WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Possibility of an EU Member State allowing nuclear weapons to be used in a war in Iraq.
Date: 2003-02-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Iraq, arms control, arms policy, common foreign and security policy, competence of the Member States, disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear weapon

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/29

On 28 July 2000, in line with the procedure provided for by Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the
4.
Commission sent a letter of formal notice concerning the special powers held by the Dutch State in TNT
Post Groep N.V. This was followed by a technical meeting with the Dutch authorities on 26 September
2000 on the offending provisions in Dutch legislation. Moreover, the important rulings handed down by
the Court of Justice on 4 June 2002, which largely confirmed the principles set out in the Commission’s
interpretative communication of 19 July 1997, were the subject of a Commission press release of the same
date.

Article 295 of the EC Treaty stipulates that ‘This Treaty shall

5.
in no way prejudice the rules in
Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Member States therefore have the right to
nationalise or to privatise. However, Court of Justice case-law has established that a decision to privatise,
for example, must be carried through in accordance with the principles of Community law, particularly
that of the free movement of capital. Consequently, while it is not the Commission’s role to comment on
the strategic and political choices of Member States regarding checks on the activities of private firms, it
does have an obligation to ensure that Community law is respected. In this connection, see also the replies
to questions 1 and 6.

As mentioned in the reply to question 1, Court of Justice case-law has established that Member States
6.
may retain a certain degree of influence in privatised firms which provide services of public or strategic
interest. However, such restrictions on the free movement of capital must be justified either by means of
the exceptions provided for in Article 58 of the EC Treaty or by compelling reasons of general interest,
provided that the measures respect the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.

7.
To inform national authorities and economic operators in Member States of the way in which the
Commission interprets the EC Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital and on freedom of
establishment, the Commission adopted a communication on 19 July 1997 on certain legal aspects of
Community investments. The principles outlined in this communication are based essentially on the EC
Treaty and Court of Justice case-law, which remains, of course, the sole competent authority as regards the
interpretation of Community law.

The above interpretative communication deals with two basic freedoms and is all the more justified as the
provisions in question are directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty. As the Court has often said,
provisions of this type require no implementing measures as they are sufficiently clear and unconditional
in themselves. Moreover, Community case-law confirms
the Community institutions cannot
themselves limit the exercise of basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty. The essential principles of
the Communication are largely confirmed by recent Court of Justice case-law (Court judgments of 4 June
2002 Commission v France, C-483/99, Commission v Belgium, C-503/99, Commission v Portugal, C-367/
98).

that

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2004/C 51 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Possibility of an EU Member State allowing nuclear weapons to be used in a war in Iraq

1.
Can the Council confirm that the EU Member States that are also members of NATO have hitherto
been committed to using nuclear weapons solely against States that threaten them with their own nuclear
weapons?

2.
Does the Council look on Iraq as one of the countries which, like the United States, United Kingdom,
France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel and in future possibly North Korea, possess nuclear
weapons?

C 51 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Does the restriction on the use of nuclear weapons referred to in paragraph 1 no longer apply to the
3.
United Kingdom, given the recent statement by its Defence Minister concerning the deployment of nuclear
weapons and the fact that, after leaving Portsmouth on 11 January 2003, the aircraft carrier ‘Ark Royal’
first made a lengthy five-day detour to the secret weapons and Trident submarine nuclear weapons depot
in Loch Long on the west coast of Scotland before setting course for Iraq?

4. Might nuclear weapons be used to cause radioactive contamination of areas and their inhabitants by
fallout or, by means of an explosion at high altitude, to cause shock waves that wipe out everything on the
ground below them?

5.
How great is the risk that the actual use of nuclear weapons, which have not been deployed in
practice since 1945, will lead to more and more countries wanting to acquire such weapons for self-
defence?

6. What action is the Council taking to prevent the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons of mass
destruction in the future?

Source: Netherlands TV1, Knevel op zaterdag programme, 8 February 2003.

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The question put forward by the Honourable Member in paragraphs 1 and 3 does not fall under the
competence of the Council. It is recalled that decisions of EU Member States on the use of their military
capability are taken by Member States on the basis of their national sovereignty.

The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to which all EU Member States are State
Parties, recognises five nuclear-weapon States (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United
States). All but three members of the United Nations (India, Israel and Pakistan) are State Parties to the
NPT. The EU has repeatedly urged these three States to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon States.
Furthermore the EU considers that the DPRK remains a non-nuclear weapon State Party to the NPT with
all the obligations it entails.

As regards the questions put forward in paragraphs 4 and 5, the Council has not examined the issues
referred to by the Honourable Member.

the Council

However,
is greatly concerned about the risk of proliferation of all Weapons of Mass
Destruction and their means of delivery and has addressed this issue regularly during meetings at various
levels. Promoting universal adherence and strict compliance to multilateral disarmament, arms control and
non-proliferation treaties has been one of the constant key EU policies over the years. In addition issues
relating to disarmament and proliferation have been systematically included in our political dialogue
agenda with third countries at all levels.

In accordance with the conclusions of the Brussels European Council on 20/21 March 2003, the EU will
intensify work for a comprehensive, coherent and effective multilateral policy of
the international
community to prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Council will address this
issue, in a focused way, during the coming months with a view to reinforcing its action in this field in the
future.

(2004/C 51 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2003)

Subject: Women’s rights in Nigeria

Cooperation between the EU and Nigeria takes place on the basis of ACP-EU partnership. In the Cotonou
Agreement, which outlines the general framework for ACP-EU relations for the next 20 years, respect for
human rights and the equality of women and men is stressed repeatedly by both parties.