WRITTEN QUESTION P-0144/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Extension of European arms embargo against Indonesia.
Date: 2000-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Indonesia, arms supply, common foreign and security policy, international sanctions

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/185

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Town planning surveys are included in the projects that can be part-financed under the Environment
Operational Programme (EPPER II in Greek) of the 1994-99 Greek Community support framework. Given
their number, however, the mode of financing (Community or national) is decided by the Greek authorities
using specific criteria.

The Commission can confirm that the town planning survey for Rio was not, according to its information,
part-financed under the OP but from national funds.

The Greek authorities probably intended, when publishing the report dated 5 November 1997 to which
the Honourable Member refers, to propose this survey for part-financing under EPPER II but subsequently
did not do so.

(2000/C 280 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0144/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 January 2000)

Subject: Extension of European arms embargo against Indonesia

1.
Could the Council confirm that the arms embargo imposed on Indonesia is due to expire on
17 January 2000 and that, in view of the optimism about Indonesia(cid:146)s future which prevailed until recently,
it was not intended to extend this ban?

2.
Does the Council recall the open letter of 27 November 1999 addressed by East Timorese Nobel
prize winner JosØ Ramos Horta to European governments and parliaments? In that letter, Mr Horta wrote
that,

despite urging that all economic and financial sanctions imposed on Indonesia should be ended, he did
not believe the time was right to lift the arms embargo. The last thing Indonesia needed was weapons.
Selling arms to the Indonesian army, the TNI, would give the wrong signal. Mr Horta hoped that the
greed and irresponsibility that had characterised the policy of certain countries which had sold arms to
Indonesia were a thing of the past.

Does the Council agree that,

3.
in view of the role played by the Indonesian army following the
referendum which resulted in independence for East Timor, in the fighting between Christians and Muslims
over the Molucca Islands and in the suppression of the resistance engaged in by the people of Aceh over
many years,
the army may be seen as instigating conflict between sections of the population and
threatening the existence of the democratic form of government introduced in Indonesia in 1999? And
does the Council also agree that it is important to minimise this threat?

4. Would the Council be willing to take a decision at the latest at its meeting of 24 January 2000 to
extend the arms embargo, which would allow the companies Hollandse Signaal Apparaten of
the
Netherlands and Thomson CSF of France not to go ahead on 1 February 2000 with the supply of
equipment ordered earlier by Indonesia, without being open to the charge of breach of contract?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The restrictive measures taken against the previous Indonesian Government in September 1999 did indeed
expire on 17 January 2000. They were not extended. The EU noted, however, that EU policy regarding
arms exports would be governed by strict implementation of the EU Code of Conduct. The EU also echoed
the honourable member(cid:146)s concern at the appalling violence in the Moluccas and the persistent conflict in

C 280 E/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

Aceh, as well as the tensions in Irian Jaya. The EU is determined to support the efforts of the new
democratically-elected Indonesian Government to strengthen the country(cid:146)s democracy, reform its military
and judicial systems, restore the vitality of its economy and solve its internal conflicts through dialogue
rather than force.

(2000/C 280 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0145/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Failure of Commission to quote references on correspondence

Is the Commission aware that it is still failing to mention references in its replies to enquiries from
Members of the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2000)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing to its attention the need to mention
references when replying to letters, and would confirm that staff have been reminded to do so.

(2000/C 280 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0147/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Operational problems affecting the TAXIS programme

(24 January 2000)

Despite the assurances given by the Commission in reply to my previous questions (E-1802/98 (1) and
E-0044/99) (2) that the TAXIS programme being co-funded by the Community was proceeding smoothly (cid:129)
evidently based similar assurances received from the Greek authorities, the TAXIS programme was in fact
non-operational for a whole week because of serious problems with the Neilos central computer resulting
in a breakdown of communications between taxpayers and the inland revenue authorities. In addition, the
hardware being used is outdated, while softwear used by the workstations, Windows 3.11, is 3 generations
behind the more modern systems now in general use.

The Commission:

1. Does it consider that the systems specifications are keeping pace with technological developments and

are meeting the needs of such a major project?

2. Does it consider adequate the training procedures for users of the new TAXIS technology?

3.

Is it still satisfied with the progress made by the project following unprecedented delays affecting the
timetable for completion and the major technical shortcomings which have come to light regarding
application?

4. Who bears final responsibility for the problems which have arisen with regard to the TAXIS system?

5. What view does the Commission take regarding the timetable for completion of the project?

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 88.
(2) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 140.