EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/621

(2004/C 84 E/0695)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0546/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Involvement of the EU in a development project in the Mexican federal state of Chiapas which is causing the resumption of an armed conflict

1. Is the Commission aware that, according to the Mexican newspaper ‘La Jornada’ of 3 February 2004, five non-governmental organisations in the south-eastern state of Chiapas consider the European Union to have been involved in an attack on the village of Nuevo San Rafael, controlled by the Zapatista movement and occupied by members of the Chol tribe, in the remote nature reserve of Montes Azules, which consists of primeval forest, on 19 or 22 January, in which attack 23 houses were set on fire, the occupants fled, the village was permanently cut off from the outside world by soldiers and the land is being returned to the former big land-owners to enable them to fell the primeval forest?

2. Does this attack mean that the cease-fire between the armed indigenous rebel movement EZLN and the government army is over?

3. Was this attack encouraged by the fact that the EU has concluded an agreement concerning a development project worth EUR 15 million with Governor Pablo Salazar, possibly in part in connection with Plan Puebla Panama, which comprises major infrastructure projects in Central America from Panama to nine poor federal states in Mexico, which require the indigenous Indian population to make way for newcomers and to enable the land to be put to new uses or at least compel that population to give up the autonomy which it in practice enjoys?

4. If the EU has unintentionally become involved in the events leading to this armed conflict, will the Commission take all requisite measures to eliminate all the reasons for fear on the part of the population and for a resumption of hostilities?

Sources:

— Indymedia Chiapas (http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/)

— http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=107209

— http://www.noticias.nl/globalisering_artikel.php?id=244)

— http://www.proceso.com.mx/noticia.html?nid=21506&cat=1

— http://www.globalinfo.nl/article/articleview/312/1/2/

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Mexico states in its first article that the: ‘Respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights, proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, underpins the domestic and external policies of both Parties and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement’. The Commission at all times ensures that its actions are consistent with this article.

The Commission recently signed a Financing Agreement with Mexico for the ‘Integrated and Sustainable Social Development Project in Chiapas, Mexico’. Implementation of this project has not yet begun, but is expected to start in the coming months. The Community contribution amounts to EUR 15 million, and Mexico will contribute EUR 16 million.

The beneficiaries of the Project will be 155 000 inhabitants of the 16 micro regions located around (not in) the protected areas of the Lacandona Forest. This population, which is mainly indigenous and rural, has one of the highest levels of poverty and marginalisation in Chiapas.

The project was designed with the input and participation of local stakeholders who will continue to participate in the planning and implementation process, in particular through the Micro-regional Councils (Consejos microregionales) who represent the local communities.

The project is not part of the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP). It has been reported that some local communities and governments in the South/Southeast of Mexico criticise the PPP as a top-down initiative with supposedly inadequate consultation of local stakeholders.

With regard to the specific questions that are asked:

1. The Commission is aware of the press reports in question, and considers any suggestion of EU involvement in any act of violence in Chiapas or elsewhere to be utterly without foundation.

2. It is not for the Commission to assess whether or not the ceasefire between the EZLN and the government is over. However, its impression is that it would be wrong, on the basis of the reports in question, to draw a general conclusion about the status of the ceasefire.

3. No. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the reported attack was encouraged by the signing of the financing agreement for this project.