8. Recalls that Qatar is just the start of a long process of negotiation and review; underlines that the
final result must reflect a balance between the interests of all WTO Members; hopes therefore that signifi-cant progress will be made on the items to be negotiated in the second stage,after the next WTO Minis-terial;
9. Calls again for greater openness and transparency and insists that these aspects form an important
part of negotiations on the reform of the disputes settlement procedure; considers that the next few yearsare crucial for obtaining support from Member States of the EU and the WTO for a parliamentary dimen-sion to the WTO; welcomes the agreement reached among Parliamentarians meeting in Doha on 11 Nov-ember 2001 to set up a steering group to prepare options for the establishment of such a body,forsubmission to the Parliamentary Conference during the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference; underlines its
important role as the initiator of this project;
10. Looks forward to continuing cooperation with the Commission,insists on continued,comprehen-
sive briefings,makes clear its intention to follow closely the negotiations and reserves its right to makerecommendations;
11. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission,the Council and the Director-
General of the WTO.
15.ConflictPrevention
A5-0394/2001
European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication on Conflict Prevention
(COM(2001)211RdashC5-0458/2001Rdash2001/2182(COS))
The European Parliament,
Ldash having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2001) 211 Ldash C5-0458/2001),Ldash having regard to its recommendation of 10 February 1999 on the establishment of a European Civil
Peace Corps (
1),
Ldash having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2000 on the establishment of a common European security
and defence policy with a view to the European Council in Feira (2),
Ldash having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2000 on the establishment of a common European
security and defence policy after Cologne and Helsinki (3),
Ldash having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2001 on developing the Union’s capabilities in conflict
prevention and civil crisis management (4),
Ldash having regard to its position of 17 January 2001 on the proposal for a Council regulation creating the
Rapid Reaction Facility (COM(2000) 119 Ldash C5-0272/2000 Ldash 2000/0081(CNS) (5),
Ldash having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Göteborg European Council which endorsed the
European Union Programme for the prevention of violent conflicts as well as the EU-UN cooperationin the field of conflict prevention and crisis management,
Ldash having regard to the Council Decision of 22 May 2000 setting up a committee for civilian aspects of
crisis management (
6),and to the development of concrete targets for civilian crisis management in the
fields of police,rule of law,civilian administration and civil protection during the Swedish Presidency;
(1) OJ C 150,28.5.1999,p. 164.
(2) OJ C 67,1.3.2001,p. 283.
(3) OJ C 228,13.8.2001,p. 173.
(4) OJ C 343,5.12.2001,p. 261.
(5) OJ C 262,18.9.2001,p. 141.
(6) OJ L 127,27.5.2000,p. 1.25.7.2002 EN C 177 E/291 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday13December2001
Ldash having regard to the Council Decisions of 22 January 2001 setting up the Political and Security Com-
mittee (1),the Military Committee of the European Union (2) and on the establishment of the Military
Staff of the European Union (3),thus setting up the permanent bodies of the CESDP,in particular the
Political and Security Committee (PSC),which will play a central role in the definition of and follow-up to the EU’s response to crises,
Ldash having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 381/2001 of 26 February 2001 creating a rapid-reaction
mechanism (
4),
Ldash having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
Ldash 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 Development and Cooperation (A5-0394/2001),
A. whereas the most important elements of the European Parliament’s views on conflict prevention have
already been expressed in several official positions,most of them still being valid,
B. whereas the scale of any possible conflict in the modern world underlines the necessity to maintain
both a parallel global and European approach simultaneously,
C. whereas there is no reference in the Commission communication to the conflicting impact that several
common policies of the European Union could have on the origin and development of local conflicts
in some areas,
D. whereas the European Parliament’s proposal,submitted to the 1996 IGC,to establish a European Civil
Peace Corps has not yet merited any comment from the Commission or Council,despite being exam-ined at the abovementioned 1996 IGC,and supported by some countries,
E. whereas sole reliance on the traditional resources associated with political,diplomatic or military
strategies is inadequate for conflict prevention and there is a need for a comprehensive peace-buildingapproach,involving humanitarian aid,development cooperation,trade and foreign and securitypolicies,restoration and maintenance of the internal legal order,the creation or re-creation of admin-istrative structures,inter-ethnic dialogue and other approaches to conflict settlement,
F. whereas security and solidarity are increasingly two sides of the same coin in today’s world and a
massive programme promoted by the international community for poverty eradication must,for this
reason,also be a priority for the EU,
G. whereas it is essential to highlight as potential causes of conflicts,among others,ethnic,religious,
ideological and economic tensions,any form of terrorism,organised crime and drug trafficking,thefight for the control of trade in raw materials,particularly of diamonds,lack of democracy as well asenvironmental degradation and water issues,
H. whereas in a post-violence period such interventions need to contribute to rehabilitation and recon-
ciliation,involving as much as possible all members of the civil society,anticipating conflict or solvingit with non-military instruments,such as civilian crisis management and also post-conflict action,
I. whereas interventions to prevent conflicts need to be coordinated at international level,related to the
needs of the population in the conflict area,compatible with civil society and other actors in the field,
non-violent and distinct from enforcement actions,flexible and practical,and capable of counteracting
violent escalations at an early and timely stage,
(1) OJ L 27,30.1.2001,p. 1.
