12 The Transnistrian region of Moldova
| (25888)
11858/04
—
| Council Common Position amending Common Position 2004/179/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of Moldova
|
| Legal base | Article 15 EU; unanimity
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 20 August 2004
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Ministers' letters of 27 August and 11 October and EM of 31 August
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (24271) —: HC 63-xiv (2002-03), para 15 (5 March 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Adopted by written procedure on 26 August 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
12.1 EU concern about the threats to security and stability in
Eastern Europe posed by the activities of the illegal separatist
regime in the Transnistrian region of Moldova, including involvement
in smuggling, human trafficking and organised crime and its failure
to respond constructively to attempts to negotiate a political
settlement, go back over two years. The Minister for Europe (Mr
Denis MacShane) first alerted us in November 2002 to likely early
Council action on possible restrictive measures (such as a visa
ban or asset freeze on the Transnistrian leadership and measures
aimed at stemming the region's steel exports), noting that, once
agreement had been reached, they "may be implemented very
quickly [without there being] enough time to clear formal scrutiny".
The Minister wrote again on 14 February 2003, saying that only
slow progress had been made but that the Chair in Office of the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was
keen to have a ban on members of the leadership travelling to
the EU agreed at the 24-25 February General Affairs and External
Relations Council (GAERC); he hoped that we would understand that
he intended to support the adoption of the proposal at the Council.
Our first sight of the proposal was on 26 February, when we queried
the late submission and purpose of the proposal, and kept the
matter under scrutiny. We considered the Minister's response,
in his letter of 3 March on 5 March. We concluded:
This proposal was first mooted in November last year. The Minister,
rightly, warned us that it might be put at short notice to the
Council. Whatever case there was for urgency hardly carries the
same weight when, some three months later, it has still not been
put to the Council but we are told that the Minister intends to
agree to it before it has even been seen by the Committee. We
consider that there are times, such as this, when the Government
should be prepared to defend the principle of scrutiny before
adoption more vigorously in the face of pressure.[24]
Our Chairman reiterated this point in a letter of 19 March to
the Minister for Europe, noting that the Minister's letter of
3 March had confirmed that the proposed ban should be viewed principally
as a political signal. In February 2004 we cleared without a
substantive Report the continuation of the restrictive measures
for a further 12 months.
Changes to the Common Position
12.2 These matters have now resurfaced, in the shape of an amendment
to the Common Position about which the Minister (Mr Bill Rammell,
standing in for the Minister for Europe) submitted an Explanatory
Memorandum on 31 August 2004. This proposed adding ten individuals
to the list of those to whom the travel ban applied, they having
"participated in the implementation of repressive measures
against Latin script schools in Transnistria"; this was to
take effect from 1 September to coincide with the beginning of
the school year. The Government welcomed the addition of these
names to the list; it was "one element of the EU's diplomatic
activity following the Transnistrian intimidation tactics involving
the schools". This activity had "included a Solana[25]
demarche to President Voronin;[26]
an EU declaration condemning the intimidation; and a high-level
visit by the Council Secretariat to the region". On timing,
the Minister added: "The Presidency is aiming for adoption
of this amendment as soon after the 1 September deadline as possible.
This could include adoption by written procedure during the summer
break (4 September 2004 has been touted as a possible deadline)".
12.3 None of the previous history or context was
referred to in a very sketchy Explanatory Memorandum (EM). The
change involved more than adding names to a list; otherwise, it
would not have been necessary to amend the Common Position, which
indicated a change of substance — a widening of scope, to
include those involved in additional, unacceptable activity, viz.
discriminating against Moldovan language schools in Transnistria
— as did the listing of the ten offenders in a separate
Annex. Since a change of substance was involved, the document
required depositing with a full Explanatory Memorandum in good
time for it to be properly scrutinised, unless there were compelling
reasons for the scrutiny reserve resolution to be over-ridden.
