WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Cabo Verde — special status vis-à-vis the EU.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cabo Verde, EU relations, European neighbourhood policy, Portugal

C 88 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

According to the official Turkish census, in 1 927 there were 7 000 Greeks on Imbros and a negligible
number of Turks, while on Tenedos there were 2 500 Greeks and 1 247 Turks. At the present time, there
are 250 Greeks left on Imbros, while 9 000 Turkish settlers have been installed. On Tenedos, only
30 Greeks remain and the Turkish administration changed the official names of the two islands, which
were thousands of years old, to ‘Gökçe Ada’ and ‘Bozca Ada’ respectively. The policy of persecution was
instigated after 1955, continued in 1964 and reached its peak in 1974 when the Turkish army invaded
Cyprus.

The provisions of Article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne were never implemented by the Turkish State and
Greek ceased to be taught once the six Greek elementary schools, the high school and the four nursery
schools, which had 1 300 pupils and were built with funding from the Greek communities of the two
islands, were expropriated by the Turkish State. The same fate was suffered by the 300 Christian churches
and four monasteries which previously existed, a strategy encountered only in countries with a hard-line
apartheid regime. The eradication of the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos was completed when they were
dispossessed of their property. Significantly, those who were forced to leave the two islands were stripped
of their Turkish citizenship and therefore lost their property which they cannot even pass on to their
descendants. It is indicative that the results of the inventory of property carried out by the Turkish Land
Registry in the village of Agridia on Imbros (until recently the sole remaining all-Greek village in terms of
inhabitants and property), which were announced after 23 June 2003, show that 77,18 % of the total area
which belonged to the inhabitants of the village devolved to the Turkish State, while private individuals
appear to possess only 22,82 %.

Are the above facts consistent with the conduct of a country which is a candidate for accession and claims
that it is ‘coming into line’ with the standards applying in the Union? Will the Union be asked to restore,
immediately and effectively, the right to property for all the non-Muslim population of Turkey before a
date is set for the opening of preaccession negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the situation regarding alleged human rights violations against the native
Greek minority on the Aegean islands of Imvros and Tenedos to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission provides its assessment on the issue of the rights of minorities in Turkey in its Regular
Report 2003 (1). The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question
number E-3025/03 by Mr Hatzidakis (2).

(1) COM(2003) 676 final.
(2) See page 127.

(2004/C 88 E/0164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Cabo Verde (cid:1) special status vis-à-vis the EU

(5 December 2003)

On 24 November the Prime Minister of Cabo Verde completed a working visit to Portugal, following
official stays in other EU countries (Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France), the purpose of which was
to raise awareness amongst those countries’ authorities with a view to securing a special status for his
country vis-à-vis the European Union.

According to press reports the Portuguese Prime Minister expressed the view (at the end of his meeting
with José Maria Neves) that Cabo Verde ‘has a special role to play in providing a link between Africa and
Europe’ and that ‘by virtue of its political development (Cabo Verde is an exemplary democracy),
its
cultural development, its strong human links with certain European countries (Portugal in particular) and
its very location, Cabo Verde is a country which we could in some ways describe as Euro-African’.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/155

As a basis for establishing the above-mentioned special status, the Cabo Verde Prime Minister referred to
his country’s ‘Atlantic vocation’, its presence in Europe ‘in the form of emigrant communities’ and its
proximity to Europe ‘by virtue of
(a geographical area encompassing the
the Macaronesia Islands’
Portuguese archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores and the Spanish archipelago of the Canary Islands.

The Commission:

(cid:1) is it aware of the Cabo Verde initiative which is described above;

(cid:1) what has it to say on the subject;

(cid:1) what action would it advise Cabo Verde to take in order to ensure that its proposal is accepted?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

The Commission has never been notified in a formal way by the authorities of Cape Verde of this matter.
However, the Commission is aware that the Cap-Verdian authorities, in the course of recent visits to the
capitals of some Member States, have raised these issues. The Commission is also aware that
the
Portuguese authorities have shown openness to the question of creating a working group ‘to examine the
different aspects of this question’.

(2004/C 88 E/0165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3695/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject: MTR of CSPs in Asia and Latin America

The Country and Regional Strategy Papers aim to give a coherent framework for Community cooperation
activities towards Asia and Latin American countries. The Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the Country Strategy
Papers (CSPs) assesses the validity of the priorities set up in the strategy documents. The guidelines for the
programming exercise specify consultation with stakeholders as part of the process. It is self-evident that
the programming exercise loses credibility and legitimacy when there has not been any consultation of
stakeholders. However, it appears, as some NGOs argue, that most, if not all, CSPs in Asia and Latin
American countries have been written from behind the desks of officials in Brussels. This seriously
undermines the value and validity of the CSPs.

At present a new issue is arising in relation to the process of reviewing the CSPs in the MTR. It is clear
that the validity of the MTR is in it following clear objectives, guidelines and indicators for measuring
performance, and a well-defined process. Whereas these guidelines have been developed for ACP countries,
for unknown reasons these guidelines are not seen as applying for other developing countries. More
importantly MTRs in other developing countries are being carried out without any guidelines, information
or transparent process. The Commission has also indicated that it will not seek or value consultation with
stakeholders, including civil society, in this process. This is an extraordinary position.

Is the Commission intending to apply the guidelines developed for the MTR in ACP countries to

1.
MTRs in other development countries?

2.
If not, what guidelines have been developed for the MTRs in other developing countries, and what is
the reason that these are different from ACP countries (cid:1) given that the objectives of the MTRs are the
same for all developing countries?

3. What is the information policy of the Commission on the MTR process?

4. What is the planning of the Commission on CSPs and MTRs in Asia and Latin American countries
for 2003-2005?