WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/01 by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Kurdistan and separatism.
Date: 2001-02-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Kurdistan question, Türkiye, accession to the European Union, cultural identity, political philosophy, self-determination

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/207

Copies of the note were also sent, according to the list appearing in the note itself, to Mr Barlebo-Larsen,
Mr P. Prendergast (the current Director of the Food and Veterinary Office), and Mr D. JimØnez-BeltrÆn
(now the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency).

It is plain to see from the final report of Parliament(cid:146)s Temporary committee of inquiry into BSE that senior
officials of DG VI as staffed at that time were guilty of carrying out a policy of disinformation that not
only extended beyond the range of public opinion, but even served to impede the Community(cid:146)s ability to
legislate.

It has to be recognised that, since 1996, the Commission has taken many steps to reorganise its
departments in order to correct the processes that led to such exceedingly serious failures.

That notwithstanding, can the Commission say:

(cid:129) what have been the consequences of the (cid:145)disinformation(cid:146) strategy set out in the note?

(cid:129) whether the officials who received a copy of the note indeed attended the meeting in question and
helped to shape the disinformation strategy employed by the Commission from 1990 to 1996?

(cid:129) what action it has taken against the senior officials guilty of mishandling the BSE crisis between 1990
and 1996, bearing in mind that the only official to have been dismissed was Mr Mansito, whereas
some of the others involved are now in charge of key areas of Commission activity?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2001)

In July 1996, the Parliament established a Temporary Committee of Inquiry into the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE). The results of the inquiry and recommendations for the future were submitted
in February 1997. The Commission(cid:146)s responsibilities in the management of BSE were examined in detail by
the Committee of Inquiry. In this context, the Commission submitted voluminous information to the
Committee, much of which the Committee published (see Parliament document A4-0020/97 and annexes).
Commission officials also gave oral evidence to the Committee. The contents of the note referred to by the
honourable Member were well known to all participants in the Inquiry and were fully addressed in the oral
and written proceedings.

Subsequently, the Parliament established a Temporary Committee to follow up the Parliament(cid:146)s recom-
mendations concerning BSE. The Commission submitted regular reports to the Temporary Committee on
how it was following up the recommendations.

The Commission has nothing, therefore, to add to the information given to the Committee of Inquiry and
the Temporary Committee about the events of the early 1990s mentioned in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
question. Finally, it should be noted, in the interest of clarity that Mr Mansito was not dismissed from the
Commission services.

(2001/C 187 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/01

by Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Kurdistan and separatism

As the Commission pointed out in its reply to Written Question E-3319/00 (1), with respect to Kurdistan
the 1998 and 1999 regular reports on Turkey state that,
(cid:145)a civil solution could include recognition of
certain forms of Kurdish cultural identity and greater tolerance of the ways of expressing that identity,
provided it does not advocate separatism or terrorism(cid:146).

C 187 E/208

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Terrorism, no matter who the perpetrators, is an outrage and an affront to human rights and, as such, is
unacceptable. But why does the Commission make recognition of (cid:145)certain(cid:146) (why not all?) forms of cultural
identity conditional upon their not advocating separatism? Is the Commission opposed to exercise of the
right to self-determination by peaceful and democratic means?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 85.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

The Union(cid:146)s aim, as set out in the proposed Accession Partnership with Turkey,
is to ensure cultural
diversity and guarantee cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin. Any legal provisions
preventing the enjoyment of these rights should be abolished, including in the field of education.

The Commission(cid:146)s regular reports, to which the Honourable Member refers, were drawn up on the basis of
an objective and balanced analysis of all relevant aspects of the situation in Turkey.

(2001/C 187 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/01

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Commission position on (cid:145)the European capital(cid:146)

A French newspaper article, headed (cid:145)MEPs unhappy with Strasbourg(cid:146), has claimed that Mr Romano Prodi,
President of the Commission, stated in Strasbourg that Brussels would inevitably become Europe(cid:146)s capital
city.

Will the Commission confirm whether this reflects its position on the seat of the institutions and whether
it discussed the issue before allowing its President to review its point of view in Strasbourg?

Is the Commission prepared to recognise that decisions regarding the seats of the European Union(cid:146)s bodies
and agencies do not fall within its sphere of competence and that it is therefore required to show
discretion and restraint on this matter and to respect the letter, if not the spirit, of the decisions taken by
the Council in Edinburgh?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2001)

The seats of Union institutions and bodies were laid down in the Decision on the location of the seats of
the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities as well as of Europol,
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the three Communities. The
Decision was adopted when the Amsterdam Treaty was concluded. An annex to the Treaty recently signed
at Nice includes a declaration on the proceedings of the European Councils. Statements by the President of
the Commission represent his assessment of the scope of the latter decision and cannot therefore be
interpreted differently and taken out of context.