You are on page 1of 2

C 155 E/64 Official Journal of the European Union EN 3.7.

2003

(2003/C 155 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2905/02


by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(16 October 2002)

Subject: US/UK pre-emptive strike against Iraq

In contravention of the standards of international law as embodied by the UN and the founding principles
of international relations, and in circumstances in which the dictatorial nature of the existing regime in
Iraq cannot serve as an excuse, George Bush has now announced that there will be a pre-emptive strike
against Iraq by the US and the UK. This action is particularly disturbing considering that it is based on a
quite explicitly imperialist view of the world which claims that the US has the self-conferred right to fight
pre-emptive wars against anyone who disputes that country’s global supremacy.

What is the EU’s position on these imperialist war plans? What action will it take to stop them being
carried out and ensure respect for international law? What action has it taken on the attitude of the Prime
Minister of the United Kingdom, a country which is a Member State of the European Union?

Reply

(3 March 2003)

The Council considers that Iraq must comply with the United Nations resolutions relating to it, particularly
those regarding weapons of mass destruction. It has always come out in favour of action in the framework
of the United Nations and in compliance with international law. In this context, it greatly welcomed the
United States’ decision to work with its partners in this framework. It was therefore with great satisfaction
that the Council noted the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 on Iraq by the United Nations Security
Council on 8 November 2002.

Iraq must now cooperate fully with the United Nations and discharge its obligations arising from the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

(2003/C 155 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2907/02


by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Siege of President Arafat’s Palestinian headquarters by Ariel Sharon’s Israeli army

The siege of President Arafat’s Palestinian headquarters by the Israeli army is a cruel and violent act of
extreme political and moral gravity, given the climate of violence now prevailing in Palestine and Israel in
the wake of the colonial occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by the Israeli state and its probable
genocidal implications under Ariel Sharon.

All European citizens who believe in justice and peace and wish to see the end of all suffering caused by
the domination of one people by another will agree that this attack by the Israeli army on an unarmed
President is a shameful and craven act, which must be firmly and combatively condemned by the EU
institutions. We must not refrain from such a response or allow ourselves perpetually to toe the blindly
pro-Israeli line of the US.

What action has the Council taken, and what action does it intend to take, in the face of these acts of
aggression by Ariel Sharon’s army which are an affront to the whole of humanity?
3.7.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155 E/65

Reply

(3 March 2003)

The Council does not believe that actions like the recent siege of President Arafat’s headquarters by the
Israeli army can help to solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Therefore, the Council welcomed (on
30 September 2002) the adoption of UNSCR 1435 and urged both parties to show maximum restraint
and to comply fully with this resolution. Noting that Israeli forces had begun to withdraw from the
compound of the President of the Palestinian Authority, the Council reiterated that restricting freedom of
movement of the Palestinians and their leadership and destroying their infrastructure does not contribute
to fighting terror, or to solve Israel’s legitimate security concerns. More than ever, Israelis and Palestinians
must return to the negotiating table. The Council will continue to work towards this goal, in particular
through the Quartet.

(2003/C 155 E/072) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2928/02


by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Temporary support for Dutch shipbuilding

It was reported in Dagblad van het Noorden on 5 October 2002 that ‘Between 60 and 80 jobs are to be
lost at Centraalstaal in Groningen. This amply demonstrates the plight of northern shipbuilding. Since the
beginning of this year, at least 400 jobs have already been lost in this sector, where 7 000 people are
employed. The latest restructuring is taking place at Centraalstaal, which produces prefabricated steel and
aluminium plating for ships’.

The Netherlands Minister for Economic Affairs, Mr Heinsbroek, has so far refused to adopt any temporary
support measures, although the industry in question is suffering badly and European and national
protection are badly needed. Will the Commission as a matter of urgency draw the Minister’s attention to
the fact that it was agreed within the EU earlier this year  with the full support of the European
Parliament  that Member States could adopt temporary support measures against unfair competition
from Korea (among other countries).

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 of 27 June 2002 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to
shipbuilding (1) (‘the TDM’) is one part of the Commission’s twin-track strategy against unfair Korean
practices in the shipbuilding sector.

Under the terms of Article 2 of the TDM, aid may only be authorised for final contracts signed after notice
is given in the Official Journal that dispute settlement proceedings against Korea have been initiated.

The Notice indicating that the Commission had launched the WTO action against Korea was published in
the Official Journal on 24 October 2002 (2). Accordingly, aid may now be authorised in line with the
provisions of the TDM.

The Dutch Government participated fully in the negotiation of the TDM and is fully aware of its content.
The Commission would emphasise that the question of whether or not aid is to be granted under the TDM
is a matter for the appropriate authorities of the Member States. It is not the Commission’s role to
encourage Member States to grant aid, but to ensure that any aid granted is in line with the TDM’s
provisions.

(1) OJ L 172, 2.7.2002.


(2) OJ C 257, 24.10.2002