WRITTEN QUESTION P-1949/01 by Johan Van Hecke (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Presidency declaration of 12 June 2001 on Sudan.
Date: 2001-06-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sudan, war

C 364 E/230

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1949/01

by Johan Van Hecke (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Presidency declaration of 12 June 2001 on Sudan

(26 June 2001)

Why does the European Union in its Presidency declaration of 12 June 2001 refer to renewed military
activity by the SPLA but not to the massive offensives by the Sudanese government in the Nuba mountains
and on the Southern Blue Nile in May and June 2001? Why does the European Union speak of
a (cid:145)resumption(cid:146) of air raids, when reports by NGOs and local witnesses show that the air raids in fact never
stopped? Should the European Union not consider appointing a special envoy for Sudan in Nairobi, whose
mandate would be to make regular visits to the area in Question and gather objective, accurate
information from both the government and the rebel sides?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

This Question should be addressed to the Council.

(2001/C 364 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1956/01

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

(26 June 2001)

Subject: Nationalisation of the property of Community nationals in Ethiopia

In his answer to my Written Question No E-0879/01 (1), Commissioner Nielsen stated that (cid:145)in discussions
with the Ethiopian Government, the Commission has, on various occasions, expressed the need to create
an environment that is conducive to private sector development and domestic as well as foreign direct
investment.(cid:146) With regard to Ethiopia(cid:146)s confiscation of the property of Community nationals, he adds that
(cid:145)the Commission cannot but advise affected citizens to contact
their relevant national diplomatic
representation in Ethiopia which will follow up on these claims.(cid:146)

The EU, therefore, confines itself to addressing fine words and recommendations to countries such as
Ethiopia which confiscated the property of Greek, Dutch, French, Italian and other nationals overnight,
while simultaneously increasing the Community resources provided from the 9th European Development
Fund (EDF). As Commissioner Nielsen noted, these sums amount to € 384 million for envelope A and
€ 154 million for envelope B.

What is the Commission(cid:146)s position on the possibility of directly linking the provision of Community aid to
countries such as Ethiopia (cid:129) which refuses to revoke the damaging reforms imposed by the communist
Mengistu regime (cid:129) with a requirement that the government of that country immediately respect the
fundamental human right to own property, abandoning the ineffective and dead-end tactic of making
recommendations? How can the EU not be thought of by its citizens as an accessory to robbery, since it is
funding the receivers of stolen property, who are auctioning it off in the presence of their victims? Does it
not demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the EU when, instead of helping its citizens who have been
robbed of their property, it rewards and gives financial support to the robbers? (The terms (cid:145)robbers(cid:146) and
(cid:145)receivers of stolen property(cid:146) are used in their strict legal sense).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 141.