable economic gains. Moreover, he argued that to meet the opening benchmarks for PV/EN 7 PE 412.690 environmental needs demands considerable economic resources and that imminent economic recession would impede progress in this chapter. Furthermore he pleaded for enhanced cooperation and joint strategies of Turkey and the EU in the field of energy and for an increase of pre-accession aid.

Mr KAYATÜRK drew attention to the global economic volatility. In his view, the EU responds to the crisis with less dynamism than the US; however, the crisis could be overcome e.g. by close economic cooperation between Turkey and the EU.

Mr ÖGER referring to a meeting the EP delegation had had with the Turkish Trade Union leaders emphasised the need for a comprehensive adaptation of Turkey's Trade Union law, which should encompass, amongst others, unrestricted regulations with regard to Union membership as well as the right to strike and to assemble. He called on Turkey to move up to European standards.

In his contribution, Mr ERBATUR expressed large agreement with Mr ÖGER. Further, he drew attention to the decrease of the number of Trade Union members, criticised the frequent use of sub- contract workers, pleaded for Union rights for public employees as well as for better job opportunities and a higher employment rate of women.

In Mr ÖYMEN's view Turkey is heavily affected by the international financial crisis, which would have serious social implications. Further, he deplored that the government's siding with the IMF would deepen the social crisis, claimed excessive privatisation responsible for the decrease of the number of Union members, criticised huge regional imbalances and blamed the government for not having lowered taxes. Further, he said that Turkey wishes closer links with the EU to better protect its economy and social network.

Mr LANGEN drew attention to problems in the Chapter 'Regional policy' and expressed large agreement with the positions taken by Mr ÖGER concerning Union rights, however pointing out that also in a number of EU countries the public sector and civil servants do not have the right to strike.

Mr ÖZTÜRK focussed his remarks on environment and energy. He said that Turkey complies with the EU environmental impact assessment criteria, that the country is seriously affected by global warming and that meeting EU environmental standards would mean for Turkey an investment of 68 bn EURO. Further, he deplored that, compared to EU support for environmental investments in Bulgaria and Romania, Turkey gets only "peanuts" and pleaded to open the energy chapter in the accession negotiations as soon as possible.

Mr KAZAK pointed at serious remaining problems with regard to strike rights and evaluated the draft law on Trade Unions as a very positive step, calling on all parties to stick to the principles of the draft law. With regard to taxation, he informed that Bulgaria's flat rate tax of 10 % has a very positive impact on his country's tax income.

Mr LAGENDIJK expressed surprise that the Trade Union draft law was tabled by individual MPs and not by government and raised the question how the parties would vote on the draft.

Mr YILDIZ explained the state of play in parliament with regard to the Trade Union law: the draft has been presented and amendments have been proposed, however Unions and NGOs have not been consulted.

PV/EN 8 PE 412.690 In reply to previous points made, in particular by Mr ÖGER, concerning the situation of trade Unions in Turkey, Mr IRBEC held a different view and came up with different figures. He made the point that in a competitive environment Unions tend to disagree and that the whole situation has to be looked at a more differentiated way. In his view, Turkey is more advanced in unionisation than is generally believed.

Mr ÖYMEN argued that the government had failed to table a draft law on Union rights. He said that his party wants EU and ILO standards for the Turkish Trade Unions. Moreover, he deplored that the influence of the Unions has decreased and expressed scepticism that the draft law under consideration will resolve the problems.

Mr MATSAKIS emphasised that the Turkish government has defaulted to an agreement on a new law and referred to the ILO assessment of "deplorable working conditions", which had to be improved.

Mr ERBATUR deplored the disparity of the figures of Union members mentioned before and asked where these figures came from. In reply, Mr IRBEC said that the figures came from the Ministry of Labour based on information gathered from employers and that they could imply a margin of error. Further, he said that the minimum weight has doubled and that one of the biggest problems was to register informal economic activities.

In the same context, Mr ÖYMEN, referring to DISC assessments, expressed the view that all governmental figures are false and show a great discrepancy between reality and what is pretended.

Mr SCHINAS pointed at divergent and contradictory information concerning the Trade Union issue in Turkey.