Since, by then, it had emerged that the amendment to the Common
Position had been adopted by written procedure, not on 4 September,
but on 26 August (i.e. five days before the EM) and under pressure
from another Member State, it was suggested that the Minister
should write to us to explain his position.
12.4 The Minister for Europe finally wrote to us
on 11 October. He explains the context much more fully than in
the EM:
"In looking to impose a ban, the EU was responding
to Transnistrian actions in July to force the closure of Latin
script schools and orphanages in the area. The EU was looking
to impose visa restrictions against those responsible for the
measures. The steps taken by the Transnistrians directly contradicted
previous assurances given to the OSCE and Council of Europe that
they would negotiate a mutually agreeable solution and take no
measure against the schools while negotiations were ongoing. Their
actions resulted in an escalation in tension, causing the Moldovan
government to approve a range of economic sanctions against Transnistria
and to withdraw from the five-sided settlement talks (between
Moldova, Transnistria, Russia, Ukraine, OSCE).
"The initial deadline was set as 1 September,
as this was the day the new school year was due to begin. As I
explained in my first letter, if there hadn't been a return to
the status-quo ante by the time the new school year began, the
Council was expected to adopt the extended ban by written procedure
soon after. On 20 August the Political and Security Committee
(PSC) agreed the proposal to extend the existing EU travel ban
to those members of the Transnistrian authorities responsible
for the closure of the Latin script schools. The PSC also agreed
that implementation of the travel ban should be brought forward
from the original 1 September deadline, as it was clear that the
Transnistrian authorities were not going to make any concessions
before this date. Written Procedure was then completed on 26 August
and the ban implemented shortly after. Since 1 September, an OSCE
assessment has noted that while three schools and an orphanage
have resumed classes, there still remains serious difficulty over
the other schools. Furthermore, despite the resumption of classes
in these four establishments, only two schools have actually registered,
and more than 1000 children have been unable to return to school."
12.5 The preamble to the Minister's letter refers
to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr Bill Rammell)
having written to us on 26 August "to set out the situation
concerning restrictive measures against the Transnistrian leadership"
and to having explained that it was possible that the extension
to the existing travel ban would be agreed while Parliament was
still in recess, "and that your Committee might not have
sufficient time to clear the text from scrutiny. This was in
fact the case. Nevertheless, I feel it may be helpful if I provide
you with further information as to why implementation of the EU
travel ban was so urgent, and why the 1 September deadline was
necessary". In fact, Mr Rammell's letter (of 27 August,
not 26 August) did not reach us until 18 October. And the Minister's
own letter did not reach us until two hours before our meeting.
It contains no suggestion that it was in response to concern
expressed nearly two months ago on our behalf about both the content
of the Explanatory Memorandum and the decision to over-ride scrutiny.
Conclusion
12.6 We have no difficulty with the amendment
to the Common Position, and now clear the document. But there
are two other issues here. First, was there any need for the
amendments to the Common Position to be agreed just before a meeting
of this Committee? Secondly, has the Minister responded appropriately
to the questions raised about the process?
12.7 Our answer to both questions is "No".
It may have been desirable for the imposition of the new measures
to coincide with the start of the school term, but it was by no
means essential in order to send the desired political message.
Instead, this seems to have been precisely the situation we had
in mind when we told the Minister on 19 March 2003 that, "We
consider that there are times, such as this, when the Government
should be prepared to defend the principle of scrutiny before
adoption more vigorously in the face of pressure". Furthermore,
and especially in view of the earlier exchanges, it would have
been preferable for the Minister, rather than suggesting that
the initiative in writing to us was his, to have acknowledged
directly the concerns raised at the outset and to have addressed
them directly. We accordingly ask the Minister to write to us
about the handling of this document and about why the Government
agreed that the scrutiny reserve resolution should be overridden.
24 (24271) - ; see HC 63 xiv (2002-03), para 15 (5
March 2003). Back
25
Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative/Secretary General. Back
26
President of the Republic of Moldova. Back
|
