WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/02 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. The forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees by the People's Republic of China.
Date: 2002-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, EU relations, North Korea, UN convention, aid to refugees, human rights, political asylum, refugee, removal

C 11 E/14

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

The Union has a robust Common Position on Burma/Myanmar, which was first adopted in 1996 and has
been strengthened on a number of occasions since. It includes an arms embargo imposed in 1990, the
suspension of defence co-operation since 1991 and the suspension of all bilateral aid, other than strictly
humanitarian assistance. There is also an Union visa ban on the members of the military regime, the
members of the government, senior military and security officers and their families, as well as the
suspension of high-level governmental visits to Burma/Myanmar.

The further strengthening of the Common Position, decided on 10 April 2000, introduced (a) a ban on the
supply of equipment
(b) the merging and
that might be used for internal repression or terrorism,
publication of the former ‘red’ (automatic visa ban) and ‘yellow’ (requiring consultation between Member
States on visa requests) lists and (c) a freeze on funds held abroad by persons named in the published list.
It opened up the possibility of a visa waiver for the Burmese Foreign Minister where it is in the interest of
the Union.

The General Affairs Council of 8 October 2001 decided on a further renewal of the Common Position for
the period up to 29 April 2002, unchanged except for a technical amendment to allow Member States to
meet
their obligations in relation to granting visas to facilitate participation in UN meetings or
conferences. The Common Position was renewed, unchanged, in April 2002 until 29 October 2002.

As regards trade relations, Burma/Myanmar is a member of World Trade Organisations (WTO) and its
trade is therefore protected by WTO Rules from any discriminatory treatment. However, Community trade
privileges, normally granted to Least Developed Countries, were withdrawn from Burma/Myanmar in 1997
because of forced labour. This also means that the country is not eligible to benefit from the Community’s
‘Everything but Arms’ initiative, launched in 2001.

The Commission provides EUR 4-6 million in humanitarian assistance per year to the Burmese population,
mainly in ethnic minority areas, and it is currently preparing a EUR 5 million in assistance programme to
combat human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/Aids) in the country.
All Community assistance is channelled through non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and/or
international organisations.

(2004/C 11 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: The forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees by the People’s Republic of China

In recent years, tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled famine and persecution in the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), clandestinely crossing the border into the north-eastern provinces of
China.

Since 1999, the Chinese Government has been forcibly repatriating thousands of these North Korean
refugees and asylum-seekers, whom it regards as economic migrants and thereby ‘illegal immigrants’. Over
the last year there has been a notable crackdown on these refugees, and an intensification of forcible
repatriations.

This is despite the fact that having fled from a country with such a deplorable human rights record as the
DPRK, many of the refugees will undoubtedly have genuine asylum claims. Once extradited by the PRC,
the North Koreans meet an uncertain fate back in their home country, which might include imprisonment,
torture and in some cases summary execution or death in detention from starvation and disease (source:
Amnesty International).

In forcibly repatriating the refugees, the Chinese Government is denying them access to any refugee
determination procedure. This violates the fundamental principle of non-refoulement embodied in the
1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which China is a state party.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/15

What action is the Commission taking to ensure that the rights of North Korean refugees and asylum-
seekers are respected, and that they have access to a fair and independent asylum procedure, as embodied
in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees? Will the Commission agree to raise the issue of
the unjust forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees at the next round of the biannual EU-China
Human Rights Dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The human rights situation in North Korea is a major concern for the Commission. Human rights issues,
including the plight of refugees, are systematically raised by the Commission during its regular political
In June 2002 in Pyongyang, the Commission had the
contacts with the North Korean authorities.
opportunity to express to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) authorities its concerns over
the treatment of these persons once returned by China and urged the DPRK to respect the fundamental
rights of these citizens.

Since large numbers of North Koreans flee over the border to China, the Union has also urged China on
several occasions and in the context of the human rights dialogue it maintains with that country, to
respect international humanitarian norms and to grant access to the Office of the High Commissioner for
Refugees to assess the situation of North Koreans in the border area.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation of refugees from North Korea closely and to raise
it in its contacts with the DPRK and Chinese authorities.

(2004/C 11 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: The term ‘sardine’

The World Trade Organisation Panel special working party has recently supported Peru against the
European Union with regard to the trade name of ‘sardines’. Within the Community, Peru may now
market the sardinops sagax under the name ‘sardine’. This fish, found off the Peruvian and Chilean coast, is
not the same as the sardina pilchardis found in the north-west Atlantic. European consumers will be
confused by this, since they will be sold as sardines a product different from what they have hitherto
known as sardines.

What steps has the Commission taken to prevent this?

What action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2002)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Appellate Body has published on 26 September 2002 its report
relating to the commercial name of canned sardines in the Community. In that report, the Appellate Body
confirms an earlier report of the WTO Panel ruling in favour of Peru, in the sense that Regulation (EEC)
No 2136/89 of the Council of 21 June 1989 laying down common marketing standards for preserved
sardines (1)
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. The
aforementioned conclusion derives from the fact that the Community Regulation is not based on the
relevant international standard, i.e., the Codex Standard for canned sardines and sardine-type products (2).

is inconsistent with Article 2.4. of

According to the report of the Panel, confirmed by the Appellate Body, Article 2 of the Community
Regulation prohibits the marketing of tins of 20 species of fish, including the species Sardinops sagax,
under the name ‘sardines’, even when this name is accompanied by one of the denominations stipulated in
the Codex standard. For this reason, a contradiction exists between the Community Regulation and the