You are on page 1of 2

7.2.

2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 40/423

Thursday 13 April 2000

E. whereas Mr Birdal was released on 25 September 1999 on health grounds but the Turkish courts
decided on 30 March 2000 that he must serve the rest of his sentence in prison,

F. whereas the Turkish Criminal Code, and in particular Article 312 thereof limiting the freedom of
expression in Turkey, has also been used to convict Mr Necmettin Erbakan, a former Prime Minister,
and Mr Erdogan, a former mayor of Istanbul, as well as journalists, writers and political personalities,

G. noting that the day before Mr Birdal’s imprisonment, Prime Minister Ecevit assured visiting MEPs that
changes to the Criminal Code, including Article 312, were foreseen in the very near future,

1. Extremely disappointed by the re-imprisonment of Mr Birdal, not only out of sympathy with the man
himself, but also because of the lack of sustained goodwill that Turkey is thereby showing in its relations
with the EU, condemns his arrest and insists that the Turkish authorities release him immediately along
with all other political prisoners;

2. Considers this measure to be a clear sign that the Turkish authorities are far from understanding
what future EU membership means;

3. Emphasises and reiterates its commitment to the conclusions of the Helsinki Summit and to strict
application of the Copenhagen criteria on respect for human rights in the applicant countries;

4. Calls on the Turkish Government urgently to restore the momentum of reform and democratisation
that seemed to emerge just before Turkey was officially recognised as an EU candidate;

5. Calls on the government and political parties of Turkey to take advantage of the current constitu-
tional revision procedure in order to implement, in the spirit of the Helsinki agreements, urgent reforms
which would enable the Turkish State to guarantee the essential democratic rights of freedom of opinion
and free speech, in keeping with Turkey’s undertakings as a country applying for membership of the
European Union, and calls furthermore for reforms to make the Turkish judicial system truly independent;

6. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Turkish Gov-
ernment and the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

12. Human rights: Tibet

B5-0343, 0353, 0361, 0369, 0373 and 0377/2000

European Parliament resolution on Tibet

The European Parliament,

4 having regard to its earlier resolutions on the occupation of Tibet and the repression of its people by
the Chinese authorities,

A. whereas respect for human rights is a prominent priority of EU policies and one of the founding
principles of the Union,

B. whereas the Peking government is refusing to allow Mrs Mary Robinson, the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, to have access to Tibet,

C. pointing out that informal talks under way between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan religious
authorities have not led to an improvement in the human rights situation in Tibet, particularly free-
dom of expression,

D. having regard to His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s appeal to the international community to act for a
peaceful solution of the Tibetan problem,
C 40/424 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 7.2.2001

Thursday 13 April 2000

E. having regard to the conclusions on China issued by the Council during the General Affairs Council
meeting of 20 March 2000,

F. having regard to the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,

G. deeply concerned by the fact that the EU-China Human Rights dialogue has not produced enough
progress on the ground and reiterating the importance it attaches to the opportunity presented by
the EU-China Human Rights dialogue and Cooperation programme, which foresees joint work on
the promotion and respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in China,

H. deeply concerned by the fact that the Tibetan cultural and spiritual heritage is threatened with extinc-
tion, inter alia by a large-scale transfer of ethnic Chinese to Tibet and the continuing and widespread
restrictions on fundamental freedoms, notably freedom of assembly, expression, association and reli-
gion,

1. Condemns the ongoing discrimination of the Tibetan people by the People’s Republic of China on
religious, political, educational, language and cultural grounds;

2. Calls on the Chinese government to open the dialogue, without pre-conditions, on the future of
Tibet, with the Dalai Lama and on the basis of his five-point peace plan: (1) Transformation of the whole
of Tibet into a zone of peace; (2) Abandonment of China’s population-transfer policy; (3) Respect for the
Tibetan people’s fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms; (4) Restoration and protection of
Tibet’s natural environment; (5) Commencement of earnest negotiations on the future autonomous status
of Tibet;

3. Calls on the Commission and the Council to express publicly their concerns about the situation in
Tibet and in China and to raise them in meetings with China at all levels and expects the Council to
abandon its ‘no action’ approach to China, which is preventing the human rights situation in China from
being discussed;

4. Urges the Council to take the initiative, at the current session of the UN Human Rights Commission
in Geneva, on the adoption of a resolution expressing concern at the serious human rights violations
perpetrated in China, including the continual oppression of Tibet;

5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the government of
China, His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Parliament in exile of Tibet.

13. Human rights: Death penalty in the United States

B5-0341, 0354, 0359, 0370 and 0376/2000

European Parliament resolution on the abolition of the death penalty in the United States

The European Parliament,

4 having regard to its previous resolutions on the death penalty,

A. welcoming the worldwide trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,

B. welcoming the appeal to all the world’s governments by the Sant’Egidio Community for a moratorium
on the death penalty by the end of 2000,

C. dismayed that a date may soon be set for Juan Garza’s execution in the USA, the first execution of a
prisoner under US federal law since 1963,