Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 30 NOVEMBER 1999
THE RT
HON ROBIN
COOK, MR
EMYR JONES
PARRY, CMG and MR
NIGEL SHEINWALD
20. That makes good sense, if I may say so,
but until that hearing at the European Court of Human Rights would
it not make good sense to suspend Turkish candidacy, to take away
its status as a candidate for membership of the European Union?
(Mr Cook) It is well understood by many in the government
in Turkey that, in applying the full Copenhagen criteria and in
the European Union judging whether those criteria are being met
in full, one of the issues we assess is whether there is continued
use of the death penalty.
21. There is outright hostility amongst the
peoples of the Member States.
(Mr Cook) Absolutely. None of us applies the death
penalty and we would all expect Member States not to apply the
death penalty.
Ms Abbott
22. I take it from what you have said that the
decision of the Turkish Appeal Court on 20 November to uphold
the death sentence on Abdullah Ocalan did not have any effect
on the plans to start renegotiation?
(Mr Cook) There are no plans to start negotiation.
Perhaps I should stress again to the Committee that what is intended
at Helsinki is that we recognise Turkey as a candidate country
but we do not start negotiations until it is in compliance with
the Copenhagen criteria on democracy, human rights and the treatment
of ethnic minorities.
23. Despite what you have said about steps being
taken, there was concern about the general human rights issue
in Turkey just this weekend. I had a very good meeting with members
of the Kurdish community who are very concerned about this issue.
What specific undertakings about human rights are you seeking
from Turkey in return for a declaration regarding its candidacy?
(Mr Cook) First of all, can I stress that we are well
aware and share those concerns about human rights within Turkey.
As I said, there have been steps towards progress but there is
a long way to go yet. We have to understand that the political
forces in Turkey that seek recognition by Europe of Turkey's candidate
status are the same political forces who are arguing in Turkey
for reform of human rights and on democracy. I visited Aden Bodahl
in hospital after he had been shot 14 times by those who were
trying to stop his advocacy of democracy and fair treatment of
the Kurdish population and he said to me in the hospital bed,
"It is those of us who are arguing for more human rights
and more democracy and freedom in Turkey who are the true Europeans
and must be encouraged." That is why I think it is right
to send a signal of support to those who are arguing for Turkey's
European application whilst at the same time making clear that
that support cannot be taken further forward unless there is a
modern approach to human rights democracy and ethnic minorities
in Turkey.
24. What specific undertakings will you be requiring?
(Mr Cook) In return for a recognition of a candidate
status, no. In terms of starting negotiations, they would have
to meet the full Copenhagen criteria which are very broad and
very detailed.
25. You will be aware of the concern of the
Kurdish community here and in the rest of Europe that in the US
inspired drive to get Turkey in the human rights initiatives in
relation to the Kurdish people may be swept to one side.
(Mr Cook) First of all, the United States was not
represented in the discussions among ourselves; nor did anybody
say, "What shall we do about Turkey to please the United
States?" Secondly, on the question of neglecting it, quite
the reverse. I think that the best guarantee for proper treatment
of ethnic minorities in Turkey is for its application for membership
of the European Union to be taken forward. We discussed earlier
with Mr Chidgey the question of the Russian speakers within Estonia.
They certainly were achieved only because it was a requirement
for membership of the European Union. There will be similar, very
strong requirements required of Turkey.
Mr Chidgey
26. A few minutes ago you were talking about
Cyprus and I think I am right in saying that you mentioned that
the Foreign Office view was that the division of Cyprus should
not be an obstacle to its application for membership of the EU.
I want to question you on that because it would occur to me that
it is difficult to say that the principles of democracy set out
in the Copenhagen agreement are being followed if a divided country,
which many of its citizens would say was not a democratically
governed country, was allowed to join the EU in that state. There
are questions of stability and also principle.
(Mr Cook) I do not think anybody is questioning the
quality of democracy in the Republic of Cyprus—that is to
say, the Greek Cypriot sector. It has fair and open elections
and a vigorous political system. Nor is anybody arguing—I
most certainly am not—that it would be better for Cyprus
to remain divided. Indeed, the Greek Cypriots themselves are keen
that the division should be resolved. Equally, I do not think
it would be fair to hold the government of the Republic of Cyprus,
which is that part which has de facto government of the
Greek Cypriot part of the island, responsible for a failure to
reach agreement if it was not their responsibility.
27. Is it not the case that it will take both
sides to reach the agreement in the end and the incentive to do
that will be the membership of the EU rather than already being
members of the EU?
(Mr Cook) That may well be an incentive that applies
equally both ways. Indeed, one of the ironies about the present
situation is that the Turkish Cypriot part of the island has actually
a lot more to gain from membership than the Greek Cypriot part.
I therefore regret that its political leadership is not supportive
of the idea of the island joining the European Union as a single,
integrated entity.
Sir David Madel
28. If Turkey met the Copenhagen criteria and
we were satisfied that Turkey had and yet Turkey said, "Nevertheless,
we still wish to stay in northern Cyprus", what would the
government's view be of that?
(Mr Cook) We are looking some way down the track now.
It is going to be quite a while before Turkey is able to start
up negotiations on the basis that it has satisfied us on the Copenhagen
criteria. I personally would be disappointed if by that point
we had not resolved the question of the accession of Cyprus to
the European Union, at which point Cyprus itself will be able
to safeguard its own interests. It is certainly the case that
it would greatly assist in progressing Turkey's negotiations at
some future date if there was a resolution to the division of
the island of Cyprus.
29. In interpreting the Copenhagen criteria,
we are looking for peaceful withdrawal of Turkey from Cyprus?
(Mr Cook) I would want to see a solution to the division
of Cyprus and that requires Turkey to play its part, yes.
