WRITTEN QUESTION E-0302/03 by Jan Wiersma (PSE), Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE)and Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Nuclear strikes part of US strategic doctrine; harmful implications for CFSP, ESDP and transatlantic relations (inter alia in NATO).
Date: 2003-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: NATO, United States, common foreign and security policy, common security and defence policy, competence of the Member States, law of war, military cooperation, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear weapon, rapid reaction force

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/179

(2003/C 222 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0302/03

by Jan Wiersma (PSE), Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE)
and Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Nuclear strikes part of US strategic doctrine; harmful implications for CFSP, ESDP and transatlantic

relations (inter alia in NATO)

Has the Council read the articles in the Washington Post of 11 December entitled:

1.
‘Preemptive
Strikes Part of US Strategic Doctrine’, and in The Guardian entitled ‘US nuclear strategy threatens the
world’, and has the Council received a copy of the US policy document referred to in these articles in
which it is confirmed that the US is ready to use nuclear weapons against countries which are believed to
develop and/or possess weapons of mass destruction or components of weapons of mass destruction
(published in December 2002 under
‘National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass
Destruction’)?

the title:

Can the Council deny or confirm that this document is part of a Presidential directive, and does the
2.
Council agree with the point of view that the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, as described in the
above-mentioned policy document, must be considered as official US security policy?

3. Would the Council share the point of view that such a policy is a violation of the so-called ‘negative
security guarantees’, as agreed upon in the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which exclude the
use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states?

Is the Council concerned about the operational use of tactical nuclear weapons against hardened
4.
underground targets (robust nuclear earth penetrator), as foreseen by the US New Nuclear Posture Review,
published in January 2002?

5. What measures is the Council undertaking (cid:1) with and through the Member States, in NATO, in the
UN and in direct relations with the US (cid:1) to convince the US Administration that the threat to use nuclear
weapons by way of ‘self-defence’ outside the scope of classical deterrence is a globally dangerous concept
because it would lower the threshold for nuclear war and be a big threat for partnership relations between
the USA and the EU, within as well as outside NATO? What measures will the Council undertake to
engage the US more actively in existing non-proliferation and arms control schemes?

6. What guarantees can the Council give that US nuclear strikes will not be part of any operation in
which EU Member States or the future NATO Rapid Response Force will be involved?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

It is a general policy of the Council not to discuss matters on the basis of newspaper articles. The Council
has not examined the article in the Washington Post referred to by the Honourable Members. The Council
has not examined the mentioned US policy document nor has it been submitted officially to the Council.

The 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
agreed in the Final Document ‘that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to
the non-nuclear weapons States parties to the [NPT] strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime’.
Furthermore the Conference noted ‘the reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon States of their commitment to
the UNSC resolution 984/1995 on security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the [NPT].’
All EU Member States are States parties to the NPT.

The EU is and remains committed to a multilateral approach to address issues relating to disarmament,
arms control and non-proliferation. Furthermore the EU, in its regular contacts with the US, raises also
these issues and in particular encourages the US to stay actively engaged in the discussions in the various
international fora. In the context of the EU-US dialogue among other issues the EU continues to strongly
urge the US to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

C 222 E/180

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Regarding the issue set out in paragraph 6, it is for EU Member States to decide on their participation in
military operations on the basis of their national sovereignty. In addition it should be recalled that the
principle of decision making autonomy of the European Union will apply in the context of any operation
undertaken under Title V of the TEU.

(2003/C 222 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/03

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: National and Community rules and their consequences for beekeepers

The rules governing the use of lactic acid in beekeeping are applied differently in the individual EU
1.
Member States. How does the Commission view the various economic and environmental consequences of
this state of affairs for beekeeping?

2. Why has the Commission seized the initiative over the obligation of professional associations,
although this matter falls within the remit of the Member States?

3.
To what extent can the rules on the authorisation of lactic and formic acid and the obligation to sell
them only in pharmacies vary in the individual Member States without creating any distortions of
competition under EU legislation?

4.
How does the Commission intend to react, as regards the authorisation of sprays, to changed
methods of cultivation in modern agriculture in which the cultivation of genetically modified plants is
steadily increasing?

5.
Is the provision of sugar for winter feeding covered by European legislation? Which treaties and
agreements are affected by these rules? To what extent does the Commission see the need to act at
European level to redress price trends and thus distortions of competition?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

1.
There are no specific provisions in Community legislation on the use of organic acids (lactic acid) in
hives to combat certain diseases but prior authorisation has to be obtained for their use as veterinary
medicines. It appears nonetheless that in practice the variation in approach between certain Member States
is justifiable given the direct impact of climatic conditions on the yield of this type of treatment.

2.
In 1997 the Council of Ministers adopted Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 of 25 June 1997 laying down
general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey (1).
Article 4 requires the voluntary national programmes to be drawn up in close collaboration with the
representative organisations and beekeeping cooperatives. Thus the Member States are required to involve
these organisations in establishment of the national annual programmes.

3.
The national rules on authorisation of veterinary medicinal products for treatment or prevention of
diseases in bees have to be in line with the relevant Community legislation: Directive 2001/82/EC (2),
Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 (3) and Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (4). These provisions do not prevent
Member States from adopting stricter rules on the prescription and delivery of certain veterinary medicinal
products if this is necessary in order to protect human or animal health. Dispensing of veterinary
medicines is a matter for Member States, which are to take all appropriate measures to regulate wholesale
supply and retail supply to owners and keepers of animals.