WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2319/97 by Leonie van BLADEL to the Council. Fighting international crime and guarding the European external borders against the transit of cocaine via the Netherlands by the Surinamese drugs cartel
Date: 1997-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN BLADEL
Subjects: Netherlands, Surinam, drug traffic, organised crime

3. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 102/21

(98/C 102/31)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/97

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(18 July 1997)

Subject: Fighting international crime and guarding the European external borders against the transit of cocaine

via the Netherlands by the Surinamese drugs cartel

1.
Does the Netherlands Presidency of the Council realize that the suspension of the Hague Public Prosecutor,
Charles van der Voort, who was also head of the CoPa team, has done serious damage to the investigation into
the activities of the Surinamese drugs syndicate and the preliminary judicial examination concerning the former
dictator of Surinam, Desire· Delano Bouterse?

2.
Has the Presidency given any thought to the fact that compliance with the duty assumed by the Netherlands
Government in the framework of the Schengen Agreement, namely that of guaranteeing safety by guarding the
external borders, is seriously hampered by the suspension of the Hague Public Prosecutor, C.V. van der Voort,
because  of  the  large  quantities  of  cocaine  from  Colombia/Surinam  which  are  smuggled  to  other  European
Member States via the Netherlands?

3.
In view of the strong public interest in the dismantling of the Surinamese drugs syndicate and ensuring that
the  preliminary  judicial  examination  concerning  the  ex-dictator  of  Surinam,  Bouterse,  continues,  will  the
Presidency instruct Mr Van der Voort to resume his duties immediately in order to halt the smuggling of cocaine
to  the  European  Member  States  via  the  Netherlands?  This  should  be  viewed,  inter  alia,  in  the  context  of  the
precedent set when the former head of the Netherlands Foreign Intelligence Service, K.M. Meulmeester, and the
former Secretary-General of the Ministry of General Affairs, R.J. Hoekstra, were excused of their misconduct in
having  destroyed  all  the  files  of  the  former  Netherlands  Foreign  Intelligence  Service,  including  those  on
Surinam?

(98/C 102/32)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2320/97

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(18 July 1997)

Subject: Fighting international crime and guarding the European external borders against the transit of cocaine

via the Netherlands by the Surinamese drugs cartel

Can the Netherlands Presidency of the Council explain why the former Secretary-General of the Ministry of
1.
General Affairs, R.J. Hoekstra, despite his misconduct in having ordered the unlawful destruction of all the files
of the former Netherlands Foreign Intelligence Service, is to be retained as a member of the highest advisory
body in the Netherlands, the Council of State, and why Mr van der Voort, who is suspected of complicity in a
similar act of misconduct › destruction of a file › is being suspended?

2.
Can the Presidency explain how it is possible that on 14 September 1997 the former head of the Netherlands
Foreign Intelligence Service, K.M. Meulmeester, in his capacity as an advisor to the Prime Minister, is to be a
guest  speaker  at  the  Europa  2000  conference  on  fighting  international  crime  in  Bucharest,  despite  having
committed an act of misconduct in unlawfully destroying the files of the former Netherlands Foreign Intelligence
Service, and why Mr Van der Voort, who is suspected of complicity in a similar act of misconduct › destruction
of a file › is being suspended?

3.
Does not the Presidency agree that the expediency principle should be applied in respect of the suspicions
against  Mr  Van  der  Voort,  in  view  of  the  far  greater  public  interest  of  Europe  as  a  whole  in  combating  the
Surinamese drugs mafia, and bearing in mind that the suspicions against Mr Van der Voort are based purely on
his complicity in an act of misconduct consisting of destruction of a file, an act which has been excused in the
public interest in many previous, far more serious cases, such as those of K.M. Meulmeester and R.J.Hoekstra?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2251/97, E-2319/97 and E-2320/97

(7 November 1997)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member fall out with the Council(cid:146)s sphere of competence.