Sdash having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,
Sdash having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinions
of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on Development andCooperation (A5-0443/2001),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250, paragraph 2 of
the EC Treaty;
3. Should the Council intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament, calls on the Council to
notify Parliament;
4. Calls for the conciliation procedure to be initiated should the Council intend to depart from the text
approved by Parliament;
5. Asks to be consulted again should the Council intend to make substantial modifications to the Com-
mission proposal;
6. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.
6. EAEC/KEDO agreement (procedure without debate)
A5-0448/2001
European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication on the proposal for a Council
decision approving the conclusion by the Commission of an agreement between the EuropeanAtomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organi-
sation (KEDO) (SEC(2001)1349 Tdash C5-0596/2001- 2001/2252(COS))
The European Parliament,
Sdash having regard to the Commission communication (SEC(2001) 1349 Sdash C5-0596/2001),Sdash having regard to the Euratom Treaty, in particular Article 101(2) thereof,Sdash having regard to its resolution of 23 March 1999 on the Agreement on terms and conditions of the
Accession of the European Atomic Energy Community to the Korean Peninsula Energy DevelopmentOrganisation (KEDO) (
1),
Sdash having regard to the resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in
Vienna (2), calling for permission to carry out nuclear inspections in the DPRK,
Sdash having regard to the report of its second ad hoc delegation which visited the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (DPRK) Sdash and the KEDO site at Kumho Sdash in October-November 2000 (3) and to
its resolutions of 17 January 2001 and 31 May 2001 respectively on relations between the EuropeanUnion and the DPRK following on from the above visit (
4), and on the outcome of the Council and
Commission mission to Korea (5),
(1) OJ C 177, 22.6.1999, p. 47.
(2) Resolution GC(44) RES/26, September 2000.
(3) Report of the EP ad hoc delegation to the DPRK from 31.10.2000 to 4.11.2000 (document available in English
only).
(4) OJ C 262,18.9.2001, p. 169.
(5) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 9.C 177 E/136 EN 25.7.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 12 December 2001
Sdash having regard to the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 20 November 2000 on European
Union Lines of Action Towards North Korea (1), and to the Göteborg Statement resulting from the EU-
US Summit of 14 June 2001 (2),
Sdash having regard to the visit to Pyongyang of the EU troika in May 2001 and to the high-level EU visit in
late October 2001,
Sdash having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
Sdash having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security
and Defence Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and
Energy (A5-0448/2001),
A. whereas the European Union recognised KEDO as a major industrial project constituting a vital con-
tribution to nuclear non-proliferation and peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and, followingnegotiations with the founder members, signed an agreement of accession to KEDO, which enteredinto force on 19 September 1997,
B. whereas Community participation in KEDO was the subject of Joint Action (agreed within the CFSP
Framework in March 1996), and a Common Position (July 1997) whereby the Commission representsthe Community as the KEDO Executive Board Member but for matters falling outside Euratom com-petence the position in KEDO is expressed by the Presidency,
C. whereas the Accession Agreement is based on Article 101(2) of the Euratom Treaty, which does not
provide for consultation of the European Parliament; and whereas Parliament’s repeated calls for theEuratom Treaty to be revised to provide for parliamentary consultation have been ignored,
D. whereas the original Accession Agreement was concluded without the European Parliament having
delivered an opinion thereon,
E. whereas the Accession Agreement which expired on 31 December 2000 provided for an annual EU
financial contribution of € 15 million, a seat on the Executive Board, staff positions in the KEDOsecretariat in New York, and access for EU companies to certain contracts for the construction ofthe two light water reactors (LWRs) on a transparent and equitable basis,
F. whereas the Commission made a recommendation to Council on 2 February 2000 that negotiations
be undertaken for the renewal of the Accession Agreement for a further five years under enhancedterms,
G. whereas a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ has covered the interim period between the expiry of the Agree-
ment and its renewal; whereas, however, no financial transfers have been made in 2001,
H. whereas the Community has indicated its intention to contribute to KEDO € 20 million annually for
the five years 2001-2005 inclusive,
I. recalling the fact that an important element in the policy of the EU on the Korean peninsula is the
political dialogue with the DPRK which started in 1998 and in which the EP has played an importantrole, and that since July 1999 the EU has followed an approach of constructive engagement in itsrelations with the DPRK,
J. recognising that KEDO is but one element of EU-DPRK cooperation, albeit a very important one, as it
is a cornerstone of tension reduction in the region,
K. stressing that human rights in the DPRK continue to be an area of major concern to the EU and that it
will need to see evidence of improvements,
(1) 2308th Council meeting Sdash 13430/00 (Press release 435).