There was a debate on the events of first May at Taksim Square. Mr LAGENDIJK had deplored the violence occurred in the context of the demonstrations and called for authorisation of Labour Day demonstrations in the Square. Mr ÖYMEN said that Taksim Square was not authorised for demonstrators and that the police had used excessive violence. Mr YILDIS deplored that the persons guilty for the violence have not been found. Mr IRBEC argued that there were no limitations in Turkey to 1st May celebrations and that Taksim Square had been restricted only for security reasons. Mrs KOPPA expressed the opinion that to talk about security reasons is deplorable.

Mr LANGEN viewed the discussion held on social policies as element of a democratisation process, in particular since the issue is debated in the Turkish JPC delegation in a controversial way.

Concluding the debate, Mr LAGENDIJK said that there was agreement that Turkey needs a new Trade Union law. This was confirmed by Mr IRBEC, who stated that all agree that there is need for change.

The debate closed at 18.35.

THIRD WORKING SESSION

The session was opened on Friday, 28 November 2008, at 9.45, with Mr LAGENDIJK in the Chair. PV/EN 9 PE 412.690 8. Black Sea and Caucasus Cooperation : Security aspects

In his opening remarks, Mr LAGENDIJK underlined that the Turkish South Caucasus initiative and the project of a Caucasus Platform had been welcomed by the French Presidency. Moreover, he drew attention to various EP initiatives aimed at strengthening interparliamentary cooperation in the Black Sea Region, since Bulgaria and Romania have joined the EU.

Mr YAKIS pointed out that Black Sea initiatives and the Georgian crisis are connected security considerations. He recalled that the establishment of BSEC had been proposed by Mr ELEKDAG and followed up by former President ÖZAL. He called for the strengthening of EU - Black Sea synergy and referred to the proposal of a "Union of the Black Sea". He expressed the view that the Georgian-Russian conflict of August 2008 had proven that Russia wanted to show its muscles to demonstrate that the South Caucasus is still its backyard. With regard to the revitalisation of the Turkish initiative of the 90s to establish a South Caucasus Platform, he said that Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have shown interest to participate, whereas Georgia was hesitant. Since Turkish - Armenian "football diplomacy" has started, the Platform idea is progressing, he said.

In her contribution, Mrs KOPPA recognised Turkey's stabilising role in the region and informed that her political Group wants to go beyond Black Sea Synergy, aiming at a Union of the Black Sea. With regard to the Georgia crisis, in her opinion, the Bush policy of "encirclement of Russia", the direct attack of Georgia on South Ossetia and the recognition of Kosovo, being a breach of international law, are to blame.

Mr MATSAKIS stated that Turkey was beginning to play a skilful role in the region and drew attention to two aspects: First, the problem of operations by large countries against smaller countries, second, EU-Russia relations, which should be constructive, Russia being an important trade partner.

In Mr ÖYMEN's view, the South Caucasus debate is focussed too much on energy. With reference to Georgia and Azerbaijan, he said that territorial integrity and the real independence of countries in the region should be in the centre; more consideration should also be given to the humanitarian dimension namely in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, including the problem of IDPs. In his view, Turkey should play a role, which still has to be defined and which should be more independent from NATO-EU claims. The EU, on its side, should react with more moderation.

Mr ÖZTÜRK emphasised that Turkey has played a constructive role in the region. In his view, energy policy will be the determining factor in the future and continuous energy investments, having a positive impact on human rights, democracy and territorial integrity, are needed. In this context he called for joint EU - Turkey projects.

Mr KAZAK congratulated Turkey on its successful initiative and welcomed the Turkish-Armenian dialogue. He raised two questions: (1) what does Turkey want to achieve with Black Sea cooperation; (2) what will be the future of the Nabucco project.

Mr LAGENDIJK emphasised that Turkey needs cooperation with Russia although both countries were in competition in the field of energy. As regards the improvement of Turkish-Armenian relations, he raised the question, whether the Nagorno-Karabakh issue could be disconnected from

PV/EN 10 PE 412.690 the general evolution of the relations between the two countries. Further he raised a questions concerning the perspectives of the South Caucasus Platform.

