WRITTEN QUESTION E-3407/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Cabinda — report on human rights.
Date: 2003-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Angola, EU relations, human rights, political situation, territorial enclave, war of independence

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/541

(cid:1) For all ERDF-financed programmes in Spain (19 regional (cid:1) 12 Objective 1, seven Objective 2 (cid:1),
eight horizontal mono-funds and three horizontal pluri-funds) the ERDF paying authority is the
Ministry of Finance. The paying authority for the ESF in all programmes is the Ministry of Labour and
Social Affairs, while for EAGGF Guidance and FIFG it is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food.

(cid:1) In Italy, the paying authorities for all Funds in the regional programmes (19 in all, seven Objective 1
and 12 Objective 2) are located within the respective regional administrations. Central government
ministries provide the paying authorities for the horizontal programmes serving Objective 1, namely:
‘Local Enterprise Development’ (cid:1) Ministry for Productive Activities,
‘Transport’ (cid:1) Ministry for
‘Research’ (cid:1) Ministry for Higher Education and Scientific and
Infrastructure and Transport,
Technological Research,
‘Security in the Mezzogiorno’ (cid:1) Ministry of the Interior, and ‘Technical
Assistance’ (cid:1) Ministry for the Treasury, Budget and Economic Planning. The Ministry of Labour and
Social Security is the paying authority for the horizontal programme serving Objective 3 ‘Azioni di
Sistema’. For FIFG the paying authority is the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies.

(2004/C 78 E/0562)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3407/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Cabinda (cid:1) report on human rights

The media have reported that a report based on testimonies collected by Catholic priests in Cabinda
indicates that there have been frequent cases of torture, rape, murder, illegal detention, and the theft of
money and other property from the civilian population in the enclave. With reference to specific recent
cases, the report speaks of 30 civilian deaths and 16 rapes, inter alia.

The same source claims that following the death of Jonas Savimbi and the end of the war with Unita, the
Forças Armadas Angolanas (FAA) have relocated 30 000 men to Cabinda, to put an end to the guerrilla
fighting in the region. The report denounced human rights’ violations perpetrated both by FLEC forces and
the FAA, attributing most of the crimes to the latter.

The preface to the report was written by the Bishop of Cabinda, Dom Paulino Madeca, who states that
‘Unfortunately, the political situation has developed in the wrong direction in recent years. Thinking
predicated on warfare is the predominant approach to solving the ’Cabinda case‘. (…) Everybody can see
the results of the offensive, which can be summed up as systematic violation of human rights and crimes
against humanity, as the cases investigated show’.

What information does the Commission have as to the alleged recent violation of human rights in
Cabinda? Has the Commission analysed this report in detail?

Has the Commission taken measures to alert the Angolan authorities and make them aware of the need to
protect human rights in Cabinda? And likewise the rebel forces?

What contacts does the Commission maintain with the Church and civil society in Cabinda, so as to be
able to assess the situation in the territory on a non-partisan, independent basis?

What are the Commission’s expectations with regard to the longed-for pacification of Cabinda, and a
political solution to the conflict?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission has knowledge of the report and believes that, although it is not in a position to examine
all the allegations in detail, it serves as a further indication that the situation in Cabinda remains critical.

C 78 E/542

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission maintains regular contacts with civil society in general and the church in particular to
discuss the situation in Angola,
including the human rights situation. Support for civil society is a
component of the Community/Angola cooperation strategy. (The issue of human rights is also addressed
through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which is financing a project
‘The church and the construction of peace in Angola’ (1).)

Human rights will most certainly be on the agenda of the regular political dialogue (Article 8 of the
Cotonou Agreement) with Angola, which was referred to in the Council conclusions of 13 October 2003.
The political dialogue is the appropriate forum and most effective tool to discuss this issue with the
Angolan Government. The Commission does not have direct contact with the rebel forces.

As regards the long-term perspectives for the situation in Cabinda, the Commission is confident that the
consolidation of democracy in Angola will be beneficial also for the Cabindan people. It is understood that
this is a very critical situation, but the Commission will do its utmost to ensure the respect of human
rights and to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict,
the Angolan
Government, the Forces of Liberation of the State of Cabinda (FLEC) and representatives of the very active
Cabinda civil society.

involving all stakeholders,

i.e.

(1) Comite Intereclesial para a paz em Angola (Coiepa) project.

(2004/C 78 E/0563)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3413/03

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurobarometer

A question on countries which represent ‘a threat to world peace’ in a recent Eurobarometer poll has upset
certain countries, particularly Israel and the USA. One could, of course, debate the appropriateness of
asking such a question, and even the way it has been formulated. Nobody doubts that a sort of ‘halo effect’
means that countries involved in military operations (domestic or foreign) which are to a greater or lesser
extent the subject of dispute in the media risk, for that very reason, having a negative image worldwide.

At the very least, it would be preferable to pose the question in a slightly modified form, by asking ‘For
each of the leaders of the following countries, tell me if, in your opinion, he or she represents a threat to
world peace or not’ and adding ‘the Palestinian Authority’ to the list. Does the Commission intend in
future to put
indicator for
the question in this form, rather than give up altogether on a useful
understanding patterns of public opinion within the Union?

It would be interesting, furthermore, to investigate (cid:1) as Eurobarometer has already done in the past (cid:1)
how much each individual questioned trusts his own nation and each of the other nations we wish to
study.

Does the Commission believe that trust between nations is a ‘sine qua non’ of European integration and
international life? If so, is the Commission prepared to put such a question again in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-3334/03 from
Ms Muscardini (1).

The Commission is aware of the limits to the question on which countries are a threat to world peace
while considering that the results obtained reveal deep-seated prejudices. It thanks the Honourable Member
for his suggestions, but it has not yet decided whether or not to use this indicator in a modified form.