# CE2004088EN.01067201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/672 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/672

---

(2004/C 88 E/0691)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4084/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement in signing cooperation agreements

Subject:

In answer to my Written Question E-0520/03 (1) of 24 February 2003 on respect for women's rights in Pakistan, the Council informed me that, to date, no agreement with a third country containing a human rights ‘essential element’ clause had been suspended.

1

In a number of cases where the essential elements of an agreement had been violated, the EU had suspended certain provisions of the agreement. This was the case for the financial provisions under the Cotonou Agreement with regard to Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d'Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti (2000) and Liberia (2001). In my Written Question E-2903/03 (2) to the Commission of 1 October 2003, I asked what infringements of essential elements of the agreement had taken place to bring about these suspensions. The Commission's reply of 25 November 2003 is unsatisfactory as it does not answer my specific question.

2

The same is true of the question about Croatia (1995), Pakistan (1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995), where the signature of the cooperation agreements was postponed because of concern about human rights. What specific infringements of human rights were involved? Were these infringements instances of violence against women? What were they?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

(19 February 2004)

The Commission refers to its responses to written questions E-2903/03 by Mrs Smet and E-3343/03 by Mr Camre (3), and to the response of the Council to written question E-0520/03 by Mrs Smet.

3

The Commission Communication on the inclusion of respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights in Agreements between the Community and Third Countries (4) of 1995 makes clear that there are a range of measures which could be considered in the event of a breach of the clause, with the proviso that the application of measures should respect ‘the principle of proportionality between the breach cited and the degree of reaction’ (5).

4

5

The EU has never fully suspended a cooperation agreement. The decision to invoke the ‘essential elements’ clause is taken by the Council of the European Union. It should also be noted that the ‘essential elements’ clause has never been invoked specifically because of violence against women but rather as a result of a more general deterioration in the human rights situation in a given country.

In response to the specific queries of the Honourable Member on the partial suspension or postponement of signature of cooperation agreements, the Commission is in a position to provide the following information:

| — | Zimbabwe:
  Prior to undertaking Consultations pursuant to Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, the Council Common Position noted its ‘serious concern’ about the situation in Zimbabwe ‘in particular the recent escalation of violence and intimidation of political opponents and the harassment of independent press’ and also ‘about recent legislation in Zimbabwe which if enforced would seriously infringe on the right to freedom of speech, assembly and association (6)’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Zimbabwe:

Prior to undertaking Consultations pursuant to Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, the Council Common Position noted its ‘serious concern’ about the situation in Zimbabwe ‘in particular the recent escalation of violence and intimidation of political opponents and the harassment of independent press’ and also ‘about recent legislation in Zimbabwe which if enforced would seriously infringe on the right to freedom of speech, assembly and association (6)’.

6

| — | Ivory Coast:
  The Council Decision noted that consultations were to be concluded due to ‘the lack of openness of the presidential and legislative elections held respectively in October and December 2000, and by acts of violence carried out against civilians throughout the period of democratic transition. In addition, the Ivorian authorities have failed to fulfil the undertakings they gave as part of the consultations, held under Article 366a of the Lomé Convention' (7). |
| --- | --- |

—

Ivory Coast:

The Council Decision noted that consultations were to be concluded due to ‘the lack of openness of the presidential and legislative elections held respectively in October and December 2000, and by acts of violence carried out against civilians throughout the period of democratic transition. In addition, the Ivorian authorities have failed to fulfil the undertakings they gave as part of the consultations, held under Article 366a of the Lomé Convention' (7).

7

| — | Fiji:
  Following a coup d'état in May 2000, the EU suspended all investment projects under the European Development Fund (EDF) programmes until free and fair elections were held and a legitimate government had assumed office. The Council decision noted that “Democratic government has yet to be fully restored in Fiji” (8). |
| --- | --- |

—

Fiji:

Following a coup d'état in May 2000, the EU suspended all investment projects under the European Development Fund (EDF) programmes until free and fair elections were held and a legitimate government had assumed office. The Council decision noted that “Democratic government has yet to be fully restored in Fiji” (8).

8

| — | Haiti:
  The EU suspended its development cooperation in Haiti in 2001 due to various irregularities and instances of fraud arising during the general elections of 2000. The Council decision noted that “Democratic principles are still not upheld in Haiti”. |
| --- | --- |

—

Haiti:

The EU suspended its development cooperation in Haiti in 2001 due to various irregularities and instances of fraud arising during the general elections of 2000. The Council decision noted that “Democratic principles are still not upheld in Haiti”.

| — | Liberia:
  The basis of EU action taken is to be found in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1343(2001) concerning the involvement of Liberia in the conflict in Sierra Leone. The UNSC Resolution proposed that a number of sanctions would be imposed on Liberia if it continued its support to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone and other armed rebel groups in the region. The EU weapons embargo was necessary to follow up the UNSC Resolution on the prohibition of the provision of services in respect of arms and other military equipment and military activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

Liberia:

