WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council. Assessment of consequences of bombing Yugoslavia.
Date: 2001-02-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Yugoslavia, environmental protection, health policy, nuclear weapon, public health

C 340 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

The EU is keeping the security situation under regular review. At its meeting on 19 March, the Council
welcomed the interim report of Mr Solana, High Representative, on further EU action concerning south-
east Serbia and invited him to continue his work on an EU strategy for that region in collaboration with
the Presidency and the Commission.

The EU is committed to the full implementation of the 1244 UN SC resolution on Kosovo. The Council
finally wants to recall the substantial support which the EU is making available for the stabilisation and
development of Kosovo. EU Member States have made the largest contribution to KFOR, as well as
providing police and judiciary, and have supplied the majority of funding for the OSCE efforts with regard
to institution-building and civil society. The EC has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance, and
remains the lead actor in the field of reconstruction and economic development, not only in financial
terms but also through its responsibility for/leadership of Pillar 4 of UNMIK.

However, the EU has made it clear that further assistance will have to be accompanied by the readiness of
the Kosovars to help quell ethnic violence and their efforts towards reconciliation.

(2001/C 340 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0463/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 February 2001)

Subject: EU-Turkey partnership

The French National Assembly recently adopted a resolution recognising the genocide of the Armenians.
Turkey responded with retaliatory measures of a mainly economic nature, cancelling a number of contracts
with French companies. On 13 December 1999, the European Council meeting in Helsinki decided to
recognise Turkey as a candidate country for accession to the EU, and to draw up an accession partnership
and a single financial framework to assist Turkey towards accession.

Does the Council consider that Turkey(cid:146)s (cid:145)economic retaliation(cid:146) against France, and its unilateral termination
of contracts are politically and legally compatible with the EU-Turkey customs union or that such conduct
is consistent with the criteria laid down by the European Council in Copenhagen?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The retaliatory measures taken against France after the adoption of the law concerning official recognition
of the Armenian genocide were aimed at projects of a bilateral nature. Nevertheless, the Commission has
responsibility for ensuring the proper application of the Association Agreement and the Customs Union
with Turkey and is following the situation closely. It has pointed out that the retaliatory measures can only
be counter-productive at a time when Turkey is being invited to enter into an accession partnership and
has recently adopted a national programme for the taking over of the Community (cid:145)acquis(cid:146).

The European Union will consider whether any measures need to be taken in the context of the existing
EU-Turkey agreements and the pre-accession process.

(2001/C 340 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/01

by Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 February 2001)

Subject: Assessment of consequences of bombing Yugoslavia

The (cid:145)Balkans Syndrome(cid:146) has justifiably caused alarm throughout Europe concerning the consequences of
the bombing of Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo.

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/33

Will the Council say whether the European Environmental Agency (EEA) which is funded by EU citizens
through the Community budget has undertaken a study of the environmental pollution in the former
Yugoslavia caused by the use of depleted uranium shells and the destruction of many chemical and other
factories?

Has the EEA undertaken an assessment of the health consequences for inhabitants of the regions which
were bombed and for citizens (both soldiers and civilians) of the European Union serving, residing or
studying in the affected areas? Has any research been carried out into environmental pollution in the EU
Member States having borders with Yugoslavia? If it has not looked into these matters, why not? Precisely
what work is it engaged in?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

1.
In accordance with Council Regulation No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990, as amended by Council
Regulation No 933/1999 of 29 April 1999, one task of the European Environment Agency (EEA) is to
provide the Community and the Member States with objective information necessary for framing and
implementing sound and effective environmental policies. To that end,
in particular it provides the
Commission with the necessary information to carry out successfully its task of identifying, preparing and
evaluating measures and legislation in the field of the environment. Since the role of the EEA is,
in
particular, to support and assist the Commission, the Council does not have detailed information on its
activities except when the EEA reports to the Commission, to the Council and to the European Parliament
according to provisions of the above Council Regulation.

2.
The Council is not aware of any study by the European Environment Agency of the environmental
pollution in the former Yugoslavia caused by the use of depleted uranium shells and the destruction of
many chemical and other factories.

Therefore it is recommended that the Honourable Member address questions relating to the detailed
activities of the EEA to the Commission.

3.
At their meeting on 22 and 23 January 2001, Ministers discussed the issue of depleted uranium and
agreed to re-examine it in the light of scientific evidence to be compiled by the Article 31 Committee
(Euratom Treaty), as well as by competent NATO bodies. The conclusions of the report by the Article 31
Committee (Euratom Treaty) were published on 6 March 2001. The Council is currently assessing these
reports. Furthermore, at their meeting on 9 April 2001, Ministers decided to remain committed to
following possible further investigations closely and reexamining the issue in the future, due to the
apparent health and environmental problems in the region.

(2001/C 340 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0473/01

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 February 2001)

Subject: USA antiballistic missile system and global strategic stability

According to the international press, the statements made by the United States Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld at the (cid:145)Wehrkunde(cid:146) conference in Munich on 2, 3 and 4 February 2000 marked a dramatic shift
in relations between the Bush administration and the European Union and have confronted the Union with
decisions that are clearly faits accomplis in the area of the National Missile Defence system, abrogating, de
facto, the ABM treaty of 1972.

Referring to President George W. Bush(cid:146)s (cid:145)moral and constitutional duty(cid:146) to defend his people, Secretary
Rumsfeld has entirely failed to honour the undertaking that was made to consult the United States(cid:146) allies
on the introduction of a high-technology defence system that is as futuristic as it is unjustifiable. The
system threatens to destabilise the existing delicate geopolitical situation by sparking off the militarisation
of space, which will lead, over the coming decades, to complete strategic dominance over the whole planet
by the United States.