Mr YAKIS, referring to the points made be Mr KAZAK and Ms KOPPA, said that it has to be seen how Black Sea synergy and the Mediterranean Union project will evolve. With regard to energy, he explained that Turkey has diversified energy deliverers, such as Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and Egypt and depends less on Russian deliveries. In his view, Nabucco is needed, but the question of reliable and secure resources had still to be addressed. With regard to Mr LAGENDIJK's remarks he argued that the impact of the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh on the evolution of Turkish- Armenian relations has to be considered in a less tense atmosphere. Further, he confirmed that Turkey and Russia have interest to cooperate in the field of energy, even if there is competition. As regards the South Caucasus Platform, he believes that, with the time, it will progress.

Mr ÖYMEN agreed that Turkey needs to cooperate with Russia. Concerning Black Sea cooperation, at bilateral or multilateral levels, he emphasised the importance of a multilateral approach, as distinguished from a regional approach. With regard to relations with Armenia, against the background of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, he urged to think twice, to avoid naive moves and to use leverage.

Ms KOPPA pleaded in favour of establishing a Union of the Black Sea, going beyond the model of the Stability Pact for the Balkans.

Mr ELEKDAG argued that Black Sea Cooperation in the framework of BSEC has been and still is politically and economically successful and does not need to be supplemented by a Union of the Black Sea. Moreover, Russia being a key factor, he highlighted the importance of Turkish-Russian relations, based on mutual interest and trust and expressed the view that Georgia's membership in NATO would complicate the situation.

Mr ELVAN commented on the Nabucco project and on the Stability and Cooperation Platform for the South Caucasus. He denied that, as opposed to widespread perceptions in the EU, Turkey wants to block Nabucco. However, Turkey should not be considered just as s transit country. Furthermore, he argued that, to make Nabucco feasible, as Turkey wishes, sufficient natural gas resources have to be provided from countries like Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iran and Iraq. Concerning the South Caucasus Platform, he expressed the opinion that all five countries are in favour and that minor remaining problems will be resolved.

Mr MATSAKIS commented on the Mediterranean Union and argued that France had not the intention to bypass Turkey's accession to the EU with this new structure. Concerning relations with Russia, he informed that Cyprus had recently signed a cooperation agreement with Moscow and that the EU supports cooperation with Russia. Concerning the Nabucco project, he stated that if Turkey tells the EU that the latter would only get "leftovers" of the deliveries, the project would not come up. Finally, referring to Turkish-Armenian football diplomacy, he proposed football diplomacy between Turkey and Cyprus.

In reply to Mr MATSAKIS's Nabucco statement, Mr ELVAN denied that Turkey had ever indicated that the EU would only get leftovers.

Mr ÖYMEN commented on the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Nagorno-Karabakh debate by saying that the EU had to accept "Realpolitik" and should avoid double standards.

PV/EN 11 PE 412.690 Mrs KOPPA made a point of order, saying that it was totally inacceptable to discuss the Cyprus issue again, although it had been clearly decided at the previous working session that this subject should not be raised any more.

Mr YÜKSEL warned that the Georgia-Russian crisis may lead to a new cold war and emphasised that Turkey wants to gain friends. Furthermore, he stressed the importance of energy security and called on the EU to pursue a policy based on principles and on cooperation in energy security with the countries in the region. As regards the South Caucasus Platform, he argued that it is geographically based and aims at maintaining peace, promoting economic cooperation and establishing joint crisis mechanisms. Concerning the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Nagorno-Karabakh issue, he stated that the activities of the Minsk group have not achieved great results and expressed hope that the frozen conflicts in the region will be brought to a solution.

Concerning Black-Sea synergy, Mr DEMIRKIRAN argued that Black-Sea cooperation can enhance a positive transformation of relations between the countries in the region. Against the background of the establishment of new cooperative structures in the South Caucasus, the Black Sea area and the Mediterranean and making reference to common security and democracy challenges in these regions, he concluded that Turkey must become a member of the EU to be able to face these challenges successfully.

Winding up the debate, Mr YAKIS concluded that Turkey as well as the EU is becoming more important for the region and that security aspects should play a more central role. In this context, he expressed hope that Turkey's stability initiative will be successful.

9. Follow-up issues (Customs Union, visa)

With regard to the follow-up issues and EU-Turkey relations in general, Mr SCHINAS pointed at two possible approaches: either to repeat what divides us or to focus on what unites us. He prefers the second approach. Furthermore, he reiterated his Group's commitment to common values.