The basis of EU action taken is to be found in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1343(2001) concerning the involvement of Liberia in the conflict in Sierra Leone. The UNSC Resolution proposed that a number of sanctions would be imposed on Liberia if it continued its support to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone and other armed rebel groups in the region. The EU weapons embargo was necessary to follow up the UNSC Resolution on the prohibition of the provision of services in respect of arms and other military equipment and military activities.

| — | Comoros:
  Further to the condemnation of the coup of 30 April 1999 in the Islamic Republic of the Comoros, the EU decided to hold consultations pursuant to Article 366a of the Lomé Convention with the Comorian military Government. |
| --- | --- |

—

Comoros:

Further to the condemnation of the coup of 30 April 1999 in the Islamic Republic of the Comoros, the EU decided to hold consultations pursuant to Article 366a of the Lomé Convention with the Comorian military Government.

| — | Russia:
  The process of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) ratification was complicated by a number of circumstances, even temporarily suspended by the EU due to Russian forces’ military hostilities in Chechnya. With the start of peaceful negotiations in the Chechen Republic, the ratification process resumed. The Agreement came into force on 1 December 1997. Following the launch of the second Chechnya conflict in 1999 and the decision taken by the European Council in December 1999, the Commission suspended the normal Tacis programme of technical assistance, instead putting in place a specific programme in 2000 to support civil society, democracy and the respect of human rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

Russia:

The process of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) ratification was complicated by a number of circumstances, even temporarily suspended by the EU due to Russian forces’ military hostilities in Chechnya. With the start of peaceful negotiations in the Chechen Republic, the ratification process resumed. The Agreement came into force on 1 December 1997. Following the launch of the second Chechnya conflict in 1999 and the decision taken by the European Council in December 1999, the Commission suspended the normal Tacis programme of technical assistance, instead putting in place a specific programme in 2000 to support civil society, democracy and the respect of human rights.

| — | Croatia:
  The Community recognised Croatia in January 1992. However, recognition did not immediately lead to economic aid or the establishment of contractual relations because of the war and the country's failure to meet the requirements of democracy. Thus the decision to start negotiations on a Cooperation Agreement and to extend the PHARE programme was suspended until Croatia demonstrated a commitment to respect for democratic principles and human rights. Only in the year 2000, when the new Government clearly committed itself to these principles, did the EU decide to start negotiations on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and to provide Community assistance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Croatia:

The Community recognised Croatia in January 1992. However, recognition did not immediately lead to economic aid or the establishment of contractual relations because of the war and the country's failure to meet the requirements of democracy. Thus the decision to start negotiations on a Cooperation Agreement and to extend the PHARE programme was suspended until Croatia demonstrated a commitment to respect for democratic principles and human rights. Only in the year 2000, when the new Government clearly committed itself to these principles, did the EU decide to start negotiations on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and to provide Community assistance.

| — | Pakistan:
  Signature of the ‘Cooperation Agreement between the Community and Pakistan on Partnership and Development’ was postponed on four occasions, namely:






  — | The May 1998 nuclear tests; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Pakistan:

Signature of the ‘Cooperation Agreement between the Community and Pakistan on Partnership and Development’ was postponed on four occasions, namely:

—

The May 1998 nuclear tests;

| — | Human Rights concerns (particularly the arrest of the Pakistani journalist and editor of the Friday Times Najam Sethi, under the Nawaz Sharif government in 1999); |
| --- | --- |

—

Human Rights concerns (particularly the arrest of the Pakistani journalist and editor of the Friday Times Najam Sethi, under the Nawaz Sharif government in 1999);

| — | The Kargil conflict in spring/summer 1999; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Kargil conflict in spring/summer 1999;

| — | The military takeover on 12 October 1999. |
| --- | --- |

—

The military takeover on 12 October 1999.

Signature eventually took place in Islamabad on 24 November 2001 and was accompanied by a Joint Statement wherein Pakistan reiterated its firm commitment to return to democratic government in accordance with the roadmap announced by President Musharraf on 14 August 2001.

| — | Algeria:
  In 1998 the EU closely followed political developments in Algeria, and conveyed its concern about the situation in the country on several occasions. In particular, the EU condemned all acts of terrorism, and expressed support for the Government's efforts to consolidate democracy and protect its citizens from terrorism, while respecting national law and human rights. The signature of the Association Agreement between the EU and Algeria was not officially postponed at that time, however, events within Algeria slowed down the process leading to the conclusion of negotiations and signature of the Agreement in 2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Algeria:

In 1998 the EU closely followed political developments in Algeria, and conveyed its concern about the situation in the country on several occasions. In particular, the EU condemned all acts of terrorism, and expressed support for the Government's efforts to consolidate democracy and protect its citizens from terrorism, while respecting national law and human rights. The signature of the Association Agreement between the EU and Algeria was not officially postponed at that time, however, events within Algeria slowed down the process leading to the conclusion of negotiations and signature of the Agreement in 2002.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.

1

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 441.

2

(3)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 526.

3

(4)  COM(95) 216 final.

4

(5)  See annex 2 of the above-mentioned Communication for a list of measures that may be taken in the event of a serious human rights violations.

5

(6)  OJ L 46, 20.2.2003.

6

(7)  OJ L 183, 6.7.2001.

7

(8)  OJ L 120, 28.4.2001.

8

---