WRITTEN QUESTION P-3395/02 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Sudan.
Date: 2002-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Sudan, cooperation policy, establishment of peace, the EU's international role

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/53

form of trial in Buon Ma Thuot prison in Vietnam on 29 October 2002. The execution of Y-Suon Mlo,
from the village of Buon Kuang, Y-Het Nie Kdam, from the village of Buon Ea Tieo, and Y-Wan Ayun,
from the village of Buon Gram, was confirmed by the Montagnard Foundation Inc., an organisation which
promotes, at international level, protection of the rights of the indigenous Montagnard population, and by
Agence France Presse. The killings follow other extra-judicial executions which, according to worrying
reports, have taken place and are allegedly still taking place in other Vietnamese prisons. The Vietnamese
authorities, contrary to the demands made by the UN Human Rights Committee on 27 July 2002 (UN
Doc. CCPR/C/SR.2031) are denying access to independent observers who are trying to verify respect for
human rights in the Central Highlands. What steps will the Commission take to stop the Vietnamese
authorities’ serious violations of human rights designed to intimidate the whole Montagnard ethnic
minority? What steps will the Commission take to back the UN Human Rights Committee’s demands of
27 July 2002?

Does the Commission not consider that Vietnam’s constant violations of human rights and failure to
comply with the demands made by the UN Human Rights Committee on 27 July 2002 constitute a serious
infringement of the Cooperation Agreement signed by the European Union and Vietnam in 1995 and that
the Agreement should therefore be immediately denounced pursuant to Article 2 thereof?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2845 (1).

The Commission has not been able to obtain any reliable confirmation of the ‘extra-judicial killings’
referred to in the present question, but is trying to follow-up on these matters through all available
channels.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 81.

(2004/C 11 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3395/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Sudan

Following the peace treaty signed in Sudan in January, which hopefully will end the conflict which has
claimed over a million lives, what action is the EU taking in order to promote the peace process?
Specifically, has the EU considered suspending trade in Sudanese oil until the just, enduring peace deal is
in place?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The Union’s position on relations with Sudan beyond the Machakos peace talks is based on normalisation
of relations and resumption of co-operation tied to progress in the peace process.

In line with conclusions adopted by the Council in June 2002, the Union is following a phased approach
in order to promote the peace process:

(cid:1) until a peace agreement is concluded, the Union will continue its political dialogue on the basis of the
commitments for 2002 entered into by the Government of the Sudan regarding human rights,
democracy and rule of law with a particular focus on the conclusion of a peace agreement.

C 11 E/54

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

(cid:1) in the event of a peace agreement, the Union will

initiate the normalisation of relations. Such
relations, in the context of the Cotonou Agreement, would be based on respect for human rights,
democratic principles and the rule of law, and include support for peace building and conflict
resolution.

As regards a possible Community trade ban on oil from the Sudan, the Commission as a general rule is
convinced that a policy of engagement rather than of isolation is the best way to have its concerns heard
and expectations met. Further sanctions backed by the United Nations as opposed to unilateral sanctions
are preferable and more efficient as a foreign policy tool. In addition, in this case a unilateral measure
would have limited economic impact as the Union is a very marginal market for Sudanese oil exports, the
main markets being China (63 % of EUR 1,2 billion in 2000) and Japan (23 %).

(2004/C 11 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3411/02

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 November 2002)

Subject: Famine in Ethiopia and Eritrea

Recent reports have stated that Ethiopia and Eritrea are on the brink of a mass famine. What has the
Commission done to prepare in order to avert a potential humanitarian disaster?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Information has been available since July 2002 that late and poor rains in parts of Ethiopia and Eritrea
were likely to seriously affect harvests and lead to localised food shortages later in the year. As of October
2002, after delayed long-season rains, it became clear that a more serious humanitarian crisis was likely to
develop, particularly in the first half of 2003 when the food gap would be at its greatest.

The latest assessments point to likely populations in need of food aid of 2,3 million in Eritrea and 11-
12 million in Ethiopia. In both instances, these figures include populations who are chronically food
insecure. The total response from the Union amounts to approximately EUR 160 million in humanitarian
aid.

In Eritrea, existing food aid commitments (cid:1) including a EUR 7,4 million Community allocation, covering
cereals delivered in mid-2002 (cid:1) are considered adequate to cover needs up to March 2003.

In Ethiopia, directly after the Government’s appeal on immediate food needs, the Commission made
available, in October 2002, a total of EUR 23 million, equivalent to 97 000 metric tonnes (Mt) to cover
food needs until the end of 2002. A substantial part of this funding (EUR 12 million) was provided for the
direct purchase of food aid, part of which (20 000 Mt) for immediate needs, and the remaining quantity
for supporting a safety net scheme for the predictably food insecure. The remaining EUR 11 million was
provided for food to be delivered through the World Food Programme and through partnerships with Non
governmental organisations. In addition, the Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office, (ECHO) has approved
a EUR 4 million programme of humanitarian assistance, destined principally for nomadic pastoralist
populations. Very substantial funds (EUR 54 million) are also provided within the Community’s 2002-
2007 programme of development aid to Ethiopia for the purposes of addressing the structural problems
which are the root causes of the country’s recurrent food crises.

Additional funds have been earmarked for the Horn of Africa region in 2003 under both the Community’s
Food Security Budget Line and from its humanitarian aid budget.

Meanwhile, however, other sources of substantial additional funding are being identified, in order to allow
for the orderly and timely delivery of additional food and humanitarian aid that is likely to be needed as of
the beginning of 2003.