WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Dredgers in Indonesia.
Date: 2003-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Indonesia, international trade, judicial proceedings, mining extraction, primacy of the law, rule of law, trade dispute

C 33 E/64

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

including the system of price undertakings, do not depend upon the agreement. Consequently, the trade
defence measures applicable to Norwegian imports of farmed Atlantic salmon remain in place and will
continue to do so until a definitive decision is taken.

The issue of a system to monitor developments in the salmon market, should the application of the
measures on Norwegian imports not be extended, has been raised by a number of parties. The
Commission is currently considering the practicalities of such a system both in terms of its scope and of its
legal implications.

The Commission remains ready to investigate all cases where there is positive evidence of unfair trade
practices by third country exporters and to take action to redress injury suffered by Community producers
where this is justified. Therefore, if it is ultimately decided to repeal the existing measures applicable to
imports of farmed Atlantic salmon from Norway and not to impose measures on imports from Chile and
the Faeroe Islands, the independent salmon farmers to which the Honourable Member refers, will have the
possibility to present a substantiated complaint to the Commission in respect of some or all of these
imports, which shows, inter alia, that the circumstances on which the termination was based have changed
and that there is prima facie evidence of injurious dumping.

(2004/C 33 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Dredgers in Indonesia

On 26 July 2002 a number of dredgers, including three Belgian vessels, were stopped by the Indonesian
navy near Sumatra. They were apparently not carrying the correct papers. An accusation of theft of sand
was also made. The vessels were subsequently held under arrest.

On 9 October an Indonesian court fined each of the Belgian dredgers over EUR 3 000 for not having the
correct papers on board, but only copies. Following payment of the fines the vessels should have been
released. The judge makes no reference in his verdict to theft of sand. The fact is that there was no
question of theft. If too small an amount of sand extracted was stated, this is solely to be ascribed to the
local concession holders, who are in contact with the central authorities. That, however, is an internal
Indonesian problem. The Indonesian Government ignored the judgement and decided, regardless of the
judge, to demand damages of EUR 18,5 million as a condition for release. This sum amounts to 15 % of
the dredgers’ value. The Indonesian Government refers to compensation for the losses suffered by the
Indonesian population due to disadvantageous conditions in respect of sand extraction laid down by
previous governments. The dredgers have paid the sum and have since been released.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs?

If so, does the Commission consider that the Indonesian Government has acted in contravention of

2.
its obligations under the WTO?

Does the Commission consider that the Indonesian Government (wrongly) ignored the verdict of the

3.
Indonesian judge and thereby undermined the rule of law?

4.

If so, does the Commission intend to intervene with the Indonesian Government in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the issue concerning court proceedings in Indonesia and the impounding and
subsequent release of a number of dredgers, among them Belgian vessels.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/65

At this stage, the Commission does not consider that the behaviour of the Indonesian Government
conflicts with its World Trade Organisation obligations.

With regard to the alleged ignorance of the judgement by the Indonesian Government the Commission
considers this as an internal problem which has no bearing on Indonesia’s international obligations. The
Commission therefore does not intend to intervene with the Indonesian Government at this stage.

(2004/C 33 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0658/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq and the use of force

The Conclusions of the European Council of 17 February 2003 declare, inter alia, that Baghdad must
‘disarm and co-operate immediately and fully’, that the Union’s objective for Iraq ‘remains full and effective
disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions, in particular resolution 1441’, and that the
Council pledges its ‘full support to the (UN Security) Council in discharging its responsibilities’.

Resolution 1441 makes reference to a number of previous UNSC resolutions pertaining to Iraq including
678 (1990) and 687 (1991). Although principally concerned with the liberation of Kuwait, Paragraph 2 of
Resolution 678 reads as follows:

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before
the above-mentioned
15 January 1991 fully implements, as
resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

forth in paragraph 1 above,

set

Paragraph 3 of the same resolution continues:

Requests all States to provide appropriate support
paragraph 2 above.

for the actions undertaken in pursuance of

UN Security Council Resolution 687, whilst reaffirming ‘the need to be assured of
Iraq’s peaceful
intentions’, required Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction or removal of all biological and
chemical weapons as well as research and manufacturing facilities and to accept immediate on-site
inspections of its chemical, biological and missile capabilities by UNSCOM.

Does the Commission accept that Iraq’s longstanding failure to co-operate with the U.N. in accounting
fully for its weapons of mass destruction and the continued threat to regional security which this presents
mean that international peace and security have not yet been restored to the area? If so, does the
Commission accept that resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 provide an adequate legal basis for armed
intervention in the event that Iraq continues to fail to co-operate with the UN in accounting for its stocks
of biological and chemical weapons?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

As already stated in previous Council declarations as well as in the last European Council conclusions of
17 February 2003, the Commission agrees that Iraq failed to comply with several United Nations Security
Council resolutions from 1991 onwards.