WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL)and Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Transfer of EU payments via the Al Barakaat remittance bank and consequences of UN Sanctions Committee restrictions.
Date: 2002-04-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU action, EU financing, Somalia, capital transfer, economic consequence, international payment, international sanctions

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/45

(2003/C 52 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL)
and Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Transfer of EU payments via the Al Barakaat ‘remittance bank’ and consequences of UN Sanctions

Committee restrictions

Can the Commission confirm the statement by the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs to the
1.
the
Netherlands Parliament
including their largest,
informal banks in the ‘hawlidaad’ system (also known as ‘remittance banks’),
Al Barakaat bank, which is also involved in telecommunications and as an Internet provider, which
transfer USD 200 to 500 million a year to Somalia, are also being used by the European Union to transfer
money to Somalia?

(Second Chamber Question 942 on sanctions against Al Barakaat)

that

2.
Do these payments include funds for projects with which ‘education adviser’ Leo Schellekens, who is
acting on behalf of the EU, is endeavouring to revive schools after the destruction caused by the civil war
in Somalia, partly as a means of providing the younger generation with a better prospect than civil war
and terrorism?

3.
Is continuation of the projects referred to in question 2 now being hampered because parents’
contributions to costs are no longer coming in, as parents in Somalia (which is totally disrupted) do not
have sources of income in the form of cash and family members abroad can no longer transfer money?

Are there are other EU-funded projects on behalf of the inhabitants of Somalia for which funds are

4.
transferred through Al Barakaat?

5. What is the total of EU funds currently being blocked as a consequence of the measures imposed by
the United Nations Security Council in order to make it impossible for Al Barakaat to operate?

6.
Have there been any plans for follow-up payments in the period since Al Barakaat was first unable to
continue arranging international payments? Are these funds now reaching Somalia through smaller
‘remittance banks’, or are they being reserved for payment at a later date?

In what way and at what date will the Commission be making these funds available again for the

7.
purposes for which they are provided?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

As mentioned in the reply to written question E-0608/02 (1) by the Honourable Member (M.
1. to 4.
Meijer), Al-Barakhat banking and transfer services are no longer operational as a result of United Nations
Security Council resolutions, notably 1333 (2000) and 1390 (2002).

Other organisations such as Dahabshil, Amaala and the Union Bank of Somalia, which are not listed by
the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council are still operating in the country. They are
progressively filling the void left by al-Barakhat and represent the only way to carry out remittances from
and to Somalia.

The measures involving Al-Barakhat did not affect significantly Community co-operation with Somalia.

C 52 E/46

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Transfer of funds for Community interventions in all sectors is the responsibility of the contracting
partners, United Nations agencies and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs). None of the
Commission’s contracting partners, including in the education sector, has mentioned difficulties related to
the sanctions against Al-Barakhat and Community funded projects are not experiencing difficulties due to
lack of financial resources.

Moreover, the Commission does not believe that there is a generalised problem affecting the users and/or
beneficiaries of Community funded projects.

The Commission’s only information on blocked transfers concerns the functioning of its three
5. to 7.
liaison offices, Somaliland, Puntland and Mogadishu. Only in the case of
the latter did Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), who managed the liaison Offices in 2001 on behalf of
the Commission, use Al-Barakhat services.

The blocked transfers concerning the Commission Liaison Office in Mogadishu represent USD 3 393.
The Commission is unable to anticipate when these funds will be retrieved. Nevertheless, a lengthy
procedure would not affect Community co-operation in Somalia in general nor the functioning of the
liaison Office in Mogadishu, in particular.

(1) See page 14.

(2003/C 52 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Further development of the EU-Mexico Agreement

(26 April 2002)

In its last report on the EU-Mexico Agreement (A5-0036/2001) the European Parliament expressed its
wish to be closely associated with and informed about the evolution of this agreement. Since the
agreement has been in place, Joint Council and Joint Committee meetings have occurred.

Has the Commission introduced any of the recommendations given in the above mentioned report into
the bilateral meetings it is competent for?

Does the Commission envisage introducing a clause on consultation with civil society, similar to the one
foreseen in the draft agreement with Chile?

Has the Commission proposed or is it ready to propose an amendment to the agreement referring to the
Biodiversity Protocol, to the relevant ILO conventions as well as to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises of which both parties are members of?

Is the Commission willing to talk to the Mexican side in order to eliminate the inconsistencies of the
agreement with the Basel and the Rotterdam Conventions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2002)

Referring to the recommendations included in the last Parliament’s report on the Union-Mexico Agreement
(A5-0036/200l), the Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that:

(cid:1) The Union-Mexico Global Agreement is sufficiently asymmetric as regards all the economic and co-
operation provisions to take into account the different level of development of Mexico and the Union.

(cid:1) The Decision-making procedures of the Joint Council follow internal laws and procedures. Every time
that the Joint Council is to act, it does so on specific legal bases; should the consultation of Parliament
be envisaged, its views will duly be taken into consideration. Mexico also applies its own internal laws.