WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission. Civil war in Sudan.
Date: 2000-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sudan, common foreign and security policy, establishment of peace

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/29

whether the firms under investigation were involved in fraud. It is up to OLAF to keep Parliament
informed of operational developments in its regular contacts with the institutions pursuant to Article 12(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999
concerning OLAF investigations (1).

The Commission would point out that only the authorities responsible in the Member States may take
measures against a firm deemed to be unreliable (including suspension of the payment of amounts due for
current operations) and enter that firm(cid:146)s name on the black list under Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95
of 22 June 1995 on measures to be taken with regard to certain beneficiaries of operations financed by the
EAGGF Guarantee Section and Commission Regulation No 745/96 of 24 April 1996 laying down detailed
implementing rules (2). OLAF receives the relevant reports from the Member States.

The Commission would stress that the aid in question constitutes expenditure managed directly by the
Member States, whose task it is to reclaim any sums unduly paid. At this stage, OLAF reports that no steps
have yet been taken at national level to recover the aid. First, the exact quantities of ineligible products and
their final destination (whether covered by aid or not) must be determined. For the same reason the loss to
the Community budget has not been quantified.

In the letter referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission pointed out that it had no access to
the detailed information held by the national payment agencies which fell outside the scope of its
inspection powers and that under the Community rules such information had to be treated in confidence.
In particular, data on individual firms might be covered by business secrecy. Here the Commission would
also refer to the provisions on protecting the confidentiality of personal data, as laid down in Article 8 of
Regulation 1073/1999.

The Commission will not fail to inform Parliament of the action taken on the investigations under way, in
accordance with existing arrangements.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
(2) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995; OJ L 102, 25.4.1996.

(2001/C 174 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Civil war in Sudan

The long-running civil war raging in Sudan has taken on a more international dimension as, in addition to
the Sudanese Government and the revolutionaries, multinational companies and foreign governments have
become involved. The objective of all those involved is the territory with abundant oil deposits located in
the southern region of the country. To date the UN(cid:146)s policy on the war in Sudan has not helped to bring
about peace but has contributed to maintaining the violence and tension. During the cold war period the
UN supported the Sudanese Government, while after the end of the cold war and because of the growing
Islamic movement, it has supported the revolutionaries, who are mainly situated in the southern region of
the country.

Recently, diplomatic signals have been observed from the UN with regard to a policy being applied which
will put an end to the bloody conflicts caused by the oil deposits. This policy will be based on the model
of the peace process being attempted in Sierra Leone, linked to the embargo on diamonds from that
country. Certain elements in Washington are expressing the wish that European Union countries should
collaborate in this initiative.

In view of the above, and given the danger that the fighting will spread on a larger geographical scale
within the African continent, and given the constantly increasing importance of oil for the economies of
the EU countries, is the Commission aware of Washington(cid:146)s actions on this issue and what initiatives does
it intend to take to encourage a gradual peace process in Sudan, with the aim of a conclusive end to the
civil war?

C 174 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

The Commission follows closely the political situation in the Sudan and in particular the civil war between
the Sudanese government in Khartoum and southern rebel groups, the most important of which is the
Sudanese People(cid:146)s Liberation Movement. After 17 years of civil war it can be safely stated that there is no
military solution. The conflict has clear ethnic and religious implications. Economic issues like sharing
Sudan(cid:146)s oil wealth play an ever growing role.

Although it has been impossible to maintain a normal level of cooperation with the Sudan due to the
political situation, the Commission continues to be present in the country and to play a major role in the
field of humanitarian assistance. More than € 200 million have been made available for this purpose
during the last ten years. At the same time, the Commission is participating in the renewed political
dialogue between the Community and the government of the Sudan, which will soon come to the end of
its first phase. Together with a number of Member States it is an active member of the Inter Governmental
Authority on Development (IGAD) Partners Forum (IPF) that supports IGAD(cid:146)s efforts to mediate in the
Sudanese internal conflict.

The Commission strongly encourages the peace process, not only by providing political and moral support
to IGAD but also in its direct relations with the conflicting partners. It subscribes to the call for an
immediate cease-fire agreement under international supervision and to the demand for a stop to the
provision of arms to either side. The Declaration of Principles, adopted by both parties in the North-South
conflict, is considered the basis for a lasting peace, in particular as far as the right of self-determination is
concerned. Together with Member States, the Commission has been cooperating with the United States on
this matter. However, this has not always been successful given differences in the analysis of the process of
change in Khartoum.

(2001/C 174 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3263/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Reciprocal defence guarantees in the EU

During a visit to Latvia on 10 February 2000, the Commission President Romano Prodi stated that any
attack or act of aggression against an EU Member State was an attack or act of aggression against the EU
as a whole.

Does the Commission consider, therefore,
guarantees?

that the Member States are bound by reciprocal defence

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

The Commission regrets that some comments on this issue have been taken out of context. In discussions
with Lithuanian President Adamkus, the President of the Commission affirmed that membership of the
Union gave a (cid:145)sense of belonging(cid:146) and that this was in a real sense an effective guarantee of security. What
the President of the Commission said during his visit to Latvia was that membership of the Union
represents the enhancement of national economic and political security through membership of the
world(cid:146)s largest trading bloc, largest aid giver and largest provider of technical assistance to the countries
of Eastern and Central Europe. So, there should be no confusion between the sense of security brought by
the membership of an enlarging Union and the kind of territorial security commitment provided by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Western European Union (WEU) treaties, which were not
part of the discussions. The use of the word (cid:145)attack(cid:146) had no military significance.