WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3563/98 by Klaus LUKAS to the Commission. The European Development Fund as a 'milch cow'
28. 6. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 182/99 systematically received a cut from the Commission funds allocated to development projects. Despite being aware of these circumstances, the leadership of DG VIII is supposed to have insisted on the continuation of these corrupt practices. In view of this, can the Commission answer the following questions: What is the Commission’s assessment of the book by Dr Alexandrakis entitled ‘The Lost Vision?’ Can the Commission say what percentage of development aid has been, or is, kept by corrupt recipient governments as a ‘commission’? If so, can the Commission also say what sums and what governments are involved? Can the Commission give an estimate of the total payments syphoned off by dictators such as Mobutu, Moi, Bokassa, etc. from the budget and project aid under the Lomé Convention? Can the Commission say what proportion of the multimillion fortunes of Messrs Abacha and Mobutu has been financed by the EU? Is any effort being made to recover these diverted EU funds from the estates of these corrupt despots? If so, how successful have these efforts been? If not, why not? (1999/C 182/132) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/98 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (1 December 1998) Subject: The European Development Fund as a ‘milch cow’ In his book ‘The Lost Vision’, Dr Nikolas Alexandrakis levelled serious accusations against the financial management of the Commission with regard to development aid. Thus, it is alleged that generous payments to dictators were made from the Lomé funds by order of the Director-General of DG VIII. The bloody regime of Sergeant Doe in Liberia, where Dr Alexandrakis was accredited as head of delegation of the EU Commission, is supposed to have been supported in this manner. It appears that Dr Alexandrakis informed the services in Brussels (DG VIII) that ministers and officials of the Doe regime considered the European Development Fund as a milch cow for their personal financial benefit (page 49). Thus, ministers are said to have regularly and systematically received a cut from the Commission funds allocated to development projects. Despite being aware of these circumstances, the leadership of DG VIII is supposed to have insisted on the continuation of these corrupt practices. In view of this, can the Commission answer the following questions: Can the Commission say what sums have been or are being diverted by recipient countries from direct budget subsidies (Stabex, Sysmin) for military or repressive purposes? Can the Commission say what sums have been or are being diverted by recipient countries from its direct budget subsidies (Stabex, Sysmin) in order to finance potential and actual armies to wage civil war (eg. Sergeant Doe)? What possibilities are open to the Commission to prevent this? Has the Commission ever seriously attempted to prevent this? How does the Commission intend to stop the squandering of such vast sums in future?