WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe regime EU sanctions EU-Africa relations

The following facts have recently been reported: (1) the package of sanctions against the regime of Robert Mugabe and its leading officials, including restrictions on their movement within the EU, which was due to lapse on 18 February 2003, has been renewed for a further year; (2) this decision was taken on a basis compatible with France's interests as regards the holding of a Franco-African summit during which Mugabe himself would visit Paris; (3) the EU-Africa summit scheduled for Lisbon which had been postponed to April 2003 has now been deferred indefinitely, on the grounds that it is not possible to be sure that Mugabe would refrain from attending and that his presence, or, indeed, the very possibility of it, is considered absolutely undesirable.

The element of the sanctions restricting travel by high officials of the Mugabe regime has, as is well known, generated, over a whole year, recurrent hesitations, uncertainties and criticisms, notably where bilateral or multilateral relations under the EU's external policy have been at stake. The conflicts arising on these occasions have, in the opinion of many, served only to benefit Mugabe and his regime, allowing it to sabotage meetings, divide the European side and attract solidarity in Africa.

The terms of the decision to renew the sanctions may even be seen as showing that the Council is not treating Lisbon (Portugal) in the same way as it treats Paris (France), considering that what may be condoned for Paris cannot be accepted for Lisbon and thus raising doubts as regards the proper implementation of the principle of the equality of all Member States and the provisions on mutual loyalty and solidarity laid down in Article 11(2) of the EU Treaty.

What explanation can the Council provide for the differential treatment of Lisbon and Paris? How does it justify the fact that the terms of the decision have made it possible to hold a Franco-African summit which concerned France's individual interests, and not a summit of collective interest to the whole Union? In the wake of this experience, does the Council not believe that it would be preferable to decree a three- to six-month moratorium for this element of the sanctions, following which time a new sanctions package could be decided and applied should the Mugabe regime reject the idea of minimum standards?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council does not consider that Portugal and France have been treated differently in the questions raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian. France notified its intention to issue a visa to President Mugabe to attend the France-Africa Summit in accordance with the procedure set out in Common Position 2002/145/CFSP and Coreper on 14 February 2003 noted the absence of obstacles to this participation.

In the case of the Lisbon Summit, planned for 5 April 2003, it was concluded that in the present circumstances it would not be possible to achieve the broadest participation at the highest level in the Summit by both sides, which would affect the outcome. It would therefore be in the best interest of EU-Africa relations to postpone the Summit.

The Council has not debated the question of a moratorium for any element of the sanctions.