WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. New trade agreement with the USA.
Date: 2002-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, United States, bilateral relations, investment, trade agreement (EU), trade cooperation

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/343

(2004/C 78 E/0361)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2120/01

by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Extradition of Milosevic to the Hague tribunal

(9 July 2001)

In his recent speech to the European Parliament, President Kostunica of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
declared his commitment to democracy and the rule of law as the way in which his country should
develop. What view are we to take of his statement that the Djindjic Government’s extradition of former
President Milosevic in defiance of the ruling by the Constitutional Court was a violation of his country’s
laws?

Did the European Union or its Member States promise the Djindjic Government advantages in return for
surrendering Milosevic to the tribunal in The Hague?

What are the Commission’s views on the danger of a further disintegration of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission, and the Union, warmly welcomed the decision by Belgrade to comply with its
international obligations in handing over another indictee (ex-President Milosevic) to the International
Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the Hague.

Cooperation with ICTY is an international obligation on all United Nations (UN) Member States and on the
signatories of the Dayton Agreement. As such, neither the Union, its Member States, nor the Commission
made any promise to any state in relation to their compliance with such international obligations.
Cooperation with ICTY, like respect for other international obligations (Dayton, UNSCR 1244, obligations
of membership of international organisations) is, furthermore, one of many conditions set out in the
Union Stabilisation and Association process and as such has an effect on the development of political
relations and the delivery of Community or Member States’ assistance. The Commission and the World
Bank had already decided to organise a Donors’ Conference for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY),
held in Brussels on 29 June 2001. Participants welcomed the fact that the Belgrade authorities had decided
to comply with their international obligations by transferring Mr Milocevic to the Hague.

Regarding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Union policy was clearly stated in the Conclusions of the
General Affairs Council on 22 January 2001, where the Union urged Belgrade and Podgorica to agree on
an open and democratic process, within an overall Federal framework, to decide on a new constitutional
arrangement for relations between the components of the Federation, acceptable to all the parties, and
reaffirmed that this must be consistent with the internal stability of the FRY and the regional stability of
SouthEastern Europe. The Union will continue to develop its relations with the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.

(2004/C 78 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: New trade agreement with the USA

In spring 1998, plans for a new trade agreement between the European Union and the USA were put on
ice, partly owing to protests by France.

C 78 E/344

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Is the Commission currently taking soundings with a view to drawing up a new trade agreement, or have
the negotiations on a new trade agreement stopped completely?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

It is assumed that the Honourable Member’s written question refers to a possible Free Trade Agreement
between the Community and the United States. In such a case, it should be noted that while this is an idea
that periodically comes up, no mandate for such negotiations with the United States has ever been sought,
nor (of course) have any such negotiations taken place. The Commission, moreover, has no plans to seek
any mandate. However, it should be noted that in 1998, the Community and the United States launched
the Transatlantic Economic Partnership to give a further impetus to the Community-United States trade
and investment relationship. Since then bilateral co-operation has increased to currently cover virtually all
trade and investment areas and thereby reinforce the largest bilateral trading relationship world-wide.

Both administrations have made some important progress, such as on the guidelines for regulatory
co-operation. The Community and the United States have virtually completed a Mutual Recognition
Agreement on marine equipment. However, such progress has often lacked political visibility. Some
thought should be given as to what more can be done: how the Union and the United States can
constructively address their differences and develop their co-operation, as long as it is compatible with the
Doha Development Agenda negotiations, and both side’s other trade partnerships, notably with developing
countries.

(2004/C 78 E/0363)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Moldova (cid:1) the poorest country in Europe (cid:1) and the striking difference in its treatment by the EU

in comparison with the Baltic States

1.
Can the Commission confirm that Moldova, which lies between Romania and Ukraine and has a
population of more than 4 million, is now the poorest country in Europe, as evidenced ‘inter alia’ by the
fact that wages there are between four and seven times lower than in Romania, every child is born with a
statistical State debt of USD 600, 70 % of the State budget has to be spent on redeeming foreign debt
incurred through the purchase of natural gas, many hospitals are closed and the remainder no longer have
heating or medicines; gas, electricity and water supplies have virtually ceased in rural areas; roads are no
longer passable for vehicles and, on account of poverty, thousands of people have sold one of their
kidneys for transplantation in Turkey?

2.
Is there an agreement between the EU and the Russian Federation and/or Ukraine which obliges the
EU not to concern itself with the future or the economic development of Moldova or with human rights
there?

3.
Since the mid-1990s, has the Commission discouraged Moldova from applying for membership of
the EU or seeking other forms of rapprochement to it? Is this a punishment for Moldova’s failure, so far, to
merge with the candidate country Romania again, a possibility which has been under discussion since the
early 1990s?