Mr MATSAKIS informed that this would be probably the last time that he attends a JPC Session in Turkey and expressed thanks to his Turkish friends. He emphasised that Cyprus wants friendly neighbours and genuinely supports Turkey's accession to the EU, because his country would profit most of all from Turkish membership. Finally, he argued against external interference in Cyprus, because Cypriots were able to resolve their problems themselves.

Mr ELEKDAG focused his remarks on the EU Council's framework decision on racism and xenophobia and its possible impact on the denial of genocide as crime. He presented the view that the framework decision infringes with international law, e.g. Art. 2 of the UN Genocide Convention, and could be used against Turkey by the Armenian lobby. He also recalled that Mr LAGENDIJK had promised a supplementary legal opinion on the framework directive. Making reference to contradictory legal opinions on the issue, he said that most of the members of the international law community share to a large extend the Turkish position. Furthermore, he announced that he would give a legal opinion of a Cambridge professor to Mr LAGENDIJK, asking the latter to kindly transmit it to the Council. Making reference to a French draft law, he emphasised that it is not the task of politicians to judge what is historically true. Finally, he called on the EU to reassess and to modify the framework decision and to agree on a list of qualifying elements.

PV/EN 12 PE 412.690 Mr LAGENDIJK expressed agreement and confirmed his willingness to transmit Mr ELEKDAG's notes on the issue and the legal opinion to the Council Secretariat.

Mr DILEK raised the visa issue, namely that Turkish businessmen face problems to enter the EU market with all economic consequences of this negative discrimination. He pleaded for including Turkey in the positive visa list and to conclude a visa facilitation agreement. Moreover, he drew attention to the fact that Turkish students have sometimes insurmountable difficulties to get a visa from EU Member States.

In reply, Mr LAGENDIJK explained that the European Parliament and the European Commission share Mr DILEK's view, but that the Member States had to decide in the end. In the same context, he called on Turkey to sign the re-admission agreement.

Mr YAKIS proposed to appoint one member of both JPC delegations to follow up the issue or to put a JPC sub-committee in charge.

Mr ELVAN recalled that the issue had been discussed in detail at the last meeting, but that no progress had occurred since. With regard to Free Trade Agreements concluded by the EU with third parties, he called for involving Turkey via a consultation procedure.

Mr ÖYMEN said that the opposition supports the government on the issue.

Mr MELEN, making reference to a new consultative body, which will be established on economic issues, called on the JPC to install a new sub-group or to establish consultation mechanisms.

Mr ÖYMEN stated that the EU and Turkey are passing through difficult times. The pace of reform and the accession process had to be accelerated. He asked to incorporate this assessment in a joint statement and to avoid new problems. It is time to be realistic and to work together for a better future, he said. Furthermore, with regard to the EP draft resolution on the 2008 Commission Progress Report on Turkey, he urged the EP to reconsider the text, in particular with regard to stipulations regarding the judiciary and the military, as well as to avoid unnecessary tough language concerning Turkish Institutions.

Mr YAKIS said that he was in favour to emphasise these positive messages in a joint statement or press release and that, accordingly, Parliament will try to have a positive impact on the government's policies.

10. Any other business

There was no other business.

11. Date and place of the next meeting

The 61th meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee EU-Turkey will be held in Brussels from 31 March to 2 April 2009; before the next JPC a working group could meet to deal with the left over issues. **********

A Joint Statement of Chairmen has been adopted.

The 60th EU-Turkey JPC meeting closed on Friday, 28 November 2008 at 13:20. PV/EN 13 PE 412.690 60th MEETING OF THE EU-TURKEY JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

Ankara, 26-28 November 2008

List of Participants

1. Köksal TOPTAN Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey 2. Mehmet ŞİMŞEK Minister of State for Economic Affairs

