WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Cooperation agreement between the European Community and Pakistan.
Date: 2001-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Afghanistan, Pakistan, authoritarian regime, common foreign and security policy, cooperation agreement (EU), negotiation of an agreement (EU), religious fundamentalism

C 350 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

The Commission shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s view that it is particularly important to develop
intermodality and improve the management of traffic across the Alps. This is why it intends to carry on
giving sustained financial support to several rail and traffic management projects, notably projects 1 and 6
concerning the Mont-Cenis and Brenner tunnel crossings.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(2) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.

(2001/C 350 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1364/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Use of land for grazing horses

Can the Commission confirm whether there is any EU regulation concerning the use of farm land for
grazing horses? Is there any restriction on where horses used for recreation and those used for agricultural
purposes can be grazed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2001)

There are no Community restrictions as such limiting the use of farm land for grazing horses, apart from
those connected with the conditions for granting area payments, and in particular that of not using set-
aside land.

The Commission has in the past received requests to allow racehorses to graze on land for which farmers
were receiving set-aside aid under Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing
a support system for producers of certain arable crops (1). These requests have been refused.

Such use of land withdrawn from production runs counter to the objective of making this scheme effective
in terms of maintaining balance in and outlets for Community cereal production.

Moreover, it would be difficult to justify the use of Community funds for such a measure.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 350 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1365/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Cooperation agreement between the European Community and Pakistan

Reliable sources have long maintained that Pakistan is supporting the violently repressive, obscurantist
Taliban regime in Afghanistan, providing it with a huge amount of economic and military aid. That regime
has for some time been quite rightly criticised by all the EU Member States and the European Parliament
for a policy which shows total disregard for human rights. In a recent visit to the European Parliament in
Strasbourg, Commander Massoud, the courageous leader of the opposition to the regime in Afghanistan,
provided ample proof of Pakistan(cid:146)s involvement in Afghanistan(cid:146)s internal affairs.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/137

Given that the Commission is currently conducting negotiations with Pakistan with a view to concluding
an important and far-reaching co-operation agreement under which enormous amounts of economic aid
are to be provided to Pakistan:

1. Can it say what stage has been reached in the negotiations?

2. Does it consider it to be reasonable and politically appropriate to continue to negotiate the agreement
in its present form, particularly those sections which entail the provision of substantial amounts of aid
to Pakistan?

3. Does it consider such an agreement appropriate as long as Pakistan is keeping an unpopular, cruel and

obscurantist regime in place by means of the direct aid which it provides?

4. Would it not agree that the negotiations on an agreement which Pakistan considers to be of such
importance would be better used to exert political pressure on that country with a view to persuading
it to stop supporting the Taliban regime, or at least to reduce the amount of aid provided?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

Signature of the EU(cid:146)s Co-operation Agreement with Pakistan was deferred sine die following the military
take-over of 12 October 1999. Negotiations had already been concluded with the paraphing of the
Agreement on 22 April 1998. Pending signature of the new Agreement, the previous one dating back to
22 April 1986 remains in force.

The Commission is fully aware that the new Agreement features (cid:145)respect for human rights and democratic
principles(cid:146) as its basis under Article 1. It is for this reason that the Council and the Commission did not
proceed with the signature of the Agreement following the military take-over.

During ad-hoc political talks with Pakistan in November 2000, the Union Troika made it clear that further
progress on improving relations is linked to concrete steps on return to democracy.

The Commission abides by the Union policy of neutrality between the conflict parties in Afghanistan. The
Union(cid:146)s Common Position on Afghanistan of 22 January 2001 (1) calls on countries concerned to stop any
further involvement of their military, paramilitary and secret service personnel in Afghanistan and cease all
other military support to parties in the conflict. Commission humanitarian aid in Afghanistan is targeting
groups at risk irrespective of whether they live on one or the other side of the conflict.

(1) OJ C 21, 23.1.2000.

(2001/C 350 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1369/01

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Defence procurement

Could the Commission set out what exactly are the Community rules in relation to defence procurement
as it understands them to be? Within the definition of defence procurement, I include such matters as
uniforms, boots, provision of catering facilities and so on.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Public procurement contracts, whether awarded in the field of defence or in any other field, must be
awarded in compliance with the procedures for the award of contracts set out in the public procurement
Directives. Three directives on the coordination of procedures for the award of public contracts currently