(2) OJ L 27,30.1.2001,p. 4.
(3) OJ L 27,30.1.2001,p. 7.
(4) OJ L 57,27.2.2001,p. 5.C 177 E/292 EN 25.7.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday13December2001
J. whereas the need for an enhanced relationship and institutional coordination in this area is greater
than ever,with regard to both the system of the United Nations and the regional level,with particularreference to the activities and bodies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe,
K. whereas it is necessary to avoid any possible duplication between the Commission and Council to
ensure that the Union’s approach to conflict prevention is effective,
L. whereas the European Union has a number of options available to it under its code of conduct on
arms exports and its programmes on halting the transfer of small arms with a view to banning theflow of arms to conflict zones; recalling in this connection its resolution of 15 March 2001 on the UNConference on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects (
1),which has since taken
place,and in particular its call for the development of a binding code of conduct including the pro-hibition of arms transfers to government and non-state perpetrators that systematically violate humanrights or international humanitarian law,
M. whereas the UN Charter is the ultimate international legal and political basis for guaranteeing inter-
national security and for the security policy of the European Union and its Member States,and hasuniversal validity,
1. Welcomes the recent Commission communication on conflict prevention,as a substantial step for-
ward identifying ways in which EU policy can be made more coherent and informed by conflict preven-
tion objectives;
2. Considers,nevertheless,that the Communication does not adequately address the rigidities of the
current pillar system for conflict prevention,the need for strengthened interinstitutional cooperation andto overcome fragmented pillar policies,the difficulties of securing the cooperation of Member States,thedifference in timing of civilian and military programmes,the need for significant internal capacity-building,and the lack of real strategic and operational coordination with NGOs and other actors in civil society,toname but a few obstacles;
3. Welcomes the Commission’s plans to work closely with the Council to identify and monitor potential
conflict zones,encourages both parties to make use of the information gathered by third parties,such asspecialised NGOs and the academic community;
4. Urges the Commission to evaluate systematically the impact of EU actions targeted to prevent con-
flict in specific regions of tension; or if the Commission makes any use of the wide range of such analytical
studies produced by third parties;
5. Calls for the two-pillar structure and the resulting inconsistency of European foreign policy to be
fundamentally called into question in the Laeken Declaration and the subsequent Convention;
6. Stresses that both long and short-term conflict prevention requires stronger commitment and politi-
cal direction on the part of the Member States,as the Community instruments alone are not enough toresolve all possible sources of conflict,and also requires stronger Commission delegations to ensure thatconflict prevention is mainstreamed in EU programmes; considers that the EU’s external policy budgetneeds to be raised in order to give the Union an opportunity to realise its ambitions;
EU Programme for the prevention of violent conflicts
7. Welcomes the programme for the prevention of violent conflicts decided by the Göteborg European
Council on 15/16 June 2001; welcomes in particular the concept of a ‘culture of prevention’ as expressedin that programme;
(1) OJ C 343,5.12.2001,p. 311.25.7.2002 EN C 177 E/293 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday13December2001
8. Invites the future Presidencies,the Commission and the Secretary-General/High Representative to pay
greater attention to the proposals submitted by the European Parliament,including the proposal calling forthe establishment of a European Civil Peace Corps,and to guarantee that resources are set aside for thisPeace Corps;
9. Underlines the need to raise awareness of conflict prevention and to provide appropriate training to
Commission staff at headquarters and in the delegations to enable them to overcome obstacles to themainstreaming of conflict prevention;
10. Welcomes the new Council common position of 14 May 2001 concerning conflict prevention,
management,and resolution in Africa (
1),and recommends a similar approach for each geographical
zone where a risk of conflict is apparent;
11. Invites Members States to strictly abide to the code of conduct on arms exports and to work in
order to give this code a binding value as soon as possible;
Conflicting impact of the common policies of the EU /dash the need for conflict prevention assessment
