WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/02 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Democratisation in the Seychelles.
Date: 2002-02-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Seychelles, cooperation policy, human rights, political situation

C 51 E/2

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

It is the opinion of the Commission that ships destined for dismantling are to be considered waste and also
a hazardous waste if not emptied of cargo and other hazardous materials. In accordance with the Basel
Convention export ban, Community law bans the export out of the Community of ships destined for
disposal and of ships destined for recovery to non-OECD countries if they are hazardous. Possible exports
of ships destined for dismantling not falling under any ban (destined for recovery and non-hazardous) are
still subject to control requirements and Community rules generally require that the recovery treatment in
the country of destination must be environmentally sound.

The situation as regards Turkey is the following:Turkey became a party of the ‘Basel Convention on the
control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal’ on 20 December 1994.
Through the Turkish ‘Regulation to control hazardous wastes’ (27.08.1995 No 22387) based on this
Convention, Turkey banned the import of all kinds of hazardous waste in 1995. Turkey has adequate
national legislation related to ship breaking to protect the environment and to ensure occupational health
and safety. However, in practice, enforcement of the Turkish legislation needs to be strengthened. This
clarifies why ships containing hazardous substances are still scrapped in Turkey.

The Commission is preparing a Maríne Strategy, which will cover all the seas surrounding the Union,
including the Aegean See. This strategy will guide the Member States in the protection of the marine
environment. It is their responsibility, for example through strict enforcement of the Shipment Regulation.
The environmental protection of the Aegean Sea is also part of a bilateral agreement between Greece and
Turkey.

The reason for Greenpeace demonstrators’ arrest is that it was a non-authorised demonstration. The
demonstrators are released. Though the Commission would like to see freedom of demonstration in
Turkey based on Community standards, this incident does not appear to have been anti-democratic.

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

(2004/C 51 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Democratisation in the Seychelles

The Seychelles remain a paradise for drug trafficking and money laundering, and the regime in place since
1976 is guilty of abuses of human rights.

What steps will the Commission take, under the auspices of the Cotonou Agreement and the EU’s stated
objectives on human rights and democracy, to support the process of democratisation in the Seychelles?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2002)

The Community’s relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, as defined in the Cotonou
Agreement, are based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. In formal terms, present-day
Seychelles is a democratic country, even if it is true that the level of state control is high.

As an expression of the Community’s commitment to democratic principles, co-operation with Seychelles
under the 9th European Development Fund (EDF) will
for the development and
consolidation of non-state entities through a capacity-building programme for civil society.

include support

The Commissioner in charge of Development, recently visited Seychelles, where he emphasised to
Government representatives the importance attached to the development of non-state entities, and of good

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/3

governance in general, and made a point of meeting the Leader of the Opposition, the Reverend.
Wavel Ramkalawan. This meeting not only provided a more rounded vision of the political and social
reality of Seychelles, but also conveyed to Government the importance attached to opposition parties as
guardians and monitors of good governance.

(2004/C 51 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/02

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Arbitrary arrests and the political situation in Laos

On 15 November 2001 the European Parliament adopted and forwarded to the Commission a topical and
urgent resolution on arbitrary arrests and the political situation in Laos (1) in which it

(cid:1) pointed out that the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and Lao PDR is based
on ‘respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights established by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights’ (Article 1), and that failure to respect this condition must be considered
a ‘case of material breach of the Agreement’ with respect to Article 19 and Annex 1;

(cid:1) said that the arrest and disappearance of five leaders of the 26 October 1999 Movement, Keuakoun,
Sisa-At, Phengphanh, Chanmanivong and Keochay, was a clear and visible case of violation of the
democratic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and must therefore be considered
a case of non-respect of the Cooperation Agreement between the Community and Laos.

Commissioner Patten, replying on behalf of the Commission to question P-0019/02 (2), said on 7 February
2002 that the Commission did not intend to convene an emergency meeting of the Joint Committee
provided for by Article 14 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic and explicitly called for in Parliament’s resolution of 15 November 2001
because there were continuing opportunities to raise Human Rights concerns with the Lao Government
through other channels.

1. What other channels are used by the Commission to ask the Lao authorities to ensure that the
political and civil rights recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are observed? On the
basis of what criteria are these channels selected? How do they operate?

2.
On what occasions has the question of the arrest and disappearance of the five leaders of the
‘26 October 1999 Movement’ been raised? What answers were obtained from the government of Lao
PDR?

(1) OJ C 140 E, 13.6.2002, p. 577.
(2) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 166.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

As already indicated in the reply by the Commission to the Honourable Member’s Written Questions
P-3175/01 (1) and P-0019/02 (2), the Commission has the possibility of raising human rights issues with the
Government of Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) in bilateral meetings and when participating in
Union political démarches agreed with the Member States. These channels are additional to the Union-Lao
Joint Committee and can (cid:1) in practice (cid:1) be used at any time, while the Joint Commission normally meets
only once every two years.

The question of the arrest and disappearance of the five leaders of the ‘26 October 1999 Movement’ has
been raised through these channels. Unfortunately,
it has been impossible so far to receive clear
information from the Government on the five missing Laotians. The Commission will therefore continue
to raise the issue through the available channels.

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 67.
(2) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 166.