WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/99 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Infringement of the EU Code of Conduct for arms exports: Germany supplying the Leopard 2 A5 to Turkey.
C 203 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 In reply to the second part of the question, the Commission stresses that a number of measures will be progressively introduced, starting with the maintenance of a specific standard contract for Al-Invest throughout stage 2 (similar to what was done in stage 1). A full-scale test was launched at the end of 1998 and since then the Commission has also taken the measures needed to ensure that payments are made quickly and regularly. Further improvements could still be made. The technical secretariat pays special attention to the presentation by operators of their technical reports and financial reports, so as to limit requests for additional information and rejections by the Commission. Payment deadlines are now under control. In agreement with operators, the date for presenting proposals for activities will gradually be brought forward by three months so that between receipt of the signed contract and the date on which a sectoral meeting is held there is sufficient time for thorough preparations. These measures were agreed with operators at a number of meetings held this year: European operators (February); Latin American operators (September, Lille); European and Latin American operators (October, Connect ü Barcelona). (June); French operators (2000/C 203 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/99 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council (9 November 1999) Subject: Infringement of the EU Code of Conduct for arms exports: Germany supplying the Leopard 2 A5 to Turkey In response to my earlier question (E-0436/99) of 10 March 1999 to the German Presidency concerning the role played by human rights violations in arms export recipient states, I received the answer (on 10 June 1999) that respect for human rights was one of the ámain conditions to be met when taking decisionsí and that export licences were not issued if human rights were being violated. In its decision of 13 October 1999 on the enlargement of the EU, the Commission noted that the conditions required for negotiations to start with Turkey did not exist, especially in the sphere of human rights. The German government decided on 20 October 1999 to issue a licence for the export to Turkey of the Leopard 2 A5 tank, which is particularly well suited to use in civil war situations owing to its thermal- imaging devices. 1. Were all EU Member States informed in accordance with the Code of Conduct before the decision was taken on the German governmentís plans to export such equipment? Is the Council of the opinion that Germanyís export plans are compatible with Criterion Two of the Code of Conduct? Did any Member States express misgivings in this connection about the German export plans? If so, what were they? Did Germany carry out a full assessment of the human rights situation in Turkey and submit it to the 2. other Members of the Council? If so, when? Did Germany examine whether or not the Leopard 2 A5 could be used for internal repression within 3. Turkey? If so, with what results? 4. Is the Council aware that the Turkish military is conducting offensives against the PKK, inter alia on the border with Iraq, and that there are regular large-scale incursions into northern Iraq? To what extent is this compatible with Criterion Two of the Code of Conduct, which does not permit violation of the territoriality principle by end-users? 18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/137 Has Germany made sure that the exported equipment cannot be diverted to an end-use that is 5. incompatible with the Code of Conduct? If so, what assurances are there? Did the Council consider such assurances to be adequate? If so, why? 6. Would the Council allow further major deliveries to Turkey of components thereof? If so, on what grounds? the Leopard 2 A5 tank or Answer (24 January 2000) The European Unionís position on arms exports is reflected in the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports adopted on 8 June 1998. Decisions are taken by each Member State individually taking full account of the Code of Conduct. The Council does not receive any information about the grounds on which export licences are granted or refused by Member States. In any case it does not lie in its purview to exercise any judgement on them. (2000/C 203 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2102/99 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council (15 November 1999) Subject: European Community Mission Monitors How many European Community Mission Monitors (ECMM) are currently employed and in which country do they operate? What are the annual costs involved and, if any of the monitors is not an EU national, from which country do they come? What is the purpose of the EC Monitor system and how does it differ from the reporting procedures and information available to EU ambassadors in those countries? Answer (24 January 2000) 1. According to the most current personnel figures, the European Community Monitor Mission (ECMM) is composed of 259 internationals and 174 locally employed persons. The two non-EU ECMM members present in the mission are Norway and Slovakia. The ECMMís area of operation covers the Western Balkans region, i. e. Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FRY/Montenegro, FRY/Kosovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania. 2. The current annual common costs for ECMM are about DM 16 million for 1999 which are funded by participating States according to a standard contributionsí key. In addition, contributing countries pay the direct cost of the personnel they send. 3. ECMM is unique in its regional approach, as its area of responsibility covers the whole of the former Yugoslavia minus Slovenia, plus Albania. This provides ECMM with a comparative advantage as they have a regional overview which embassies in an individual country do not possess