WRITTEN QUESTION E-3413/03 by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission. Eurobarometer.
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European integration, Israel, opinion poll, statistical method

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.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/543

The question of trust between peoples arose many times between 1976 and 1996, and on each occasion,
it was shown to be increasing gradually in the Union. The Commission is planning to look into this matter
again.

(1) See page 263.

(2004/C 78 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3416/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

With reference to recent developments in the Eurostat scandal,
pursuing a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ towards those responsible still valid?

is the Commission’s commitment to

(2004/C 78 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Although it is feasible that a general reform process may take several years, is it possible that some cases
of irregularity and even fraud may have continued beyond 1999 and even until 2002? Is the Commission
responsible or not for the way in which it tackled the issue after 1999?

(2004/C 78 E/0566)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3418/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Can the Commission clarify what it understands to be the political responsibility of the Commissioners
with regard to the recommendations of the Committee of Independent Experts and the code of conduct for
contracts signed in 1999?

(2004/C 78 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3419/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Does the Commission agree with the Committee of
the full political
responsibility assumed by the Commissioners should be understood as the obligation to be answerable to
the Commission as a body, and then to Parliament, for their actions and those of the Director-General and
other officials in their department?

Independent Experts

that