WRITTEN QUESTION E-3750/02 by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Relations between the EU and the Republic of Surinam.
Date: 2002-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Surinam, bilateral agreement, cooperation policy, democratisation, economic development, social development

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/19

any details of the trial of the Rinpoche and Dhondup, but Radio Free Asia has quoted a relative of one of
them as saying that they were denied lawyers. Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche and Lobsang Dhondup were accused
by the local Communist authorities of committing a series of bomb attacks (two last year in the Ganze
region of Sichuan and a third in the provincial capital Chengdu), on the basis of statements by a former
assistant of Tenzin Deleg to the effect that the Rinpoche had instructed him to carry out one of the attacks
and of ‘confessions’ made to the police by Tenzin Deleg himself while in custody following his arrest on
7 April 2002, according to which he had masterminded this attack as well as six other previously
unsolved cases of bomb attacks carried out earlier in Ganze.

According to a number of sources, including some in the People’s Republic of China, Tenzin Deleg and
Dhondup may have been targeted because of their peaceful activism. The Chinese authorities have kept the
Rinpoche under strict surveillance in recent years. They tried to arrest him in 1998 after he attempted to
found a monastery without official permission, and for leading protests against deforestation of the area by
a local timber company.

What information does the Commission have on the trial of Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche and Lobsang
Dhondup, and what does it intend to do to obtain an immediate judicial review in accordance with
international standards of fair and due process? Has the Commission already conveyed to the Chinese
authorities its official disapproval of the flagrant violations of fundamental rights of which Tenzin Deleg
Rinpoche and Lobsang Dhondup are victims? Is the Commission aware that the Chinese authorities’
attitude in this case stands in stark contrast to the signals of willingness to enter into dialogue with the
Dalai Lama sent by these same authorities to western governments and the Tibetan government in exile
when they invited two special representatives of the Dalai Lama to China and Tibet a few months ago?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

The Commission has been informed of the death sentence imposed on the two Tibetans Tenzin Delek
Rinpoche and Lobsang Dhondup on 2 December 2002, on the basis of their alleged involvement in a
bomb attack. The Commission is also aware of the evidence on which the sentence was based and the
manner in which the trial has been carried out.

The Union immediately expressed its concern to the Chinese authorities and has had several official
contacts with the Chinese authorities on behalf of the two convicted Tibetans. The Commission is also
aware that the United States and Australian Governments intervened on behalf of the two convicted
Tibetans with Chinese authorities.

According to information available to the Commission, the two Tibetans have lodged an appeal which
means that the execution can not be carried out until the sentence has been reviewed by China’s People’s
Court.

The Commission will continue to closely follow this case and the general Human Rights situation in Tibet.

(2004/C 70 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3750/02

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Relations between the EU and the Republic of Surinam

In May 2000, presidential elections were held in Surinam which radically altered the state of political
instability which had characterised the preceding years.

C 70 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

The return of Ronald Venetiaan has prompted fresh action: better control over public expenditure,
a reduction in subsidies and an increase in tax revenue. Furthermore, the government has decided to base
exchange rates on the market and to cease financing the public deficit by increasing the amount of money
in circulation.

Nonetheless, the new government has inherited a country which is on the verge of financial collapse and
further reforms are called for if bankruptcy is to be staved off.

Will the Commission say what role it is playing in the democratisation of the country and what strategy it
is pursuing in order to foster Surinam’s social and economic development?

In particular, does the Commission intend to establish bilateral agreements with Surinam?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Community contributed EUR 2 million to the electoral process leading to the general elections of
May 2000, which were perceived as free and fair. Election observers from Member States participated.

The democratic process, which the country has gone through during the past years,
is positively
appreciated by the Commission and the international community. Its consolidation is now a priority and
this is the subject of a continuous dialogue between Government, civil society and the international
community. The Commission plays an active role in co-ordination with the Member States.

During the period 2001-2002, the government improved public finances. Due to global macro-economic
setbacks and a 30 % increase in public sector wages in 2002,
the situation is now deteriorating.
Government has very recently concluded agreements in the mining sector which should help, but the
effects can only be expected in the medium term.

With respect to agreements, Surinam has benefited from all the Lomé Conventions and has ratified the
Cotonou Agreement. A Country Strategy Paper under the Cotonou Agreement was signed by the
Commission and Surinam in July 2002. The Strategy (EUR 19,1 million) is concentrated on transport
infrastructure including the improvement of its institutional and legal aspects, actions to create conditions
for economic growth. Furthermore, Surinam benefits from the Special Framework of Assistance for
Traditional Suppliers of Bananas (EUR 11 million allocated over the past four years) and the preferential
treatment on imports of rice into the Union.

(2004/C 70 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3751/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Disappearance of Arjan Erkel in Dagestan

Is the Commission aware that Arjan Erkel, a member of Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without
Borders), Switzerland, was abducted on 12 August 2002 in Makhachkala, the capital of the Republic of
Dagestan, which country is a member of the Russian Federation?

Is the Commission aware that Arjan Erkel’s family has had no news of him since that date?

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Russian authorities to investigate the fate of Arjan Erkel and to
make every effort to secure his release?