17 Restrictive measures against the Democratic
Republic of Congo
| (a)
(35814)
—
—
(b)
(35823)
6932/14
JOIN(14) 6
(c)
(35824)
6958/14
JOIN(14) 7
|
Council Decision amending Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of Congo
Joint Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 889/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of the Democratic Republic of Congo
Joint Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo
|
| Legal base | (a) Article 29 TEU; unanimity
(b) and (c) Article 215 TFEU; QMV
|
| Document originated | (b) and (c) 24 February 2014
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (a) 20 February 2014, (b) and (c) 25 February 2014
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 27 February 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | 17 March 2014
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
17.1 The UN Security Council first imposed an arms
embargo on all foreign and Congolese armed groups operating in
the Kivus and Ituri and groups not party to the Global and All-inclusive
agreement in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 2003. The
sanctions regime has since been modified, extending the arms embargo
to the whole of the DRC, imposing restrictive measures (a travel
ban and an assets freeze) on designated persons, and broadening
the criteria under which individuals and entities can be designated.
Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP
17.2 Most recently, the Minister for Europe (Mr David
Lidington) explained to the Committee that UNSCR 1952 (2010),
adopted on 29 November 2010, renewed the sanctions imposed on
DRC for a period of 12 months and expressed the Security Council's
support for a Group of Experts' recommendations on guidelines
for due diligence for those involved in the mineral industry in
the DRC.
17.3 In addition, he noted that the UN Sanctions
Committee had designated four more individuals as subject to restrictive
measures, and explained that, for the UN Sanctions Committee to
do so, they must meet one of the criteria set out in UNSCR 1857
(2008).
17.4 In other respects, the Minister said, the draft
of what became Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP did not provide
for any change to the effect of the existing EU measures implementing
the UN sanctions in respect of DRC, but incorporated post-Lisbon
Treaty language, and brought the instrument into line with recent
best practice developments across EU sanctions regimes. In particular,
it ensured that designated persons would be provided with the
grounds for listing so as to give them an opportunity to make
representations, and would be entitled to challenge their listing
by the EU before the EU Courts and also the implementation or
application of an asset freeze or travel ban in the domestic courts
of a Member State. In addition, the draft Council Decision provided
that Member States may grant exemptions from the asset freeze
or travel ban for specified reasons.
17.5 With regard to the overall context, the Minister
said that the Government was committed to bringing about a peaceful
solution to the violence in the eastern part of the DRC, and that
measures to cut funding and other support to the illegal armed
groups responsible for the violence were key to this solution.
17.6 Other such amendments were cleared by the then
Committee in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010 without a substantive Report
to the House; we concluded that there was no need for one on that
occasion either.[63]
The draft Council Decision and Council Regulations
17.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 27 February
2013, the Minister for Europe explains that UN Security Council
Resolution 2136 (2014) concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC), which was adopted on 30 January 2014:
— renewed the sanctions regime on the DRC
for a period of 12 months;
— provided an additional derogation to
the arms embargo exempting the supply of arms for use by the African
Union-Regional Task Force; and
— amended the designation criteria to include
individuals or entities providing financial support, or goods
or services to, a designated individual or entity; expanded the
criteria on individuals or entities trading in natural resources
to include gold and wildlife; and expanded the criteria on individuals
or entities involved in the targeting of children or women to
include attacks on schools and hospitals; and that
— Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Council
Regulations (EC) No. 1183/2005 and (EC) No. 889/2005 should therefore
be amended to reflect these changes.
Legal and Procedural Issues
17.8 With regard to the legal and procedural aspects
of the proposed amendments, the Minister says:
"The procedures for designating individuals
and entities are compliant with fundamental rights. Individuals
subject to a travel ban would be entitled to challenge the implementation
or application of such a ban in the General Court of the European
Union. In addition, Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP provides that
the Sanctions Committee established by UN Security Council Resolution
1533 (2004) may grant exemptions from the travel ban for specified
reasons including, inter alia, where travel is justified
on the grounds of humanitarian need. Similarly, a person or entity
subject to the asset freeze will be able to challenge their listing
before the General Court of the European Union. In addition, Council
Decision 2010/788/CFSP provides that Member States may, having
notified (and in some cases, having sought approval from) the
Sanctions Committee, authorise the release of certain frozen funds
or economic resources under specified conditions."
The Government's view
17.9 The Minister comments thus:
"The UK strongly supports the sanctions
regime in DRC. The UK Government is committed to bringing about
a peaceful resolution to the violence which is ongoing in some
parts of the DRC, and is working to support and encourage the
implementation of the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework
agreement for the DRC and Great Lakes Region. The persistence
of a complex mosaic of violent conflicts has caused widespread
death and displacement, and the destruction of the livelihoods
of hundreds of thousands of households, particularly in eastern
DRC. Taking steps, such as imposing sanctions, to cut funding
and other support to the illegal armed groups responsible for
the violence is a key element of the strategy aimed at bringing
stability to the region.
"Of particular note is the lone additional exemption
to the sanctions regime to enable the supply of arms to the African
Union Regional Task Force (AURTF),[64]
given their role in tackling the scourge of the Lord's Resistance
Army.[65] For
the last 24 years the LRA has targeted attacks on innocent civilians,
and has been responsible for kidnapping children and forcing them
to fight as part of its rebel force.
The AURTF are making incremental gains against the LRA and these
need to be maintained.
"We strongly support amendments to the designation
criteria to include individuals or entities providing financial
support to designated individuals or entities. This is of particular
importance in ensuring that sanctioned individuals and groups
are starved of the support and finances they require to operate.
"The expanded designation criteria, introducing
direct mention to individuals or entities trading in natural resources,
including gold and wildlife, will also assist in this, by addressing
the link between the illegal exploitation of natural resources,
including of minerals and the poaching and illegal trafficking
of wildlife, and the financing of armed groups. The illicit trade
in such resources is one of the major factors fuelling and exacerbating
conflict in the region. The expansion of the criteria to include
attacks on schools and hospitals will ensure that added weight
is given to ensuring that the most vulnerable people affected
by conflict are protected, and that the access of the civilian
population to basic services is maintained."
Conclusion
17.10 We did not consider the earlier amendments
to a well-established regime, and then to incorporate post-Lisbon
Treaty language and bring it into line with best practice developments
across all EU sanctions regimes, were of sufficient importance
to warrant a substantive Report.
17.11 However, given the (regrettably) enduring
nature of this crisis, the exemption to allow the sale of arms
to African Union Regional Task Force to help them in tackling
what he Minister rightly describes as "the scourge of the
Lord's Resistance Army", and the expansion of the designation
criteria, we consider that on this occasion a Report to the House
is appropriate.
17.12 We now clear the Council Decision and Council
Regulations.
63 See (32325) -: HC 428-xi (2010-12), chapter 22
(15 December 2010). Back
64
For background on the African Union Regional Task Force (AURTF),
see http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/african-union-launches-initiative-against-lra-key-questions-remain. Back
65
For background on the Lord's Resistance Army, see http://www.warchild.org.uk/issues/the-lords-resistance-army?_kk=lord's%20resistance%20army&_kt=a35dea99-cfb1-4fd9-8cb8-847c2ecd7db8&gclid=CP_L9Pj97LwCFWjpwgod0RYAPA. Back
|
