WRITTEN QUESTION P-0974/02 by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission. Crisis in Madagascar.
Date: 2002-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Madagascar, cooperation policy, corruption, free zone, objections to an election result, political situation, presidential election

C 309 E/66

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The Communication from the Commission (cid:1) Europe and Asia: a strategic framework for enhanced
partnerships (1), while making no explicit reference to disabled people, makes clear that poverty reduction
is one of the key aims of co-operation.

It aims to achieve this by supporting sector programmes in social areas; strengthening dialogue on policy
issues and sharing Europe’s own experience. It makes the respect of human rights a central objective of
Community action in line with the Commission Communication ‘The European Union’s role in promoting
human rights and democratisation in third countries’ (2).

It is in the context of the dialogue with partner countries and in the programming of its assistance that the
Commission will ensure that human rights, and disabled people’s rights amongst
them, will be
appropriately addressed.

(1) COM(2001) 469 final.
(2) COM(2001) 252 fnal.

(2002/C 309 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0974/02

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Subject: Crisis in Madagascar

On 22 November 2001 a declaration was issued by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union
concerning Madagascar’s presidential elections. The Presidency stated that it was keeping an interested and
careful watch on the preparation and organisation of the presidential elections of 16 December 2001. It
also welcomed the Malagasy authorities’ commitment to ensuring that the elections would be held in
accordance with democratic procedures.

Will the Commission now provide its up-to-date assessment of the situation in Madagascar following the
elections, taking into account the above declaration and the Common Position of 25 May 1998 which
underlined the EU’s insistence on the need to observe human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law
and good governance in Africa?

Will it furthermore make a statement on the issue of alleged corruption in this country and the operation
of the tax-free zone as an area for ‘cheap labour’?

Finally, will the Commission outline what EU actions and new initiatives are being taken and can be taken
in the future to ensure the development of a strong democracy and economy in Madagascar?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Commission is monitoring developments in Madagascar closely. It deplores the violence that has
occurred in the aftermath of the December 2001 presidential elections. It supports the mediation efforts of
the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations, and has issued declarations encouraging the
parties involved to enter into a democratic dialogue and to demonstrate moderation.

local non-
The Commission is aware of discrepancies in the electoral process: a consortium of
governmental organisations (NGOs) and church representatives observed the elections, but the results
made known by the consortium were only partial, and were at odds with official data.

Under the present circumstances, the EU has welcomed, in its declaration of 22 April, the agreement
signed by the two candidates in Dakar on 18 April.

The two candidates agreed to a transitional reconciliation government and to a referendum,
to be
organised within six months with the help of the UN, the OUA, the European Union and the international
community, if no clear winner emerges from a recount of votes cast in December presidential poll.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/67

The results achieved with this agreement are in keeping with the objectives of the European Union to
restore civilian peace and the principles of democracy in the country and to find a political solution to the
crisis.

The European Union is prepared to offer political and technical support for the implementation of the
agreement and, in the perspective of new elections being called, to assist in their organisation, inter alia, by
sending international observers.

Moreover, the agreement will enable the European Union to continue implementing its assistance and
co-operation programmes.

Corruption is a problem. Also for this reason judicial reform has been identified as a crucial issue and a
justice programme will be implemented under the 9th European Development Fund (EDF) national
indicative programme (NIP).

With regard to the tax-free zone, about 110 000 people were employed in this zone in 2001. Because of
the political situation, it is foreseen that only 30 000 people will be employed in the zone at the end of
2002. Salaries in the tax-free zone are above the Malagasy average.

As for development initiatives, the 9th EDF country strategy paper and national indicative programme for
Madagascar were approved by the Commission in November 2001, but the signing has been delayed by
the political crisis. The allocation for Madagascar is EUR 327 million. Transport and rural development are
focal sectors of the future cooperation programme. Issues of strengthening of the rule of law and good
governance are also addressed, in particular the question of judicial reform.

(2002/C 309 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0975/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: The Madeira International Business Centre (MIBC)

(3 April 2002)

In July 2000, the Commission opened investigations against Portugal, on suspicion that the granting of
financial/fiscal aid to the bodies which had taken offices in the MIBC in the year 2000 was in breach of
Community law. These proceedings came as a surprise, since at the same time, the Commission’s own
services were drawing up, within the framework of the new policy of support for outermost regions, a text
amending the Commission’s New Guidelines on state aids for regional purposes, so as to ensure they took
proper account of the new legal status of the outermost regions, and make the implementation of the
policy on aid more flexible in those regions.

The Commission ignored the negative impact which the proceedings were going to have in the short term
on the whole process of promoting and developing the MIBC (cid:1) the lengthy period of inactivity imposed
by the Commission created a climate of mistrust amongst the users which led to their gradual relocation to
competing sites (cid:1) and the entire process of developing this ultra-peripheral region, a process in which the
industrial, commercial and financial activities surrounding the MIBC play no small role.

In this situation, it was imperative to bring the investigation of the aid arrangements to a swift conclusion.
However, 18 months have now passed, the maximum deadline for investigating any state aid, and no
decision whatever has yet been taken, with the only recourse left to the Portuguese authorities to end the
situation being to think about using their legal power to request the permission to return a definitive
decision on the affair, within two months of the submission of the request.

This uncertainty, in conjunction with the fact that Portugal, in the face of the threat of the Commission’s
opening a fresh investigation procedure, has decided to withdraw the notification of
the new aid
arrangements to boost the MIBC between 2001 and 2006, boils down to one irrefutable hard fact: the
MIBC is NOT WORKING!