WRITTEN QUESTION P-2909/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Future status of Tibet.
Date: 2003-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Tibetan question, international negotiations, political status, self-determination, the EU's international role

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/187

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

1.
The figures available concerning investment in research and development (R & D) relate to 2000 or
2001 in all the Member States, with the exception of Greece, where the latest statistics date from 1999.
A table will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. While
investment was increasing everywhere, the rates of growth differed, ranging from more than 7 % in
Belgium, Denmark and Ireland to less than 1 % in Germany. The data already available for 2002 show that
investment is decreasing in France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. A table (2) will be forwarded directly
to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s secretariat.

The breakdown by funding sources for R & D differs in Greece,

2.
in both nature and structure,
compared with the rest of the Community. Funding by the private sector is twice as low while that from
non-national sources is four times as high, notably from the contribution made by the Community
Research Framework Programme. A table (3) will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

Indicators for following progress in achieving the 3 % target defined in the Commission’s action plan
‘Investing in research’ can all be calculated from the scientific and technological (S & T) data which Eurostat
collects from the Member States, using procedures which are being reviewed in implementation of
Decision No 1608/2003/EC (1).

Greece is lagging significantly behind for nine of the 16 structural

indicators for research and
3.
innovation and is doing as well as, or better than, the European average for four of the indicators, while
information is unavailable for three others. A table (4) will be forwarded directly to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission’s action plan ‘Investing in research’ proposes a coherent series of measures to
4.
increase private sector investment in R & D. Measures for which the Member States are competent (more
than half of the total) will be implemented through the open coordination method as defined by the
European Council. For the Commission, this means setting up an appropriate framework to facilitate
mutual learning between Member States and, where applicable, their developing together new measures on
the following six themes: ‘human resources’; ‘the public research base and its links to industry’; ‘small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and research’; ‘fiscal measures to promote research’; ‘intellectual property
rights and research’ and ‘public funding for research and the policy mix’. Progress will be monitored
annually.

The ‘Action Plan for Innovation’ which the Commission is planning to launch in the first half of 2004 will
help,
in addition, to strengthen innovation in companies by adopting a broader and more business-
oriented outlook which will place greater emphasis on the non-technological, organisational and marketing
aspects of innovation.

(1) Decision No 1608/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 concerning the

production and development of Community statistics on science and technology.

(2004/C 78 E/0194)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2909/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Future status of Tibet

In a recent interview published in Le Figaro, the Dalai Lama stated that he ‘hope[d] that there would be
others [other contacts with the Chinese] and that they would lead to serious discussions’. He believes that
‘at present there is basically nothing new. Since the 1980s we have been demanding self-determination and
‘Tibetan youth
no longer independence. The Chinese know that perfectly well.’ The Dalai Lama added:
organisations clearly want independence. They do not agree with me. But there is no conflict between us
on that account. To be honest, if my approach were to fail, these young people would have a perfect right
to take up the torch and demand independence. One must be patient. It is barely a year since contacts
with China were resumed. But, if in two or three years’ time they have not borne any fruit, it will be
difficult for me to explain to young people why the “middle way” in the right one.’

C 78 E/188

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Is the Commission aware of the radical change in the position of the Tibetan leadership which is implied
by the unambiguous statement that it will be necessary to find a solution very soon (within two or three
years)? Ought not the European Union to do everything it can to induce the Chinese authorities and the
Tibetan government in exile to reach agreement quickly on defining a fully autonomous status for Tibet in
all fields except defence and foreign policy? Is the Commission aware that, after the period of two or three
years mentioned by the Dalai Lama, Tibet is liable to become a fresh source of tension or even the scene of
violence and bloody repression? Could not the Commission help to bring about the opening of such
negotiations by proposing that the EU Member States recognise the Tibetan government in exile?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

In its regular dialogue with China, particularly on human rights, the Commission has unfailingly expressed
its opinion that establishing direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama is the only realistic way of seeking a
practical and lasting solution to the Tibetan question based on granting the region full autonomy.

In this connection, it followed with interest the visit by the special envoys of the Dalai Lama to China
between 25 May and 8 June 2003 and considers that everything should be done to avoid compromising
the contacts made recently between the parties concerned.

(2004/C 78 E/0195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2921/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Cotton subsidies

Could the Commission detail subsidies paid to cotton producers by country within the EU each year for
the past five years and give the comparison between EU subsidies paid per tonne and those paid in the US?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

In line with a commitment made at Luxembourg on 26 June this year, the Commission on 23 September
adopted a Communication on reform of the common market organisations for olive oil, tobacco and
cotton. This is geared to the same purposes and adopts the same approach as this year’s earlier common
agricultural policy (CAP) reform package.

In support of
(available at
this Communication a working document entitled ‘The cotton sector’
europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/markets/cotton) was drawn up by the Agriculture Directorate-General to
provide a documentary basis for the proposal.

It gives the reader a picture of the Community cotton sector’s place in the world market during the last
few years. It also describes how the Community aid scheme has operated since it was set up when Greece
joined the Community. Statistical information (areas, production, budget) is given for the scheme.

It should be remembered that the Community cotton sector aid is paid to the processor on the basis of the
quantity of unginned cotton delivered by the grower, who must have received a minimum price per tonne
of unginned cotton. There are no export support measures such as refunds.