12. Considers it necessary to ensure that decisions linked to the common policies of the European
Union do not have an undesirable and even harmful impact on local conflicts by distorting or evenannihilating the market as well as the economic,social and ecological structure of non-member countries;
13. Believes,therefore,that greater consideration be given to the proposal to make the concept of
conflict prevention a horizontal issue in all common policies of the European Union (environment,trade,
agriculture,energy,etc.) in order to mainstream conflict prevention,and to the proposal of more closelyintegrating conflict indicators and the objectives of Conflict Prevention into the programming of Commun-ity external aid programmes;
14. Proposes that the harmful influence which certain private and public undertakings have in unstable
regions should be acknowledged by creating a legally binding framework with sanctions for companieswhich contribute to conflicts;
15. Proposes to carry out a ‘Conflict Prevention Assessment’ when examining major decisions concern-
ing the common policies of the Union as well as when launching any type of programme in non-membercountries,in order to establish the eventual impact that these decisions or programmes could have from a
conflict prevention perspective;
16. Stresses the importance of integrating political analysis and conflict prevention objectives in the
Country Strategy Papers;
17. Reiterates,as an additional contribution to local conflicts prevention,its resolution of 15 March
2001 on EU election assistance and observation in non-member countries (
2) and,in particular,the atten-
tion paid to the need to complete EU’s involvement in the country concerned by providing long-termsustainable support of the democracy process;
18. Is of the opinion that the EU needs an appropriate structure,which should consists of a ‘non-
military rapid reaction unit’,to select technicians and economists who have received specific training tobe used in all relevant sectors,ranging from prevention activities to technical operations,and also a well-trained police force;
Establishing a European Civil Peace Corps
19. Regrets that none of the recent communications from the Commission,the Council or the Euro-
pean Council have given any kind of follow-up to the proposal submitted by this Parliament in its resol-ution of 17 May 1995 on the functions of the Treaty on European Union with a view to the 1996 IGC LdashImplementation and development of the Union (
3),and in its Recommendation to the Council of 10 Feb-
ruary 1999,on the establishment of a European Civil Peace Corps;
(1) OJ L 132,15.5.2001,p. 3.
(2) OJ C 343,5.12.2001,p. 270.
(3) OJ C 151,19.6.1995,p. 56.C 177 E/294 EN 25.7.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday13December2001
20. Reiterates the necessity of establishing,in the framework of the Commission’s rapid reaction mech-
anism,such a European Civil Peace Corps,whose task would be to coordinate at a European level thetraining and deployment of civilian specialists to carry out practical peace-making measures such as arbi-tration,mediation,distribution of non-partisan information,de-traumatization,and confidence-buildingbetween the warring parties,humanitarian aid,reintegration,rehabilitation,reconstruction,education,and monitoring and improving the human rights situation,including human rights accompanimentmeasures;
21. Proposes that full attention be paid to the training of monitors,mediators and specialists in conflict
transformation; underlines in particular the need to continue to set up databases to mobilise when neededprofessional individuals and groups at any stage of a crisis; in this light calls on the Commission and theMember States to approach the Canadian Government which has set an excellent example with ‘Canadem’;
22. Urges,in this regard,the Council and the Commission to make the most of the expertise in the EU
bodies; calls on the Council to make a full and critical evaluation of the work of the European Union
Monitoring Mission (EUMM) outlining the future perspectives,the possibilities of a flexible and effectivecommon action of EU-observers with those from other international organisations,in particular those ofthe OSCE,the shortcomings and the possible new tasks in relation to the establishment of a European CivilPeace Corps; calls on the Council to report this evaluation to Parliament;
23. Outlines that the ECPC’s tasks would be exclusively civilian in nature and devoted to preventing
crisis situations from escalating into violence,by making full use of the resources of civil society;
24. Underlines the need,in this perspective,for NGO’s specialised in conflict prevention and crisis-
management,both international and region-based,to be allowed to make their own social and scientificcontributions to conflict prevention where these are necessary and desirable,with the support of theCommission;