30. And withdraw?
(Mr Cook) I am getting drawn here onto statements
which are of a character on which I would wish to take legal advice
before I could say whether that was necessarily a requirement
of the Copenhagen criteria, but politically I have no doubt whatsoever
that if Turkey wishes to play a full part in the European Union
Turkey must assist in finding a solution to the division of the
island.
31. In free elections in the north of Cyprus
or in a referendum in the north of Cyprus, they might say, "Fine,
we should join the European Union but nevertheless we wish Turkey
to stay here." The northern Cypriots might say that.
(Mr Cook) If they do, I would find it very hard to
see how we are going to achieve a resolution of the division of
the island which is what the talks, which are starting on Friday
are all about. With respect, I do not think, given that those
talks begin two days from now, it would be right to speculate
on the position some years from now in which they are refusing
to envisage a future without Turkish occupation.
Dr Godman
32. Back to enlargement. The Commission's target
date of 2002 for first accessions is looking, to put it mildly,
a little unrealistic in, say, the light of the abject failure
to reform the Common Agricultural Policy. Is it not the case that
that failure means that Poland is unlikely to join before 2006?
(Mr Cook) No. As I recall the outcome at Berlin and
the associated discussions with Poland and the other candidate
countries, it is not envisaged that there will be direct payments
to farmers before 2007. In other words, Poland can become a member
of the European Union but the extent of its direct participation
in the Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2006 will be a matter
for separate negotiation.
(Mr Sheinwald) No direct payments before 2007 but
they can participate otherwise in the CAP.
(Mr Cook) On the general principle that you raise,
I am absolutely with you. We felt that the Berlin Council could
have gone further in reducing the costs of the CAP and we pressed
to go further. It requires unanimity at the summit meetings and
we were unable to get the agreement of one major country.
33. Given this failure to reform the CAP—and
let us not forget the satisfaction that many farmers' leaders
expressed after the mild reform that took place, especially in
countries like the Irish Republic, Germany, France and in the
United Kingdom—is it not the case that if you do not return
to the radical reform of the CAP with some of these new members,
if ever they enter, we are likely to end up with a two class system
of membership, are we not?
(Mr Cook) That would be very unsatisfactory and I
think you are right to warn of that danger. We ourselves would
be very strongly motivated to argue against the two tier structure
because enlargement is one of the levers we can use to push through
the greater reforms of the CAP that we favour ourselves for other
reasons. I do think that with the passage of time it will become
more difficult for those who resist reform to continue to do so,
partly because of the pressure of enlargement, but partly also
because of developments within world trade. The Seattle Round
began this week and we have all seen the extent to which the developing
countries have been insisting that there should be movement on
agriculture if they are expected to move on manufactured goods.
It is difficult to see how Europe can indefinitely maintain a
structure based on free trade in manufactured goods and protectionism
in agriculture.
34. Yet the farmers' lobby throughout the European
Union is a formidable political lobby, is it not?
(Mr Cook) In Britain it is a formidable lobby; never
mind throughout the European Union.
35. If we have extended, enlarged membership
without this kind of reform, how can we ever talk about a greater
degree of integration? Would we not finish up with a loose kind
of combination?
(Mr Cook) No, I do not think we will necessarily end
up there, but it is going to be a tough battle and it will take
time. Looking beyond 2006, there will need to be substantial changes
to the CAP. We certainly would not want to see beyond 2006 a two
tier arrangement on agriculture between the existing and the new
members.
Sir Peter Emery
36. Would you accept that when Mr Rowlands and
I on behalf of the Committee were in Cyprus Mr Denktash and the
vast majority of the majority party were saying they would rather
see unity with Turkey than join the EU? That is very worrying.
Back to the Common Agricultural Policy. We have been talking about
reforms, have we not, since the mid-seventies? What specific areas
is the Government going to pursue at Helsinki to try and press
forward with a greater degree of reform?
(Mr Cook) The reform of the CAP will not be on the
agenda at Helsinki.
37. At all?
(Mr Cook) Only in the most general sense in that people
can refer to it if they wish in an introduction, but it is not
an agenda item. The reason for that is because the reform of the
CAP was one of the central issues of the Berlin Special Summit
earlier this year and that summit did agree to quite a large amount
of reform in the CAP with significant reductions in support prices.
The saving, we believe, to the average British household will
be some £65 per annum, but it did not go as far as we would
have wished and that was because some of the reforms that had
already been agreed in the Agriculture Council were rolled back
at the meetings of heads of government.
38. Does this mean therefore that we cannot
expect any new initiative until 2006?
(Mr Cook) The Berlin package was about the financial
perspective of the European Union which is a seven year perspective.
It includes for instance the reform of the structural funds and
the question of the British rebate. We would need to make a very
delicate judgement as to whether we uncork the whole of that package
because it would uncork issues that we regard as settled, such
as the British rebate, for that seven year period. Long before
we get to the end of that period, there will have to be an evaluation
as to the future financial perspective and indeed whether the
figures actually add up.
39. Would you accept that certain farmers in
this country—particularly in the west country—are
slightly concerned at seeing Poland and Hungary coming into the
European Union and obviously financially obtaining very considerable
benefit out of the Common Agricultural Policy as it applies to
them, as our farmers would say, when we have not received anything
like as fair a deal?
(Mr Cook) You beg two separate questions there. Let
me focus, if I may, on the question relating to Poland. First
of all, as I have said, there will be no direct payment to the
farmers in Poland until 2006 and what happens thereafter depends
on the reform of the CAP. Secondly, the main gain in financial
terms from the European Union for the new applicant countries
is more likely to be in the area of the structural funds rather
than the CAP.
| 
