WRITTEN QUESTION E-0604/03 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Council. Establishment of an agency for the promotion of linguistic diversity.
Date: 2003-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU office or agency, enlargement of the Union, language teaching, minority language, multilingualism, regional language

C 280 E/70

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

potential for further growth. It indicated it looked forward to working closely with the new Brazilian
Government, also with a view to strengthening Mercosur, and reiterated the EU’s commitment to continue
to make further progress in the ongoing EU-Mercosur negotiations.

leaders have had the opportunity of meeting President Lula da Silva since the
Several EU political
beginning of the year, and have reaffirmed the importance they attach to the strengthening of EU-Brazil
relations. The Council has taken note with great satisfaction of repeated declarations made by President
Lula da Silva in favour of a more integrated Mercosur as well as of closer relations with the EU.

2.
The Council has, at several occasions, renewed its commitment to intensify and deepen the existing
political, economic, trade and co-operation relations between the EU and Mercosur. It has noted with
satisfaction the progress made by the EU-Mercosur Bi-regional Negotiations Committee with a view to
establishing an interregional strategic association to cover political, economic, trade and co-operation
matters. The Council has also recognised that the association process should support and stimulate the
development of Mercosur countries and contribute to the reduction of existing socio-economic disparities
between the two regions. It was also agreed that the ultimate objective of the trade negotiations is the
achievement of further effective access to their respective markets, on the basis of progressive and
reciprocal trade liberalisation in accordance with the WTO rules.

With the above principles and objectives in mind, the EU negotiators will pursue their task with a view to
reaching as soon as possible a comprehensive association agreement with Mercosur in order to deepen the
political, co-operation and economic relations between the two regions.

(2003/C 280 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0604/03

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Council

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Establishment of an agency for the promotion of linguistic diversity

At the beginning of February 2003 the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL) held a special
meeting in Charleroi at which it adopted a resolution calling in particular on the European Union to set up
an agency responsible for promoting linguistic diversity and language learning (a model for which could be
the Vienna-based European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia).

In view of the particular wealth and variety of languages in the European Union and the fact that, in a
little over a year, 10 new countries will join the EU, and given that over 40 million people in the EU
currently speak a minority language on a daily basis (whereas (cid:1) for want of a legal basis, amongst other
things (cid:1) there is no real policy for protecting and promoting minority languages in the EU), what does the
Council think of the proposal adopted by the EBLUL? Does it not consider the establishment of such an
agency in the EU to be essential as a means of implementing a proper policy designed to promote
linguistic diversity and language learning in an enlarged EU? Would it be willing to consider such a
proposal with an eye to the future?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

Since the Council has not received any proposal concerning the establishment of an agency of the kind
advocated by European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages, it is not in a position to make any comments.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/71

The Council would however stress that it has frequently acknowledged the importance of linguistic
diversity within the European Union, as last reaffirmed by its resolution of 14 February 2002 (1) on ‘the
promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the
objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001’. Improving foreign language learning is also included
among the objectives of the ‘Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and
training systems in Europe’ (2) adopted within the context of the Lisbon strategy.

The Commission’s forthcoming communication concerning an action plan on linguistic diversity and
language learning will be examined with interest by the Council.

(1) OJ C 50, 23.2.2002.
(2) OJ C 142, 14.6.2002 (Objective 3.3).

(2003/C 280 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Zimbabwe (cid:1) Robert Mugabe regime (cid:1) EU sanctions (cid:1) EU-Africa relations

The following facts have recently been reported: (1) the package of sanctions against the regime of Robert
Mugabe and its leading officials, including restrictions on their movement within the EU, which was due to
lapse on 18 February 2003, has been renewed for a further year; (2) this decision was taken on a basis
compatible with France’s interests as regards the holding of a Franco-African summit during which
Mugabe himself would visit Paris;
(3) the EU-Africa summit scheduled for Lisbon which had been
postponed to April 2003 has now been deferred indefinitely, on the grounds that it is not possible to be
sure that Mugabe would refrain from attending and that his presence, or, indeed, the very possibility of it,
is considered absolutely undesirable.

The element of the sanctions restricting travel by high officials of the Mugabe regime has, as is well
known, generated, over a whole year, recurrent hesitations, uncertainties and criticisms, notably where
bilateral or multilateral relations under the EU’s external policy have been at stake. The conflicts arising on
these occasions have, in the opinion of many, served only to benefit Mugabe and his regime, allowing it to
sabotage meetings, divide the European side and attract solidarity in Africa.

The terms of the decision to renew the sanctions may even be seen as showing that the Council is not
treating Lisbon (Portugal)
in the same way as it treats Paris (France), considering that what may be
condoned for Paris cannot be accepted for Lisbon and thus raising doubts as regards the proper
implementation of the principle of the equality of all Member States and the provisions on mutual loyalty
and solidarity laid down in Article 11(2) of the EU Treaty.

What explanation can the Council provide for the differential treatment of Lisbon and Paris? How does it
justify the fact that the terms of the decision have made it possible to hold a Franco-African summit which
concerned France’s individual interests, and not a summit of collective interest to the whole Union? In the
wake of this experience, does the Council not believe that it would be preferable to decree a three- to six-
month moratorium for this element of the sanctions, following which time a new sanctions package could
be decided and applied should the Mugabe regime reject the idea of minimum standards?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council does not consider that Portugal and France have been treated differently in the questions
raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian. France notified its intention to issue a visa to President Mugabe
to attend the France-Africa Summit in accordance with the procedure set out in Common Position 2002/
145/CFSP and Coreper on 14 February 2003 noted the absence of obstacles to this participation.