Enhanced relations with the United Nations and the OSCE
25. Recommends strengthening the operational links between the different institutions and organs who
play a role in Conflict Prevention within the EU institutional framework with the OSCE REACT mech-anism,the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities,the Office for Democratic Institutions andHuman Rights,the OSCE Representative of Media Freedom,as well as the OSCE Conflict PreventionCentre;
26. Welcomes the General Affairs Council conclusions on EU/UN cooperation in conflict prevention
and crises management presented to the Göteborg European Council and strongly recommends a similarapproach in order to establish the modalities of enhanced cooperation between the European Union andthe OSCE in the same areas;
27. Recommends strengthening the operational links between the different institutions and organs who
play a role in conflict prevention within the EU institutional framework with the OSCE REACT mech-anism,the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities,the Office for Democratic Institutions andHuman Rights,the OSCE Representative of Media Freedom,and the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre;
Other initiatives
28. Suggests that extensive use of the knowledge and expertise available from the academic Conflict
Prevention Network (CPN) continue to be made; recalls that the CPN was proposed by the EuropeanParliament and has been built up over the past five years; considers,in line with the original idea,thatthe Network should assist not only the Commission but also the Parliament and the Council by providinga coherent,inter-institutional approach to an ambitious and successful conflict prevention policy; under-lines,therefore,that the Network should extend its future activities by also assisting with the best imple-mentation of preventive policies and the monitoring of their outcomes;25.7.2002 EN C 177 E/295 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday13December2001
29. Reiterates that the proliferation of light weapons and small arms is a major force for instability in
all crisis regions and therefore asks the EU to continue to call for an effective control of arms exports,including licensed production,industrial cooperation agreements and arms brokering; reiterates,to thisend,the need to make legally binding the European Union code of conduct on arms exports;
30. Requests that more attention and resources should be devoted to education as a key instrument for
conflict prevention and to this end calls upon the Commission to contribute to the activities of the UNDecade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence by promoting the inclusion of peace-building and trainingin non-violence,mutual respect and non-hatred into the educational curricula throughout the world; andin particular in specific conflict areas such as the Balkans,the Middle East and the Great Lakes;
31. In this perspective,stresses that the empowerment of women should be encouraged as much as
possible;
*
**
32. Requests its President to forward this resolution to the Council,the Commission,the governments
of the Member States,as well as to the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and the OSCE
16.EUrelationswiththeIslamicRepublicofIran
A5-0418/2001
European Parliament resolution on the communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council on EU relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran (COM(2001)71 Rdash
C5-0338/2001Rdash2001/2138(COS))
The European Parliament,
Ldash having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2001) 71 Ldash C5-0338/2001),Ldash having regard to Resolution 2001/17 of 20 April 2001 of the UN Human Rights Commission on the
human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Ldash having regard to the final report of 12 November 2001,as well as the interim report of 10 August
2001 (A/56/278) and the report of 16 January 2001 (E/CN.4/2001/39) of the Special Envoy of theUN Committee on Human Rights for Iran,Maurice Copithorne,on the human rights situation in theIslamic Republic of Iran,
Ldash having regard to its previous resolutions of 18 May 2000 in Iran (
1),13 April 2000 on the prisoners
facing trial in Iran on charges of espionage on behalf of Israel and the United States (2),and 16 Sept-
ember 1999 on the situation of the prisoners accused of spying in Iran (3),
Ldash having regard to the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
tabled by the Member States and others for the 56th UN General Assembly on 20 November 2001(A/C.3/56/L.50),
Ldash having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2001 on human rights in the world in 2000 and the Euro-
pean Union Human Rights Policy (
4),
(1) OJ C 59,23.2.2001,p. 282.
(2) OJ C 40,7.2.2001,p. 421.
(3) OJ C 54,25.2.2000,p. 112.
(4) ‘Texts Adopted’,Item 13.C 177 E/296 EN 25.7.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday13December2001