WRITTEN QUESTION E-0877/04 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Conflict resolution in Sudan.
Date: 2004-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sudan, common foreign and security policy, settlement of disputes, the EU's international role

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/715

We can inform the Honourable Member that:

1. The rules that we set have to be limited in their scope to implementation of the relevant Treaty and

Council Regulation provisions.

In response to the claim of discrimination in favour of Madeira against the Azores, we wish to make it
clear that:

(a) on several occasions, the first at the beginning of 2002, we asked the Permanent Representatives
of the Member States concerned (France and Portugal) what goods they envisaged exporting in
the regional trade context and to what countries. The product lists in Annexes II and III to
Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 take over their wishes unmodified;

(b)

the Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 amendments in no way prohibit exportation to the
United States and Canada of goods using locally obtained sugar, milk products and other
agricultural products. Exportation of such goods to any destination has always been and continues
to be totally free.

2. We do not know the identity of the enterprises that supply the outermost regions under the specific
supply arrangements. The data the Member States send us for monitoring purposes consists of
aggregated figures and enterprise names are not given.

3. We do not follow the progress of any negotiations on transfer of holdings in agri-food companies in
the outermost regions that may occur. Tracking such negotiations is not a responsibility assigned to us
under the Treaty or the secondary legislation.

(1) OJ L 79, 17.3.2004.

(2004/C 88 E/0735)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0877/04

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Conflict resolution in Sudan

The war in Sudan has cost millions of lives and displaced millions of people. There is now hope for an end
to the conflict. The existence of an ‘honest broker’ at the peace talks would greatly contribute to their
success. A peaceful settlement to the conflict in Sudan must engage all the peoples of Sudan, particularly
those tribes that are remote from decision-making and the centres of power.

Would the Commission consider acting as an ‘honest broker’ at the peace talks? Would it agree to commit
resources so as to achieve a successful and sustainable peace in the region?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

Peace talks between the Government of the Sudan and the SPLM/A (1) have been conducted intermittently
under the auspices of the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) since 1993. Initially,
observation was limited to representation from the Members of this regional organisation of the Horn of
Africa, but since mid-2002, the group of observers was extended to the ‘Sudan Troika’ (Norway, United
Kingdom, United States) and subsequently to the ‘extended Troika’, composed of Italy, Norway, United
Kingdom, United States, the United Nations and the African Union. It is only under this format, which
combines the immediate neighbours of the Sudan with some of the most important international players,
that substantial progress has been made: During the last two years, a series of documents have been
negotiated and they can be considered as ‘building blocks’ for a comprehensive agreement, notably the
Machakos Protocol (20 July 2002), an agreement on security arrangements (25 September 2003), and an
agreement on wealth sharing (7 January 2004). A Memorandum of Understanding on cessation of
hostilities was signed on 18 November 2002, and since then, fighting has ended in Southern Sudan, with
the exception of occasional skirmishes, mainly between pro-Government militia (SSDF) and the SPLM/A.

C 88 E/716

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

format of

the Sudan peace talks under

Experience in other conflicts has shown that it is often not a single ‘honest broker’, but the joint and
coordinated involvement of the most important external stake-holders which makes a difference. The
present
IGAD auspices corresponds to this concept of
comprehensive stake-holder involvement, and it has yielded significant results. The present structure of
the peace process also foresees two phases, the first involving the two main belligerents and concluding
with a global agreement, and the second involving all relevant political and social actors of the Sudan in a
process of constitutional review and gradual democratisation. The second phase would take place during
the six and a half year transition period.

No external involvement can be a substitute for the genuine willingness of the parties to achieve a peaceful
settlement. The frequent stalemates in the Sudan peace process sometimes raise doubts about the existence
of the necessary commitment to peace of the two main belligerents, the Government of the Sudan and the
SPLM/A. The interested external actors will have to work with patience and apply sustained and measured
pressure in order to move the negotiations forward.

The Commission is financially and politically supporting the IGAD peace process as well as the
Verification and Monitoring Team, i.e. the mechanism established to monitor the cessation of hostilities
(EUR 1,5 million from the Rapid Reaction Mechanism (RRM)). It is also considering supporting, through
the RRM, the organisation of cease-fire talks among the belligerents of Darfur, Western Sudan, where a
major armed conflict broke out early in 2003, initially in the shadow of the long-standing conflict in
Southern Sudan, but recently escalating to the point where it has become the second most serious
humanitarian crisis in the Horn and East Africa.

Development cooperation with the Sudan has been suspended since 1990, following the ‘coup d’Etat’
and the deterioration of the political and human rights situation. The resumption of cooperation is
foreseen if and when a peace agreement is signed between the Government of the Sudan and the SPLM/A.
However, preparatory activities are ongoing financed from various budget lines and in the framework of
the ‘Humanitarian Plus’ Programme (EUR 18 million). Furthermore, two programme documents have been
finalised, one for Rehabilitation and Capacity Building (EUR 52 million, 6th European Development Fund
(EDF)) and another one financed from Stabex (EUR 191 million) with a focus on food security. These
programmes, together with the 9th EDF allocation (EUR 135 million A envelope, EUR 20 million B
envelope), represent the ‘peace dividend’ that will be made available to the Sudan when a comprehensive
peace agreement is signed and implemented.

(1) Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement and Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army.

(2004/C 88 E/0736)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0901/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: The treatment of animals in livestock markets

Could the Commission please advise what infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the Treaty have
been initiated against Member States with regard to inadequate implementation of EU legal provisions on
animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The treatment of animals in livestock markets is only governed by Community Law currently in force to
the extent that it falls within Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of
animals during transport (1) as amended by Directive 95/29/EC (2).