WRITTEN QUESTION E-0969/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Haiti

Would the Commission outline the procedures that were followed before the imposition of EU sanctions against Haiti?

How has the Commission responded to the ACP's reaction to the measures taken with regard to Haiti?

Would the Commission agree that election procedures should not constitute the basis for a decision to withdraw development assistance?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Following the 21st May 2000 legislative elections and the subsequent report of the international observation mission (OAS) judging them flawed, the Union invited Haiti to consultations which were opened on 26 September. The Union considered that one of the essential elements of the article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement (respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law) had been violated.

The procedures followed were in full respect of the provisions of article 96. In the consultation meeting the Union expressed its concern at the situation and this was followed by a declaration of the Haitian minister of foreign affairs that did not address the Union concerns. Provisional conclusions were issued where the Union acknowledged the Haitian position but regretted the non taking into account of its remarks and preoccupation. The Union clearly stated that the essential elements of article 9 of the Cotonou agreement were not fulfilled. Haiti was expected to react and to bring new elements before the expiry of the two months period provided for article 96 consultations.

In the course of October and November 2000 and before the presidential elections, several démarches were conducted to the Haitian authorities to draw their attention to the possible consequences of their attitude. The Haitian authorities took no corrective measures.

At the end of the period and after the presidential elections of November 2000 (which were boycotted by the opposition parties and held in the absence of international observers because they were considered as not complying with democratic rules), the closure procedure was initiated that led to the adoption of the appropriate measures by the Council. Article 96 consultations aim at examining the situation in view to find a solution acceptable to both parties. But it clearly foresees that if no solution has been found appropriate measures can be taken.

The Commission did not react officially to the African, Caribbean and Pacific States' (ACP) secretariat press release. The Union undertook an explanation process through its Head of Mission in Haiti to explain its political position as well as the measures taken in terms of reorientation of the co-operation programmes.

Co-operation with Haiti continues; assistance is not withdrawn. The measures taken are to avoid penalising Haitian people; direct budget aid to the government has been suspended and existing funds ( 52 million) reoriented to projects of direct benefit to the population in the social sectors.

The basis for the decision taken by the Union was the non-respect of article 9 of the Cotonou agreement, in particular democratic principles; the calculation method used for the senatorial election implied the non-consideration of more than 1 million votes.

A reassessment of the political situation must be undertaken before the end of the year 2001 on the basis of which a new decision on the appropriate measures may be taken. The Commission hopes that the Haitian authorities will have taken by then corrective measures in order to restore democracy that would enable the Union to re-establish full co-operation.

In the case of Haiti, the basis of the decision was not only election procedures but a number of irregularities and the non respect of basic democratic principles during the legislative but also the presidential elections including fraud, intimidation, and a non representative Electoral Council.