TURKISH DELEGATION

3. Yaşar YAKIŞ Chairman, Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) 4. Lütfi ELVAN Vice- Chairman, Justice and Development Party 5. Onur Başaran ÖYMEN Vice- Chairman, Republican People’s Party (CHP) 6. Fazilet Dağcı ÇIĞLIK Vice- Chairman, Justice and Development Party 7. Osman ÇAKIR Vice- Chairman, National Movement Party (MHP) 8. Burhan KAYATÜRK Member, Justice and Development Party 9. Yusuf Ziya İRBEÇ Member, Justice and Development Party 10. Cevdet YILMAZ Member, Justice and Development Party 11. İbrahim KAVAZ Member, Justice and Development Party 12. Mustafa ÖZTÜRK Member, Justice and Development Party 13. Mehmet Sait DİLEK Member, Justice and Development Party 14. M.Beyazıt DENİZOLGUN Member, Justice and Development Party 15. Taha AKSOY Member, Justice and Development Party 16. Musa SIVACIOĞLU Member, Justice and Development Party 17. İsmail Hakkı BİÇER Member, Justice and Development Party 18. Cüneyt YÜKSEL Member, Justice and Development Party 19. Afif DEMİRKIRAN Member, Justice and Development Party 20. Çağla Aktemur ÖZYAVUZ Member, Justice and Development Party 21. Nevin Gaye ERBATUR Member, Justice and Development Party 22. Algan HACALOĞLU Member, Republican People’s Party 23. Mustafa Şükrü ELEKDAĞ Member, Republican People’s Party 24. Osman COŞKUNOĞLU Member, Republican People’s Party 25. Mithat MELEN Member, National Movement Party 26. Bengi YILDIZ Member, Democratic Society Party (DTP)

AMBASSADORS OF EU MEMBERS AND OTHER COUNTRIES IN ANKARA

27. Eckart CUNTZ Ambassador of Germany 28. Heidemaria GÜRER Ambassador of Austria 29. Marc Van RYSSELBERGHE Ambassador of Belgium 30. Nicholas BAIRD Ambassador of UK 31. Branimir MLADENOV Ambassador of Bulgaria 32. Eva FILIPI Ambassador of Check Republic 33. Jesper VAHR Ambassador of Denmark 34. Aivo ORAV Ambassador of Estonia 35. Kirsti ESKELINEN Ambassador of Finland PV/EN 14 PE 412.690 36. Paul Marcel KURPERSHOEK Ambassador of the Netherlands 37. Anthony MANNIX Ambassador of Ireland 38. Joan Clos Ambassador of Spain 39. Christer ASP Ambassador of Sweden 40. Carlo MARSILI Ambassador of Italy 41. Ivars PUNDURS Ambassador of Latvia 42. Istvan SZABO Ambassador of Hungary 43. Marcin WILCZEK Ambassador of Poland 44. Jose M. DE C.LAMEIRAS Ambassador of 45. Petre STOİCESKU Ambassador of Romania 46. Vladimir JAKABCIN Ambassador of Slovakia 47. Mitja STRUKELJ Ambassador of Slovenia 48. Fotios Jean XYDAS Ambassador of Greece 49. Gordan BAKOTA Ambassador of Crotia 50. Melpomeni KORNETI Ambassador of Macedonia 51. Nada JANKOVIC Ambassador of Bosnia-Herzegovina 52. Altin KODRA Charge d’Affaires, Embassy of Albania 53. E. Aleksandra AZZONI Counsellor, Embassy of Italy 54. Lucio DEMICHELE Counsellor, Embassy of Italy 55. Darius PRANCKEVİCİUS Counsellor, Embassy of Lithuania 56. Marjatta HIEKKA Counsellor, Finland Embassy 57. Antonino MAGIORE First Secretary, Embassy of Italy

EUROPEAN COUNCIL 58. Bernard Jean EMIE Ambassador of France in Ankara

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 59. Marc PIERINI Head of the Delegation of the European Commission inAnkara

DELEGATION OF TURKEY TO EU 60. Çağlar ÇAKIRALP First Secretary

TURKISH OFFICIALS

61. Amb. Oğuz DEMİRALP Secretary General for EU Affairs 62. Amb. Zergun KORUTÜRK Deputy Undersecretary for European Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) 63. Amb. Naci SARIBAŞ Director General for EU, MFA 64. Memduh Aslan AKÇAY Director General for External Economic Affairs, Undersecretariat of Treasury 65. Muhsin KILIÇARSLAN Deputy Director General for EU, MFA 66. Fikri BAKIR Deputy Director General for EU, Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade 67. Mustafa BORAN Deputy Director General for External Economic Affairs, Undersecretariat of Treasury 68. İbrahim SEPİCİ Head of the National Fund Directorate, Undersecretariat of Treasury 69. Selim YEŞİLBAŞ Director of International Capital Markets, Undersecretariat of Treasury 70. Sema BAYGÜN Director of Deputy Directorate for EU, PV/EN 15 PE 412.690 Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade 71. Faruk KAYMAKÇI Head of Section, MFA 72. Yavuz KAYMAK Attaché, MFA

