WRITTEN QUESTION E-2563/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Compatibility between the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese dictatorial regime and the agreement initialled by the European Union and Sudan.
Date: 2003-08-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sudan, agreement (EU), civil war, human rights, international cooperation, military regime, peace, settlement of disputes

C 88 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Human Rights issues occupy a permanent place on the agenda of the Union-Peru political dialogue, carried
out at the level of the Andean Community (CAN). The Union is supporting in particular the work of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación Nacional) amongst whose
tasks is the investigation of serious human rights violations during the period of 1980-2000.

(2004/C 88 E/0103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2563/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: Compatibility between the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese dictatorial regime and the

agreement initialled by the European Union and Sudan

Considering that:

(cid:1) according to the press agency MISNA, during the clashes of the last few weeks between rebel forces
and the Sudanese government, Antonov aircraft of the Sudanese airforce have hit 25 villages in the
north-west of the western state of Darfur, using unspecified ‘toxic gases’ which are said to have killed
300 people and injured more than 200 others;

(cid:1) the government of the President General Hassan Al Bashir has not yet responded to the accusation
that he wants to hit the population of Darfur, made by the Sudanese people’s liberation army
(SPLM/A);

(cid:1) peace talks between the Sudanese government and SPLM/A have been suspended yet again and the

start of discussions, scheduled for this week, has been postponed until 3 August;

(cid:1) on 11 July the government delegation refused to accept as a basis for the future talks the framework
agreement put
the regional
organisation of the countries of the Horn of Africa which is directing the negotiations, after the
SPLM/A delegation had publicly expressed its satisfaction with the document;

forward by IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development),

(cid:1) since it was signed in July last year no action has been taken on the preliminary protocol of
understanding between the two sides and the Khartoum government seems to have no intention of
giving up or sharing control over the oil-producing areas in the south, the revenue produced or the
new armed forces, which the dictator Al-Bashir has been employing to murder people in Sudan for
many years.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether, in the light of these events, it intends to denounce the agreement initialled on 10 December
last year with the Sudanese government, since the latter is indiscriminately using its military arsenal
and does not seem to have any intention of implementing the Machakos protocol of July last year;

(cid:1) whether it considers that Al Bashir’s dictatorial regime, responsible for what amounts to genocide of

the non-Muslim population, can ensure peace, prosperity and security in Sudan;

(cid:1) whether it intends to take unified action on behalf of the European Union in all multilateral fora,
starting with the United Nations, to step up international pressure on the Sudanese government to
isolate its murderous dictator?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2003)

The Commission, together with the Member States, carefully monitors both the situation regarding respect
for human rights and the evolution of the hostilities in Sudan. Since March 1990, the Commission has
suspended development co-operation with the country.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/99

In line with the Council conclusions of 17 June 2002, the Commission has confirmed that the resumption
of development co-operation would only take place when a peace agreement for the Sudanese civil conflict
is signed.

No agreement was initialled on 10 December 2002 with the Government of Sudan. On that date an Union
Troika was in Khartoum during which the normalisation of Union/Sudan relations was linked to the
signature of a peace agreement. The Union considers that the continuation of the civil conflict and the
violations of human rights constitute the main obstacles to social and economic development in Sudan.

The Commission considers that only a Government formed through a comprehensive and just peace
process ‘can ensure peace, prosperity and security in Sudan’.

The Commission has always participated in Union initiatives on Sudan in international fora, in particular
in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Commission will continue to pursue this policy.

(2004/C 88 E/0104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Violation of international directives by a Dutch company in the DRC

Has the Commission been following the reports about the involvement of the Dutch Chemie

1.
Pharmacie Holland (CPH) Company in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Is it true that CPH has paid hundreds of thousands of euros to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la
2.
Démocratie (RCD) in Goma? If so, when did the Commission become aware of the payments and what is
its view thereof?

If the accusations are well-founded, will the Commission take measures against CPH and, possibly,

3.
other companies, as called for, ‘inter alia’ , by the UN Expert Panel?

4.
In connection with the UN, is the Commission prepared to call for a moratorium in the coltan trade
until contacts can be established with a transitional government and strict agreements concluded? If not,
why not?

5.
By analogy with the Kimberley Procedure with regard to the diamond trade, is the Commission
prepared to initiate an inquiry into certification procedures for coltan and other raw materials which
would make it impossible for the conflict in the DRC to be financed from trade in raw materials? What is
the Commission’s view of the UN Expert Panel’s recommendation that a permanent body be set up to
monitor raw materials involved in the conflict?

Given the involvement of Rwanda, a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, in trade in coltan from
6.
the DRC, is the Commission prepared to make urgent representations to the Rwandan Government for it
to set up a Commission, like the Porter Commission in Uganda, to inquire into the involvement of Rwanda
and Rwandan citizens in the plunder of raw materials in the DRC?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

1. to 3.
The Commission follows, to the extent possible, individual cases relating to the ‘Report of Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’. However, the follow-up is
the responsibility of individual countries. Comments on cases being pursued by national authorities are not
appropriate while investigations are taking place.