WRITTEN QUESTION E-0766/03 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council. Exploitation of natural resources in Western Sahara.
Date: 2003-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Morocco, UN Security Council, Western Sahara, decolonisation, energy resources, exploitation of resources, international law, international negotiations, patents licence

C 280 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

(2003/C 280 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Iraq-related threats made against Chile and Mexico by the Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar

at a press conference held in Madrid on 27 February

At a press conference held in Madrid on 27 February in the presence of the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair,
the Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar issued implicit threats against Chile and Mexico (current UN
Security Council members) which could be carried out should those two countries fail to support the US
stance in favour of war with Iraq. Mr Aznar pointed out that both Mexico and Chile are awaiting the
conclusion of association agreements with the EU, which must be signed by the Member States’
governments and parliaments. The way in which he made this point and the moment at which he did so
(just before the decisive UN vote on war or peace) implied that he intended to threaten the two countries
in question with a refusal on the part of the Spanish Government to sign or implement the association
agreements.

How does the Council intend to react to Mr Aznar’s behaviour? Does the Council deem it politically,
morally and procedurally acceptable that such an attempt should be made to by-pass the European Council
and to bend the views of two sovereign countries in order to serve the particular interests of, and to
promote political positions favourable to, a country (namely the USA) which is not part of the EU?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

It is not Council practice to comment on public statements made by Heads of Government of the

1.
Member States.

2.
The Council recalls that the EU-Mexico Global Agreement was signed on 8 December 1997 and
entered into force on 1 October 2001. The EU-Chile Association Agreement was signed in Brussels on
18 November 2002 and the bulk of its provisions are being implemented since 1 February 2003. Member
States will have to complete their ratification procedures before the Agreement may be concluded.

(2003/C 280 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0766/03

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

Subject: Exploitation of natural resources in Western Sahara

(12 March 2003)

The administration of Western Sahara by the Moroccan Government has been disputed ever since Spain
left in 1975.

Despite the various political agreements established at UN level for decolonising the territory, it is public
knowledge that
the Moroccan Government granted licences to two international
companies, one French and the other American, to test drill for energy resources in the territorial waters of
the Western Sahara. These companies entrusted the Norwegian company TGS-NOPEC with making the
preliminary seismic investigations.

in October 2001,

In view of the UN Security Council Legal Services’ report of 29 January 2002, the licences granted by the
Moroccan government could be understood as infringing international law, which means that should such
energy resources be exploited, they would belong to the Saharan people.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/85

Public opinion in Norway has recently denounced TGS-NOPEC on the grounds that its activities in the
waters of Western Sahara infringe international law with regard to prospecting for and possibly exploiting
the natural resources of a non-autonomous territory pending its decolonisation.

Given the Lalumière Report by the European Parliament on the situation in Western Sahara, and the
circumstances surrounding this long-standing dispute and the presence of a Community undertaking in
this prospecting for energy resources and their subsequent exploitation, what position does the Council
take with regard to the current situation of test drilling and possible exploitation?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

Discussions on the final settlement of the Western Sahara question are being conducted within the United
Nations Security Council, as well as with the parties concerned, and are currently at a decisive stage.
The Council is following these discussions closely and wholeheartedly supports the efforts of the United
Nations Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy, Mr James Baker,
in the quest for a lasting solution fully
observing international
law, human rights and democracy. The discussions taking place within the
framework of the United Nations have now reached a critical point for securing a positive outcome to a
conflict dating back almost 30 years.

Mr Baker visited the region in January 2003 to present the parties and neighbouring countries with the
terms of a proposal for a political solution to the conflict, ensuring self-determination in accordance with
Security Council Resolution 1429 (2002). Minurso’s mandate has been extended until 31 May 2003 to
give the parties sufficient time to examine the proposal and submit their responses. The Security Council
has requested the Secretary-General to provide it with a further report by 19 May 2003.

The Council has not so far discussed the specific matter raised by the Honourable Member.

(2003/C 280 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0773/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Budget overruns in the construction of the Attiki Odos motorway

In its answer to my question (P-0239/03 (1)) the Commission has failed the answer the question I had put,
doubtless owing to a misunderstanding. It stated that the total cost of the construction of the Attiki Odos
motorway was EUR 1 713 million, which is less than the sum of EUR 3 175 million which it had
mentioned in its answer to a previous question (E-2894/01 (2)), presumably because the answer to the
former question refers only to the period 2000-2006. It also fails to mention whether there have been any
overruns and, if so, what the reasons for these overruns are.

In view of the above, the Commission is once again asked to say:

(cid:1) What was the budget for the Attiki Odos motorway when construction work began?

(cid:1) What overruns have been noted since construction work began and what are the reasons for these

overruns?

(cid:1) What is the overall construction cost for the Attiki Odos motorway as it has grown with the passage

of time, including the overruns?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 200.
(2) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 189.