OTHER GUESTS

73. Prof. Dr. Haluk KABAALİOĞLU Chairman of the Board of Governors, Economic Development Foundation (İKV) 74. Salim USLU Chairman of the Board of Governors, the Confederation of Turkish Real Trade Unions (HAK-İŞ) 75. Rifat HİSARCIKLIOĞLU Chairman of the Board of Governors, Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB) 76. Arzuhan YALÇINDAG Chairman of the Board of Governors, Turkish Industrialist’and Businessmen’s Association (TÜSİAD) 77. Tuğrul KUDATGOBİLİK Chairman of the Board of Governors, the Confederation of Turkish Employers Unions (TİSK) 78. Süleyman ÇELEBİ Chairman of the Board of Governors, the Confederation of Revolutionary Labors Union (DİSK) 79. Dr. Ömer POLAT Chairman of the Board of Governors of Independent Businessmen’s and Industrialists Association (MÜSİAD)

GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF TURKEY

80. Ali Osman KOCA Secretary General 81. N. İnci SOYTOK Chief of Cabinet to the Speaker 82. Hasan BAYTEKİN Director of Foreign Relations and Protocol 83. Günsel GÖKTAN Foreign Affairs Adviser to the Chairman of the EU Harmonization Committee 84. Selçuk BAYRAKTAROGLU Deputy Director of Foreign Relations and Protocol Responsible for EU Affairs Unit 85. Yüksel YÜCEKAL Foreign Affairs Adviser to the Chairman of the EU Harmonization Committee 86. Yasemin ELİBOL Expert on Legislation, EU Affairs Unit to Directorate Of Foreign Relations and Protocol 87. Buket AKDEMİR Staff of EU Affairs Unit to Directorate of Foreign Relations and Protocol 88. Berker ÜLKER Staff of EU Affairs Unit to Directorate of Foreign Relations and Protocol 89. Mümtaz GÜNER Staff of EU Affairs Unit to Directorate of Foreign Relations and Protocol 90. Elif Esra YILMAZ Staff of EU Affairs Unit to Directorate of Foreign Relations and Protocol 91. Deniz CANKUŞ Staff of EU Affairs Unit to Directorate of Foreign Relations and Protocol

PV/EN 16 PE 412.690 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Members

Mr Joost LAGENDIJK, Chairman Verts/ALE, Netherlands Ms Maria Eleni KOPPA, 4th Vice-Chair PES, Greece

Mr Joel HASSE FERREIRA PES, Portugal Mr Richard HOWITT PES, United Kingdom Mr Metin KAZAK ALDE, Bulgaria Mr Werner LANGEN EPP-ED, Germany Mr Marios MATSAKIS ALDE, Cyprus Mr Vural ÖGER PES, Germany Mr Margaritis SCHINAS EPP-ED, Greece Mr Jan ZAHRADIL EPP-ED, Czech Republic

Secretariat

Mr Stefan PFITZNER Head of Secretariat Mr Thomas GRUNERT Head of Unit Ms Claudia SIEGISMUND Administrative Assistant Ms Neslihan PELISTER Administrative Secretary

Secretariat of Political Groups

Mr Jan-Willem VLASMAN EPP-ED Mr Rob van de WATER PES Mr Rune GLASBERG ALDE Mr Ali YURTTAGUL Verts/ALE

European Commission

Mr Jean-Christophe FILORI Head of Unit Mr Anthony AGOTHA DG Enlargement Unit, Turkey

Council

Mr Anders KJELLGREN Administrator

PV/EN 17 PE 412.690 Interpreters

Turkish Booth

Ms Zeynep BEKDIK Ms Ebru DIRIKER Mr Ali ÖNEN

German Booth

Ms Bettina EXNER-MARA Ms Annette STACHOWSKI

English Booth

Mr Ionathan MARKEL Mr Brian CONNOR

Greek Booth

Mr Nicolaos GALINOS Mr Panayotis MOUZOURAKIS (team leader)

26.11.2008

PV/EN 18 PE 412.690