WRITTEN QUESTION E-4083/03 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR)and Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission. Burma.
Date: 2004-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Myanmar/Burma, United States, arms trade, economic sanctions, export restriction, international sanctions

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/671

However, the GDF is in urgent need of additional funding if its work is to continue.

Does the Commission recognise the role of the GDF in combating TB and does it intend to provide the
organisation with funding to enable it to continue its work?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The Commission recognises the important role the Global Tuberculosis (TB) Drug Facility (GDF) plays
within the Stop TB partnership to expand access to, and availability of, high-quality TB drugs to facilitate
global Directly Observed Treatment Short-regime (DOTS) expansion to control TB worldwide.

The Commission already provides support for the fight against TB as part of the Programme for Action:
accelerated action on Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS),
malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction, which established a broad and coherent
Community response for 2001-2006. Community programmed support through the various financial
instruments to confront HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, will total close to EUR 1,2 billion for the
period 2003-2006. This figure includes support to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria. The Commission has disbursed EUR 120 million to the fund for 2002 and has programmed
support of EUR 340 million for years 2003-2006, out of which 170 million have already been paid. 17 %
of the funds allocated in the initial rounds went to TB control programmes. It is estimated that these
projects will provide Directly Observed Treatment Short-Regime (DOTS) coverage for 2,8 million patients
as compared with a coverage of 830,000 in 2000. Furthermore, 46 % of the funds for all diseases are
allocated to providing drugs and commodities. Given this, the Commission does not intend to provide
direct support to the GDF.

(2004/C 88 E/0690)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4083/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR)
and Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Burma

The human rights situation in Burma is still appalling.

1.
The US Administration has now passed a law prohibiting new investment in Burma. The EU has
taken no economic measures to date. While European firms are discouraged from investing in Burma,
European firms continue to operate there (for example the French multinational TotalFinaElf). Their
activities provide a source of income for the junta. Is the Commission prepared to impose a ban on joint
ventures with Burmese state concerns and to deny access to the EU market for products resulting from
such cooperation between European firms and Burmese state concerns? If so, when and how does it intend
to do so? If not, why not?

2.
Arms are being supplied to Burma on a large scale. It would appear that these arms come from ten
or so countries, including Russia, India, China, Israel and Ukraine. Given that the EU has in the recent past
been able to prevent the supply of arms to Bosnia, is the Commission prepared to attempt to do the same
regarding arms supplies from the above countries? If so, how does it intend to do so? If not, why not?

C 88 E/672

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission and Member States continue to follow closely the developments in Burma/Myanmar
1.
and have noted the introduction of additional trade and investment sanctions by the United States
Administration.

In view of the forthcoming decision about a renewal of Common Position 2003/297/CFSP before 29 April
2004, the Commission and Member States are reviewing the situation in Burma/Myanmar and may decide
to introduce further measures by unanimous decision. The Honourable Members will understand that the
Commission is not currently in a position to comment, or to anticipate the outcome of these discussions.

2.
The EU has a robust Common Position on Burma/Myanmar, which was first adopted in 1996 and
has been strengthened on a number of occasions since. The Common Position includes an EU visa ban and
a freezing of funds held in EU countries for the members and families of the government, senior military
and security officers and other persons or entities benefiting from government policies. All bilateral aid,
other than strictly humanitarian assistance, is suspended. Separately, EU preferential trade concessions were
withdrawn in 1997 because of forced labour.

The Common Position also includes an arms embargo imposed in 1990 and the suspension of defence co-
operation since 1991. The arms embargo was further strengthened in 2003 to include the prohibition of
technical training or assistance related to arms and military equipment. In addition, the Commission and
Member States have committed themselves to using their best endeavours to encourage other arms
exporting States to subscribe to the restrictive principles of the EU Code of conduct on arms export of May
1998. In accordance with this, the Commission has urged a number of third countries to avoid taking any
initiative which may reinforce military control in Rangoon.

(2004/C 88 E/0691)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4084/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement in signing cooperation agreements

In answer to my Written Question E-0520/03 (1) of 24 February 2003 on respect for women’s rights in
Pakistan, the Council informed me that, to date, no agreement with a third country containing a human
rights ‘essential element’ clause had been suspended.

In a number of cases where the essential elements of an agreement had been violated, the EU had
suspended certain provisions of the agreement. This was the case for the financial provisions under the
Cotonou Agreement with regard to Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d’Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000),
Haiti (2000) and Liberia (2001). In my Written Question E-2903/03 (2) to the Commission of 1 October
2003, I asked what infringements of essential elements of the agreement had taken place to bring about
these suspensions. The Commission’s reply of 25 November 2003 is unsatisfactory as it does not answer
my specific question.

The same is true of the question about Croatia (1995), Pakistan (1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995),
where the signature of the cooperation agreements was postponed because of concern about human rights.
What specific infringements of human rights were involved? Were these infringements instances of
violence against women? What were they?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.
(2) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 441.