WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council. Zimbabwe — Robert Mugabe regime — EU sanctions — EU-Africa relations.
Date: 2003-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU visa policy, France, Portugal, Zimbabwe, equal treatment, international sanctions, restriction of liberty, summit meeting

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.

C 280 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

it was concluded that in the present
In the case of the Lisbon Summit, planned for 5 April 2003,
circumstances it would not be possible to achieve the broadest participation at the highest level in the
Summit by both sides, which would affect the outcome. It would therefore be in the best interest of EU-
Africa relations to postpone the Summit.

The Council has not debated the question of a moratorium for any element of the sanctions.

(2003/C 280 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0627/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(25 February 2003)

Subject: Political persecution in Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan has developed into a harsh dictatorship in which the political opposition is systematically
repressed. Even relatives and friends of opposition figures are punished with imprisonment, torture and
internal exile.

One example of such repression is the reprisals suffered by the relatives of Sapar Yklimov. Sapar Yklimov
was previously forced to leave Turkmenistan because of his criticism of the dictatorship in the country.
He now lives in Sweden and is a Swedish citizen. Sapar Yklimov’s relatives are being persecuted in
Turkmenistan and are refused permission to leave the country. Among those being persecuted is Sapar
Yklimov’s daughter, who was previously in Sweden as a refugee.

What action has the Council taken against the persecution in Turkmenistan? Has the question of the
persecution of Sapar Yklimov’s relatives, among them his daughter, been taken up directly with the regime
in Turkmenistan or does the Council intend to do so in the future?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The difficult situation in Turkmenistan is a matter of grave concern to the European Union. In its
declaration of 20 January 2003, the EU expressed its unequivocal support for a full and transparent
investigation into recent events in Turkmenistan.

The Council would recall
that seven EU Member States, and three other OSCE members, have
implemented with regard to Turkmenistan the OSCE ‘Moscow mechanism’, which was adopted at the
1991 meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension in Moscow. More generally, the EU has
supported this process since the start and actively monitored its implementation in Turkmenistan. The EU
backs the efforts made by the Netherlands in the context of its OSCE Presidency to engage the authorities
in Ashgabat in dialogue. The talks held by the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs on 3 March 2003
were particularly useful in this respect.

The situation in Turkmenistan was the subject of considerable discussion at a meeting of all EU Heads of
Mission in Central Asia on 5/6 March 2003. In the course of this and other Council discussions, various
individual cases have been highlighted for attention.

Over the past weeks, EU Heads of Mission in Ashgabat have made strenuous efforts to communicate the
EU’s concerns to the Turkmen authorities, but have met with considerable difficulties.
In these
circumstances, the main priority has been to urge the Turkmen authorities to change their attitude, rather
than to focus on individual cases.

Nonetheless, the EU will continue to seize every opportunity, including in the context of the 59th UNHCR
meeting, to raise concerns, both general and specific, about the situation in Turkmenistan.