91997E2530

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2530/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Doubts about proper monitoring of financial aid for Suriname

1. Does the Commission agree that the appointment of the former dictator of Suriname, Desi Bouterse, to the very influential post of state counsellor of the Republic of Suriname should cause grounds for reconsidering the cooperation arrangements between the European Union and Suriname, not least because Bouterse is suspected by the Dutch judicial authorities of complicity in the large-scale international cocaine trade via the Netherlands to the European Member States, and because of the fact that a large number of crimes against humanity were committed in Suriname between 1982 and 1991 on Bouterse's responsibility?

2. Can the Commission guarantee that the money provided by the EU will not be misused in any way at all, or that if money is made available to Suriname it will under no circumstances benefit people in Bouterse's circle?

3. Does the Commission feel it is responsible to give Suriname financial aid now that it appears that the President of Suriname is refusing to account to the Suriname parliament for a secret bank account which he holds at the Central Bank of Suriname?

4. Is the Commission aware of the great problem of the illegal 'near banking' circuit in Suriname which could prove a major destabilizing element in the region and, if so, what impact will this have on the National Indicative Programme (Second Financial Protocol of the Lomé IV Convention) with Suriname?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (15 September 1997)

1. The Commission is aware of the recent opening of a prosecution in the Netherlands against Mr Desi Bouterse for drugs trafficking and that at the same time he has been nominated state advisor of the Republic of Suriname.

Cooperation between Suriname and the Community is governed by the Lomé Convention as amended by the Mauritius Agreement. Article 5 of this Agreement clearly states that 'respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law ... shall constitute an essential element of this Convention'. