WRITTEN QUESTION E-3729/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Legal status in the EU of members of the Iranian opposition in exile who are campaigning for pluralist democracy and against theocratic dictatorship.
Date: 2002-12-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, Iran, concentration of powers, cooperation policy, democratisation, government-in-exile, human rights, political opposition, terrorism, weapon of mass destruction

C 222 E/100

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has not discussed the points raised in her
question.

(2003/C 222 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3729/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Legal status in the EU of members of the Iranian opposition in exile who are campaigning for

pluralist democracy and against theocratic dictatorship

1.
Is the Council aware that a young generation in Iran is increasingly protesting against the fact that
the elected parliament and the elected president have no real authority in the state and that power over the
army, the police, the courts, censorship and citizens’ freedoms is in the hands of a conservative, theocratic
elite which cannot be voted out of office and which imprisons or kills opponents?

2.
Given that Iran cannot be described as a democracy governed by the rule of law, does the Council
regard it as right that organisations which are the most vocal in calling for change, and are therefore
banned in Iran, are treated as terrorist organisations outside Iran?

3.
Is the Council coming under pressure from the Iranian authorities to declare as a terrorist
organisation the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an umbrella organisation set up in 1981
and now based in Paris, which, as a 560-member parliament in exile, brings together people of various
faiths, ethnic origins and political convictions and campaigns for a democratic, secular and pluralist Iran,
equality between women and men, self-determination for ethnic minorities and free elections under UN
supervision?

4.
Is the Council aware of how much backing there is for calls to support the Iranian democratic
opposition in exile and for the legalisation of such organisations in the EU, such as the call made on
18 July 2002 by 453 Members of both Houses of the UK Parliament, the call made by the Danish
Parliament on 14 November 2002 for dialogue with relevant opposition groups in Iran with a view to
fostering the reform process, and the support which has now been given by the parliaments of Italy,
Belgium and Luxembourg and by MPs in France, Germany and Sweden for the legalisation of the
Mujahedin Khalq (PMOI), an opposition movement set up in 1965 and which is now the largest and most
active within the NCRI?

5.
Is the Council prepared to offer the Mujahedin Khalq immediate guarantees that it can operate as a
fully legal organisation, that it will not be suspected of plotting terrorist acts on EU territory and that no
restrictions will therefore be imposed on its peaceful activities and fundraising?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council decided on 17 June 2002 to deepen relations between the EU and Iran. The Council stressed
that it wished to support the reformist forces in Iran. When taking its decision, the Council emphasised
that enhanced trade and co-operation with Iran would be linked to significant, positive developments in a
number of areas of concern to the EU, such as human rights, counter-terrorism, proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and the Middle East Peace Process. The Council also said that it would evaluate
progress in these areas. The EU’s policy vis-à-vis Iran therefore has a political context within which the EU
has certain expectations for the development of reforms in Iran.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/101

Negotiations on both trade co-operation and political matters began in parallel on 12 December 2002.
On that occasion, the EU explained the linkage between the commercial and the political aspects of EU-
Iran relations, and it would seem that Iran agreed to regard the future contractual relations between the EU
and Iran as a package.

In addition to the above, in December 2002 the EU and Iran set up a Human Rights Dialogue with the
participation of experts, NGOs and government officials.

As to the specific question, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Mujahedin-e Khalq
Organisation (MeK or MKO) is on the EU list of persons and groups involved in terrorist acts as referred to
in Common Position 2001/931 (1) as amended. The Community and the Member States are committed in
this respect.

Regarding the NCRI, the Council takes note of the Honourable Member’s position. At this point in time,
the Council has no concrete plans regarding the NCRI.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2003/C 222 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3730/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Measures to combat imports of American foodstuffs which are not labelled as to their composition

and origin and which contain genetically modified ingredients

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Food Inspection Department, now part of the new
Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), faces a heavy workload in determining whether imported foodstuffs
contain genetically modified ingredients and what proportion of the foodstuffs those ingredients make up,
in particular because US rules make no distinction between natural foodstuffs and genetically modified
foodstuffs, three-quarters of US foodstuffs contain genetically modified ingredients and information about
genetic material is lacking in America?

Does the Commission know whether organisations in other Member States which are responsible for

2.
monitoring food safety also find the work of checking imports very time-consuming?

3. What action is the Commission taking to convince bodies such as the FDA that the checking of
genetically modified foodstuffs is nevertheless entirely feasible, on the basis of scientific tests or systematic
documentation?

4.
Does the lack of US rules on the protection of consumers who do not wish to buy genetically
modified products imply that more checks have to be carried out within the EU than would be necessary if
the US were to cooperate, given that it would not be safe to assume that all exporting firms outside
Europe act in good faith and cooperate voluntarily?

Does the Commission point out, in trade talks with the US, that US foodstuffs may be denied access
5.
to EU countries in the future, on the grounds that the lack of prior information on the composition of
foodstuffs necessitates stringent, and therefore expensive, checks by the public authorities, and that even if
imports are approved the unnecessary costs generated will be passed on to the exporting firm?

6.
Do such problems arise solely in connection with the two approved products, maize and soya beans,
which had already been granted access to the EU market as foodstuffs or feedingstuffs before 1998, on the
basis of Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or will future imports covered by Regulations (EC) Nos 1139/98 (2), 49/
2000 (3) and 50/2000 (4) or the future regulations COM(2001) 425 (5) and COM(2001) 182 (6) also be
affected?