WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Avoiding European involvement in Colombia's domestic conflicts.
Date: 2000-07-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Aruba, Colombia, Curaçao, drug traffic, establishment of peace

C 103 E/116

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(e)

to ensure that the analyses and contributions made by the operational Task Force initially also aim at
defining strategies and joint operational actions in the field of maintaining public order whenever
events occur which are likely to threaten it.

(f)

for the sake of flexibility, that the composition of the operational Task Force takes account of the
organisational diversity and specific responsibilities of the police institutions of the Member States.

(g) given its evolving character, to carry out an assessment of the functioning of the operational Task
Force in December 2001 within the framework of the general assessment of progress in implementing
the Tampere conclusions.

The Presidency takes note of the wish to include the Chief Police Officers of the applicant countries in
Task Force meetings in due course.

(2001/C 103 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Avoiding European involvement in Colombia(cid:146)s domestic conflicts

1.
Is the Council aware that the territory of a Member State of the European Union is becoming
increasingly involved in the American intervention in the domestic politics of Colombia; i.e. the Caribbean
islands of Aruba and Cura(cid:231)ao, which belong to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are being used as a
(cid:145)Forward Operating Location(cid:146) for aircraft which, in the South of Colombia, are continuously spraying with
toxic pesticides territory controlled by the resistance movement FARC which is fighting against big
business and the traditional lack of democracy (source: Nederland 1 TV channel; (cid:145)Netwerk(cid:146) current affairs
programme of 21 June 2000)?

2.

Is the Council also aware that the results of this intervention are that:

(a) after each spraying operation adults become ill and young children rapidly die;

(b)

there is a significant reduction in the scope for normal cultivation of crops (manioc, bananas or other
fruit) other than coca, with the result that the farmers become even more dependent on the drugs
trade and there is a further increase in the 100 000 ha already under coca cultivation;

(c)

there is virtually no prospect of FARC(cid:146)s efforts to stop the cultivation of coca succeeding;

(d)

the remaining jungle is being affected by the poison and by slash and burn to obtain arable land
which is not yet poisoned;

(e)

the peace talks between the Colombian government and FARC (even the government does not believe
that FARC is involved with the drug mafia) are hampered?

3.
Is the Council aware that a proposal is to be submitted to the Dutch parliament (cid:129) following an
earlier agreement in April 2000 (cid:129) for an agreement to be signed between the Netherlands and the US for
a further ten years to enable the flights over Colombia to continue, and that the Americans stationed on
Aruba and Cura(cid:231)ao are automatically protected from criminal or civil proceedings?

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/117

Does the Council agree that a clear distinction needs to be made between, on the one hand, action to
4.
stop hard drugs being transported from Colombia via Aruba and Cura(cid:231)ao to Europe and, on the other
hand, participation in foreign intervention against a movement which controls part of Colombia (cid:129) the
former being desirable, the latter not (cid:129) and that it is important to distance oneself from the American
viewpoint that the fight against the guerrilla movement is part of the fight against drugs?

5.
How does the Council envisage preventing any European involvement in foreign intervention in a
domestic political conflict in Colombia and preventing Member States from allowing themselves to be
dragged into such conflicts?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

European Union

The
together with
Colombia(cid:146)s government, civil society and the NGOs present in the country. It is aware of the many,
serious interrelated problems facing Colombia, and considers it essential that an integrated approach be
taken to solve these problems.

is monitoring

in Colombia

situation

closely,

the

The Union has repeatedly reaffirmed its intention to support, wherever possible and by the most
appropriate means, the efforts made towards a peace process in Colombia based on observance of
human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The European Union has also reaffirmed the utmost importance of the fight against drugs, which directly
concerns all Member States and their citizens. In this respect Colombia benefits from the Generalised
System of Preferences (GSP) and, since 1990, from the additional temporary SPA system in the fight
against drugs. An agreement was signed in 1995, and is now in force, between the European Union and
the Andean countries on chemical precursors.

Furthermore, the European Union has set up a Mechanism for cooperation on drugs with the countries of
Latin America and the Caribbean, for which the action plan was adopted in April 1999, and which was
endorsed by the Heads of State or Government at the Summit between the European Union, Latin America
and the Caribbean held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1999. The Mechanism, which held its second meeting on
22/23 May 2000 in Lisbon, gives both parties an essential framework for the coordination of their efforts
in combating drugs.

(2001/C 103 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2322/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Differences in the taxation of diesel fuel in the EU Member States

German farmers are not permitted to import from France marked diesel fuel (in particular, heating oil), as
this would contravene § 26 of the Mineral(cid:246)lsteuergesetz (Law on excise duty on mineral oils). Tax
treatment of the French diesel fuel is significantly more favourable than that of German diesel fuel, which
means that, because of the national ban on imports, German farmers are forced to pay a higher price than
their French neighbours for their diesel fuel. Such discrimination is only possible because Article 8(2)(f) of
Council Directive 92/81 (1) of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on
mineral oils expressly provides that EU Member States may apply total or partial exemptions or reductions
in the rate of duty to mineral oils or other products for the same uses which are used under fiscal control
exclusively for agricultural or horticultural purposes, etc.

1. What action does the Commission intend to take in order to end this state of affairs which
discriminates against German farmers?