Parliamentary Assembly

Mr Erdoğan expressed his pleasure at addressing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the oldest parliamentary forum of the people of Europe. His address coincided with a meaningful date in Turkey, since 61 years ago, on 13 April 1950, the Republic of Turkey had ratified the statute of the Council of Europe. Thus, he was honoured to speak before the Assembly, currently headed by one of his compatriots, as the Prime Minister of Turkey, a founding member of the Organisation and holding the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. The Council of Europe had contributed greatly to the strengthening of democratic stability on the continent: the Council of Europe’s respect for human dignity was to be commended and members of the Assembly should be wished success in continuing their work, which had been going on for 60 years.

He himself had addressed the Council of Europe five years ago on the Alliance of Civilizations. The Assembly had recently discussed the religious aspect of intercultural dialogue. Following the introduction of the Alliance of Civilizations, more than 100 countries had become a group of friends of the Alliance of Civilizations which had led to global interest and had played an important role internationally. In their understanding of each other, the Christian and Muslims worlds had been greatly shaped by the crusades, which had always been seen as the cause of prejudice and misunderstanding. But it was necessary to look at the other dimensions of the crusades, since they had also resulted in two cultures, two civilisations and two religions meeting and beginning to impact on one another. There had been effective interaction in many areas including music, science, language, art, and even cooking, and this interaction was at the root of both Western and Eastern civilisation. The history of the crusades was not just one of war and conflict but also of cultural interaction: even the armies had engaged in commercial activity! The broader history of Europe was no different, in that it could not be interpreted solely through conflict. Those who interpreted it in this way would be unable to build a peaceful future. The Council of Europe and the European Union were the most significant indications that history should not be interpreted through division. The whole world was striving for peace and these two organisations, both envied by the rest of the world, should further elevate the common values everyone shared.

Increased racism was a pressing concern for people living around Europe. It was sad that polarisation continued to deepen. Politicians had the responsibility of developing the leadership and good sense to prevent this. The oppression of fundamental rights for purposes of demagoguery or to win an election was an example of injustice which caused harm both throughout Europe and beyond, not just in the areas where such oppression occurred. Turkey was the only country to have adopted secularism while having a predominantly Muslim population and had proved to the world that secularism, democracy and Islam could exist side by side. It was ironic that secularism was now being debated in Europe and being turned into an element that restricted freedom. Religious intolerance should give place to undisputed tolerance. To use religious freedom as a political tool was dangerous. The importance of universal values, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law, was greater today than in the past. People’s expectation of these rights transcended Europe and echoed across the globe. In a global world, it was impossible to establish islands of stability and order. Capital did not recognise borders and nor did problems.

The whole world was striving for peace and the Council of Europe and the European Union, both envied by the rest of the world, should further elevate the common values everyone shared.

A world in which one part became ever richer and another part became ever poorer was not a world we could live in, or live for. It was unsustainable. If Europe withdrew into itself, these universal values would be impossible. Such a Europe could not safeguard or promote these values even for itself.

Europe should not be deaf to the calls for freedom from the Middle East and North Africa. To claim that only some deserve democracy and fundamental rights and freedoms, or to say that democracy was premature for certain societies, was as dangerous as racism. Some people only saw what was under the ground, but they should listen to the calls for universal values and act without calculating their own interests. It was important to see the things as they were: not only the oil wells, but also the tragedies in the Middle East and North Africa.

The idea that democracy could not exist in the Middle East had been shown to be false. All arguments against democracy based on differences of culture or civilisation were wrong: to highlight ethnic or religious differences was contrary to the spirit of democracy and the will of the people. The last thing he wanted to see was conflicts or violence. It was essential that the only outside involvement was humanitarian, not military. No one wanted to see a new Iraq or Afghanistan in North Africa and the Middle East.

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan had opened wounds, and the situation in Libya and Palestine should be approached carefully and with universal values in mind. It was very important to share the values of the Council of Europe with neighbouring countries.

In Tunisia, the activity of the Council of Europe was timely and impressive. Secretary General Jagland and the Turkish Foreign Minister had visited Tunisia, and the President of the Assembly had had important contacts there. Tunisia was trying to create a democracy. In Egypt, the transition to democracy and governance by a civil majority was important. It was not easy to move from autocracy to democracy, but the ground was being laid for this.

Turkey supported UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 on Libya. These resolutions should guarantee the territorial integrity of Libya and the prosperity of its people. Turkey was following developments in Bahrain and had made contact with all parties to try to resolve the situation. Stability in the region, in Syria, Jordan and Yemen, was also important, and work was under way to ensure developments continued in the right direction and at the right speed.

Turkey was a country which could speak to all countries, faiths and ethnic groups in the region. Turkey could play a role in establishing and maintaining peace. It was a founding member of the Council of Europe, was in talks with the European Union on accession, and had important regional ties. Turkey was working for peace, stability and order. Turkey did not take sides, act with its own interests at heart, or seek a role. Turkey’s work for peace demonstrated its importance for the European Union, and Turkish accession was vital to the European Union. The issue of Turkish membership should not be used in domestic politics or elections. Turkey could take the initiative in geographic regions such as the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East and North Africa.

Turkey was overcoming the effects of the financial crisis, with 8.9 % growth in 2010, and was now the fastest growing country in Europe. It had the 17th largest economy in the world and the sixth largest economy in Europe, with a GDP of $736 billion. Although not obliged to, Turkey had met two of the four Maastricht criteria, on the budget deficit and on debt burden. This was better than most European countries. To prevent Turkey’s accession to the European Union for populist or artificial reasons was foolish. Turkey needed the European Union and the European Union needed Turkey. Some saw the Turkish situation differently and were against accession for political reasons. This was an injustice to Turkey, to European Union values and to all European citizens. The example of the customs union had proved Turkey’s worth to the European Union. Turkey expected that the membership issue would be dealt with fairly.

Since the end of 2002, Turkey had achieved historic reforms, especially in the area of democratisation. The government had focused on combating corruption and poverty, and was continuing this successful work. The government had also worked to lift restrictions on freedom. Freedoms had been strengthened in the last decade, and many issues were now discussed freely that could not have been discussed a decade ago. There was zero tolerance of torture, and barriers to freedom of expression had been removed. Some had alleged that there were restrictions on freedom of expression, but this was wrong. In the past, the media and the press had taken instructions from criminal gangs and the mafia, but now the press was free, and freely criticised anyone and everyone. Disputes were also resolved openly. Some believed that restrictions on the press were the cause of arrests. In Europe, there were no journalists or newspapers which encouraged a coup d’état. In Turkey, 26 journalists had been detained or arrested, but not because of their journalistic activities. He had had a meeting on this issue with the Secretary General, and an envoy would be sent to Turkey to see the realities on the ground and that these people were involved with organised crime. This should lead to more objective information being made available.

The deep-rooted changes that had been occurring around us gave us great responsibility. We should be on the side of democracy, human rights and the rule of law and against conflict, oppression of violence, and injustice. The Council of Europe and the international community should stand together on these principles.