WRITTEN QUESTION E-3528/02 by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Council. Indirect funding for the Burmese government.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Myanmar/Burma, United Kingdom, dictatorship, human rights, international sanctions, investment abroad, military regime, the EU's international role, tobacco industry

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/81

are negative implications, the investment can only be allowed in the absence of alternative solutions and
for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

The Commission has written to the Polish authorities to draw their attention to these matters and to seek
assurance that the requirements set out in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive have been applied in this case.
The Polish authorities have stated that a prognosis of the environmental impact of the proposed route has
been prepared by the two municipalities concerned. A decision on the conditions for land development
and use, determining the location of the road, has not yet been taken. They have undertaken to keep the
Commission informed about further developments.

The Commission wishes to underline that no PHARE or ISPA funding has been provided for the
construction of the Via Baltica across the Biebrza National Park in Poland. Furthermore, no such project
features in either the ISPA or the PHARE projects pipeline. In cases where Union pre-accession funding of
large infrastructure developments is involved ‘similar standards’ as set by Community environmental
legislation need to be applied before any Commission funding is given to the candidate countries. This
would include the application of the EIA Directive. Also the candidate country would have to investigate
whether environmentally sensitive areas are affected which might fall in future under the protection of the
Habitats or the Birds Directives.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(4) Express roads means a road which complies with the definition in the European Agreement of Main International

Traffic Arteries of 15 November 1975.

(2003/C 222 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3528/02

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Indirect funding for the Burmese government

British American Tobacco, an international company operating in the tobacco sector and based in London,
is one of the largest British investors in Burma (Myanmar). It controls Rothmans, which in turn is a 40/
60 % joint venture with Economic Holding Myanmar, a company belonging to the military government,
which is unfortunately notorious for persistent violations of human rights. Since 1962 there has been a
military dictatorship in Burma responsible for torture, ill-treatment, imprisonment, forced labour and the
deaths of a shockingly large number of men, women and children.

Burma is also the country with the largest number of child soldiers in the world.

British American Tobacco, via its investments, is aiding and abetting the dictatorship by strengthening it
and helping to keep it in power.

What steps will the Council take in response to this financial support for a regime which is universally
considered as guilty of crimes against humanity, involving one of the Member States and hence the Union
as a whole?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

1.
Since 1996, the Council has adopted a series of Common Positions on Burma. Essentially, this means
Common Position 96/635/CFSP of 28 October 1996 (1) as extended and amended by Common
Position 2000/346/CFSP of 26 April 2000 (2) and by Common Position 2002/831/CFSP of 21 October
2002 (3).

C 222 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

The current Common Position 2002/831/CFSP, adopted by the Council on 21 October 2002, provides for
a number of targeted sanctions against the Burmese regime, including a visa ban against and the freezing
of the assets of present and former members of the Burmese government, members of the State Peace and
Development Councils (SPDC), former members of SLORC, and leading members of the military.

The Council has not, however, taken a position on possible investments by European enterprises in
2.
Burma, nor has it discussed the specific issue of the BAT/Rothmans joint venture with Economic Holding
Myanmar.

(1) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996, pp. 1-2.
(2) OJ L 122, 24.5.2000, pp. 1-5.
(3) OJ L 285, 23.10.2002, pp. 7-11.

(2003/C 222 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Competition between large ports with a common hinterland and squandering of public money in

an effort to beat the competition

1.
In connection with this issue, does the Commission recall the discussion which its predecessor held
with the European Parliament about the need to regulate competition between maritime ports, a discussion
which ultimately failed to lead to any proposals to that effect in the proposal for a directive on market
access to port services which was aimed at promoting competition within the maritime ports and debated
by the European Parliament at first reading on 14 November 2001?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the problem of competition concerns principally ports on the eastern
shore of the North Sea which all serve the same densely-populated hinterland more or less, i.e. the ports,
located in four different Member States, of Hamburg, Bremen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp,
Zeebrugge and Dunkirk, which, consequently, compete with each other for the same cargoes instead of
seeking to share out the trade on a sensible basis?

Is the Commission also aware that, over the years, competition between the ports listed in question 2
3.
has led to each of them outbidding each other with the help of government investment, to the creation of
surplus capacity, given the trends in the amount of maritime transport, to the constant endeavour to offer
lower rates than the nearest competitor port, to maximum opacity as regards their own financial input,
and to spying on the competition?

4.
Does the Commission recall how difficult it was to reach an EU-wide agreement on a common
system for the collection of ship-generated waste and cargo residues applicable to the North Sea and the
Baltic as well as to the Mediterranean? Does it admit that there are major differences between the small
ports scattered around the shore of the Mediterranean, which have a limited sphere of influence, and the
large ports located within each other’s sphere of influence on the densely-populated shores of the North
Sea? Can a common type of EU-wide operational management be imposed on ports operating under
widely differing conditions, or does the Commission see any grounds for promoting the drawing up of
more restricted rules to apply to ports which have a strong influence on each other’s operations?

5.
Does the Commission accept that, as far as competition between ports is concerned, the existence or
not of the EU is a matter of supreme indifference? Or is it seeking a separate solution to this problem, in
addition to the proposed directive? Will this result in legislative proposals, and is the memorandum which
it has undertaken to publish to be seen as a preliminary stage in such legislation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

1. and 5.
The Commission recalls all previous debates on a European ports policy. It wishes to remind
the Honourable Member that the Treaty’s rules on state aid apply to ports. The essence of these rules was
‘Reinforcing
set out in the Communication from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council