WRITTEN QUESTION P-1791/99 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Arms exports.
Date: 1999-09-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: East Timor, Indonesia, United Kingdom, arms trade, common foreign and security policy, competence of the Member States, international human rights law, international sanctions

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/49

Malaria kills more than a million people a year and is heavily concentrated in the poorest countries and
populations. Recent advances in biotechnology point to a possible malaria vaccine. One would think that
this would be high on the agenda of both the international community and the private pharmaceutical
firms but for a long time it was not. A recent study found for example that only around US $ 80 million a
year is spent on malaria research, and only a very small fraction of that on vaccines. However, malaria and
the lack of public and private investment in the development of a vaccine have come more to the fore,
thanks to several
initiatives of the World health organisation (WHO) and also in the context of the
Community(cid:146)s Fifth framework programme for research.

The lack of investment in the research and development of a malaria vaccine is mainly due to the fact that
investment in research and development of new technologies is overwhelmingly directed at rich country
problems because these countries have the largest profitable markets. A similar situation has also been
observed in relation to the lack of investment in an Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) vaccine
adapted to the developing world strains or public health systems.

The evidence points towards an important challenge, as yet mainly unrecognised, related to the lack of
mobilisation of global science and technology to address the crisis of public health in general, and malaria
and AIDS in particular, presently confronting the countries with the poorest populations. Therefore
creativity and new partnerships are needed to bridge the huge discrepancy between human need, scientific
effort and market returns. A beginning of such an approach is presently being discussed within the
Community in relation to an AIDS vaccine for developing countries but similar strategies could (cid:129) and
should (cid:129) be adapted for malaria. The strategy followed for the AIDS vaccine has several components
working in parallel rather than consecutively to gain time, and also to mutually reinforce each other. Some
of the main components used at the Community are creating incentives for private industry to invest more
in AIDS vaccine research and development for example through the incentives proposed in the orphan
drug regulation presently discussed in the Parliament; creating a more credible market in developing
countries by ensuring provision for existing vaccines in the national budgets and in the Community aid
budgets; creating (together with our main partners) a potential market for the future by pledging financial
support for countries to purchase the new vaccine once it becomes available; and increasing support from
public sector finance for the research and the development of an AIDS vaccine appropriate for developing
countries.

The Community is presently only at the beginning of this approach for AIDS and,
if successful co-
operation proves possible and fruitful, other initiatives could be envisaged. As indicated by the Honourable
Member there is good reason for initiatives of this kind also concerning malaria.

The Commission would add that in the case of malaria, the Community recently increased its support for
research and development in the Fifth framework programme through the publication of two calls for
proposal (for the constitution of a cluster of Research and development projects on malaria vaccine and
for specific research proposals in developing countries). In addition, the Community is also presently
financing a demonstration clinical trial in the Gambia in partnership with a pharmaceutical firm.

(2000/C 203 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1791/99

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Arms exports

In the light of the recent debate concerning the export of arms by Britain and other EU Member States to
countries perpetrating in human rights abuses and involved in serious conflict e.g. Indonesia and the East
Timor Crisis, does the Commission plan to tighten legislation on the sale of arms in future?

C 203 E/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

Can the Commission confirm or deny that the UK violated the 13 September embargo on the sale of arms
to Indonesia in the light of reports that three British Hawk warplanes were delivered secretly to Indonesia
last week? If these reports are correct, can the Commission explain what action will be taken against the
United Kingdom(cid:146)s breach of the embargo?

Does it recognise the urgent need for the EU to strengthen the 1998 Code of Conduct on the export of
arms and, more importantly, the adoption of measures to prevent any attempts to circumvent the Code of
Conduct?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 1999)

Trade in arms has, up to now, on the basis of Article 296 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 223) been exempted
from the scope of application of Treaty rules, thereby preventing Community action. The arms trade is
currently discussed in the context of the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with which the
Commission is fully associated.

The Commission possesses neither the authority nor the means to confirm or deny possible violations of
embargoes. Full responsibility for the licensing of arms exports belongs to national governments.

The Code has completed one year of existence and, as acknowledged in the first annual report, initial
experiences of the Member States from its operation during this period are positive. It is undeniable,
however, that there are grounds for continued strengthening of the code and its implementation. The aim
of the annual review process is to identify such potential improvements. Naturally, any amendments to the
Code need the support of all Member States.

(2000/C 203 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1797/99

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Age discrimination against foreign pilots in France

(1 October 1999)

An article in The Times of 2 September headed (cid:145)French age rule clips wings of British pilots(cid:146) says that the
French government operates an age limit of 60 for commercial pilots, whereas the age limit in other
Member States is 65. As a result, commercial pilots aged between 60 and 65 are denied access to French
airspace because of differences in age limits. This discrepancy prevents people from exercising their
fundamental rights,
in this instance the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of age. The
question of discrimination on grounds of age is of topical importance in view of the forthcoming talks on
a European charter of fundamental rights.

1.

2.

3.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does the Commission agree that this situation could be damaging to the commercial pilots affected?

Are such discrepancies in rules between Member States undesirable?

4. What does the Commission intend to do about this state of affairs?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it is fully aware of the situation in France with
regard to age limits for pilots. The Commission does not condone this situation but is unable to intervene
at present because currently flight crew licences are recognised for the purpose of overflying and landing
of
flights, provided they are issued in accordance with Annex I to the Chicago
Convention. This Annex contains a standard which prohibits the exercise of pilot-in-command duties on

international civil