(2) 14 June 2001 Sdash 9934/01 (Press Release 245).25.7.2002 EN C 177 E/137 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 12 December 2001
L. recalling that the European Parliament had pointed out that formal normalisation of EU-DPRK
relations would depend on effective progress made by the DPRK, in particular concerning UN pactsand protocols,
M. aware that the DRPK’s energy infrastructure has virtually disintegrated,
N. aware, too, that the DPRK’s economic decline during the 1990s has been both a result and a cause of
substantial changes in energy demand and supply in the country,
O. whereas recalling the fact that KEDO provides for the supply of two LWRs and interim Heavy Fuel Oil
(HFO) supplies until they come on line, in exchange for a freeze on the DPRK nuclear programme,
P. regretting the ongoing difficulties which have dogged the timely implementation of the KEDO project,
putting the completion date in doubt,
Q. drawing attention, at the same time, to the DPRK’s contribution to these delays and to the imperative
need for the country to act responsibly with regard to nuclear and ballistic non-proliferation and toadhere to other non-proliferation arrangements,
1. Continues to strongly support the inter-Korean reconciliation process and President Kim Dae Jung’s
role and search for peace and stability in the region; considers that KEDO still remains the major coop-eration project between the ROK and the DPRK;
2. Restates its view that the EU should play a role in reducing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation,
in increasing nuclear safety and in encouraging better relations between the DPRK and its neighbours, and
that continued membership of KEDO will enable it better to play that role;
3. Acknowledging the fact that the Agreed Framework negotiated between the US and the DPRK, and
the establishment of KEDO, which was set up to implement the framework’s main aspects, is the under-pinning of current US-DPRK relations;
4. Points out that, while the EU’s intended future contribution to KEDO is less than those of the Repub-
lic of Korea and Japan, it will nonetheless enable KEDO to complete its reactor project in the longer termand to carry out its HFO deliveries in the shorter term;
5. Draws attention to the fact that the EU, in addition to its past KEDO contributions, has contributed
humanitarian and food aid in the order of over € 200 million over the past four years, provides technicalassistance in the non-nuclear and agriculture sectors, and has engaged in political dialogue with the DPRKto the extent that it has announced its intent to open full diplomatic relations with the DPRK;
6. Reiterates its demand of May 2001 that the European Union also provide support for the devel-
opment of non-nuclear energy in the Korean peninsula;
7. Stresses, therefore, the importance of the EU’s continuing involvement in KEDO as a concrete mani-
festation of its willingness to maintain this dialogue, and its recognition of the DPRK’s desperate energyneeds;
8. Deplores the interruption in dialogue between the DPRK and the United States and stresses the
importance attached by the European Union to a recommencing and deepening of the dialogue betweenthe DPRK and the Republic of Korea;
9. Stresses the fact that collaboration between the DPRK and the European Union and its KEDO part-
ners would be greatly facilitated by progress in the ongoing dialogue on human rights;C 177 E/138 EN 25.7.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 12 December 2001
10. Is aware of the arguments which have been raised against the KEDO project but, having considered
these and the options very carefully, believes there is no realistic alternative to the LWRs for energyproduction at this point;
11. Is seriously concerned, however, about the absence of an adequate grid system in the DPRK and its
implications for the utilisation of the LWRs; is aware that without an extensive modification of the existinggrid and a connection to another system Sdash whether the ROK, China or Russia Sdash the LWRs cannot beused; while aware that under the 1995 KEDO-DPRK reactor supply contract, KEDO is not required to helpthe North to upgrade its grid, asks the Commission to ascertain from KEDO what realistic arrangementsare foreseen for this vital, complementary element to the LWRs;
12. Welcomes the fact that the EU sought Sdash and obtained Sdash favourable terms for the renewal of the
Accession Agreement;
13. Recommends, in the light of the above considerations, that the Commission take the necessary steps
to conclude the renewal of the Accession Agreement;
14. Deplores, however, the continuing failure of the Commission to respect the undertaking given in a
well-documented (
1) exchange of letters providing for Parliament to express its opinion on all significant
agreements based on the Euratom Treaty before their conclusion; is aware that the EP has on occasionblocked funding for KEDO pending the receipt of information requested from the Commission;
15. Is reluctant, however, to sacrifice the renewal of the EU’s involvement in this instrument for EU-
DPRK cooperation to a principle which, though very important, has not yet been formalised;
16. Stresses, however, that it will continue to push for an appropriate Inter-Institutional Agreement
(IIA) and that it reserves the right to block transfer of funds to KEDO at any point in the future;
17. Stresses, in conclusion, that the DPRK will have to show evidence of good faith as the KEDO
project progresses, in particular when the final IAEA verification is due, just before the reactors are dueto be delivered;
18. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the governments
of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the United States of America, Japanand the KEDO Executive Board.
(1) Annex to the abovementioned resolution of 23.3.1999.
7. Precautionary principle and multiannual arrangements for setting TACs
(procedure without debate)
A5-0407/2001
European Parliament resolution on the communication from the Commission on application of the
precautionary principle and multiannual arrangements for setting TACs (COM(2000)803 Tdash
C5-0106/2001 Tdash 2001/2055(COS))
The European Parliament,
Sdash having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2000) 803 Sdash C5-0106/2001),Sdash having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,Sdash having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A5-0407/2001),25.7.2002 EN C 177 E/139 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 12 December 2001