WRITTEN QUESTION E-1766/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU/US relations in the light of a reduced commitment by Europe to fund defence expenditure.
Date: 2002-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commissioner, European Union, United States, common foreign and security policy, development aid, international security, military cooperation, speech, the EU's international role

C 192 E/16

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

(2003/C 192 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1761/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) provides for compensatory allowances for
farmers in less favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions. Numerous Greek farmers, who
live in areas of Greece subject to the Ramsar Convention on wetlands of international importance, fall into
the latter category.

In the case of Greece, such compensatory allowances may total up to EUR 100 per hectare.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does Greece apply Regulation 1257/1999?

2. Has it submitted, from the outset, programmes to support farmers who are subject to the provisions

of Chapter V of the above Regulation, in the context of co-funding?

3. What appropriations are earmarked in the Community budget for the above measures?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

1.
Yes, Greece is applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural
development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and
repealing certain Regulations.

2.
Yes, Greece has submitted its rural development plan under the EAGGF Guarantee Section; it was
approved by the Commission on 27 September 2000. The plan includes the payment of compensatory
allowances in mountain and less-favoured areas under Chapter V of this Regulation. However, Greece is
not applying Article 16 of the Regulation on areas subject to environmental restrictions.

3.
The amounts for the various rural development measures are set out in the programming documents
of the Member States. In the case of Greece, the amount forecast for the payment of compensatory
allowances from the EAGGF Guarantee Section in 2000-2006 is EUR 286 million.

(2003/C 192 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1766/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2002)

Subject: EU/US relations in the light of a reduced commitment by Europe to fund defence expenditure

There has been increasing criticism in certain quarters in Europe of a perceived ‘unilateralism’ in American
foreign policy, a criticism that has not been altogether welcomed in the United States.

On 23 May 2002, the International Herald Tribune said: ‘What Europe needs to do is to stop whining
about US unilateralism and make itself a creditable heavyweight partner.’ adding that when Europe ‘speaks

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/17

with one voice on foreign policy and puts its money where its mouth is on defence, America will take it
seriously, not before’.

Observing what it calls the ‘dawning of a new age of close American-Russian co-operation’, the German
daily Die Welt observes that in the face of this new friendship between President Bush and President Putin
‘Europe resembles an old man who cannot keep pace with the advance of new ideas.’ ‘If it does not wish to
be left behind’, the paper says, ‘Europe must re-arm, build up its military capability and play its part in the
defence against global threats.’

Does the Commission accept that the United States is much more likely to treat Europe as a full partner in
the area of foreign policy if Europe is able to demonstrate a real commitment towards burden-sharing in
defence, and,
if so, does the Commission accept that until that moment arrives that accusations of
‘unilateralism’ are likely not only to be resented but to be counterproductive?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

It is plainly the case that the more the Union can contribute in the security field, including militarily, the
more seriously it will be taken in the world. That is one reason why meeting the headline goals agreed at
the Helsinki European Council is so important.

But it is also important to be clear about the scale of the contribution the Union is already making in
international security operations. 39,000 troops from Union’s Member States are currently keeping the
the
peace in the Balkans, some 67 % of
International Security Assistance Force includes 3 500 troops from Union’s Member States (cid:1) 68 % of the
total. Troops from several Member States have also contributed to the combat operations against Al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. Moreover, security is a wider concept. The Union, with its Member States, is a massive
provider of development assistance, providing about 55 % of total international assistance and as much as
two thirds of all grant aid. That too is a contribution to international security, in which the Union is
playing a pivotal role.

the total deployed in NATO operations.

In Afghanistan,

The Commission does not accept that it is counterproductive to speak up when there are important
In this ever more
disagreements with the United States: that is the duty of real
interconnected world, it is all the more important to work with those who share your values.

friends and allies.

The Commissioner in charge of External Relations gave a detailed presentation on the issues raised by the
in a speech on ‘the European Union Foreign Policy and the Challenges of
Honourable Member
Globalisation’ at the Asia-Europe Foundation, in Singapore, on the 5 of April 2002. It is available on the
Commission website (1).

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/news/patten/sp04_02global.htm.

(2003/C 192 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Aviation safety

Irrespective of the findings of the various investigations into the air crash in Milan on 18 April, which
occurred when a light aircraft struck Pirelli Tower,
the crash poses certain questions concerning
supervision and future technical choices. Suffice to say, with regard to supervision, that neither the Cessna
CJ2 aircraft, nor the pilot, should have been in the air that day, because the weather conditions called for a
category 3 status, and they could only fly in category 1 conditions.