WRITTEN QUESTION P-3184/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Arrogance of the Lao authorities.
Date: 2003-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Laos, cooperation agreement (EU), democratisation, human rights, pacifism, political cooperation, political prisoner

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/233

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the existence of agreements between producers of medical
1. and 2.
accessories and instruments with a view to marking as many products as possible ‘single-use’ and has
prima facie no reason to examine whether such agreements do exist.

The Commission is not

in a position to provide indications regarding economic costs and
3.
environmental benefits associated with re-use of single-use devices. Hospital infection is a complex issue,
of which the use of medical devices is only a component, probably difficult to identify and isolate.

The Commission shares the point of view of virtually all Member States that re-use of single-use
4.
devices should not be promoted for reasons of health protection. It draws the attention to the fact that
through procurement policy, Member States can promote the use of medical devices designed and placed
on the market as reusable devices. The role procurement policy and other instruments can play in limiting
the generation of waste will be considered in the Commission’s Communication ‘Towards a thematic
strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste’ (1). However, this strategy will not address re-use of
medical instruments and accessories in particular.

(1) COM(2003) 301 final.

(2004/C 70 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3184/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Arrogance of the Lao authorities

On 26 October 1999 five young Laos (cid:1) Thongpaseuth Keuakoun, Sengaloun Phengphanh, Bouavanh
Chanmanivong, Khamphouvieng Sisaat and Keochay (cid:1) were arrested with dozens of other demonstrators
for having organised a peaceful march in Vientiane involving students, teachers, civil servants and Lao
citizens who were calling for democratic reform, measures against corruption, reforms to achieve more
social justice and a multi-party system.

trade agreements and enormous
Four years later, despite numerous appeals and despite preferential
cooperation efforts by the European Union and its Member States, the Lao authorities have not deigned to
make the slightest gesture, even a humanitarian one, towards the five prisoners of conscience. Neither the
International Red Cross nor Member State Ambassadors nor Commission representatives nor officials of
the United Nations and other international organisations have been authorised to visit them in prison.
In addition the Vientiane authorities have not even accepted that they should honour the promises made
by their representative at a parliamentary meeting in Strasbourg to clarify contradictory reports by various
government officials concerning the conditions in which the five desaparecidos of the demonstration of
the 26 October have been brought to justice.

Moreover, according to well-informed sources, it seems that Mr Khamphouvieng Sisaat has not been seen
for over a year, while Mr Thongpaseuth Keuakoun has become very weak and has lost the use of his legs.

Has the Commission received precise and reliable information on the judicial and health situation of the
five desaparecido leaders of the Movement of 26 October?

Does the Commission not think the Lao authorities’ attitude to the European Union in this affair borders
on contempt and far exceeds the limits of decency?

C 70 E/234

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Does the Commission not also think that even more than towards Burma (which is not said lightly) the
European Union should take an extremely firm and determined approach towards the Lao authorities so a
process of democratisation and national reconciliation can be achieved effectively and as a matter of
urgency?

To this end, is the Commission willing to inform the Lao authorities, notably at the bilateral EU-Laos
meeting to be held in Brussels in November in the cooperation agreement framework, of its intention to
freeze EU funding to Laos if the Vientiane authorities do not give precise undertakings in respect of
ambitious democratic reform and the situation of all political prisoners?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is fully committed to emphasising the need to strengthen respect for human rights in
Laos,
including freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion as well as the adherence to
international human rights conventions.

As regards the overall human rights situation in Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR), the Commission
has raised several concerns, including the question of the five leaders of the ‘26 October movement’, with
the Government of Laos on numerous occasions, unfortunately with limited results so far.

The Commission will be examining all aspects of the human rights situation in Laos, including possible
responses from the Commission’s side, in view of the next EC-Laos Joint Committee which will take place
in Vientiane in the first half of 2004 and is prepared to report back to the Parliament.

In the meantime, the Commission maintains a policy of constructive political dialogue with the Laotian
government, paired with continued support
to the most vulnerable groups in Lao society through
Community-assisted development programmes.

The suspension of aid until basic human rights are respected should be considered as a measure of last
resort, as it would be likely to impact badly on the populations whose rights are violated.

Should there be no significant progress in the human rights situation and could it be argued that the
constructive policy taken so far does not result in any positive results, the Commission would be ready to
review the present co-operation framework with Laos and consider measures as appropriate,
in full
co-ordination with Member States and the Parliament.

(2004/C 70 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3197/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Swedish referendum on the euro

Did the Commission make any financial contribution to the Swedish referendum on the euro, either

1.
directly, or indirectly? If yes please give details.

Did the Commission supply euro publicity material to the Swedish Government or any other body

2.
ahead of the Swedish euro referendum? If yes please give details.

3. What involvement, if any, did the Commission have in the Swedish referendum?

Has the Commission distributed any publicity on the euro to either UK, Sweden or Denmark over

4.
the last 24 months? Does the Commission have any plans to do so?

5. Would the Commission envisage a role for itself in any possible euro referendum in the UK?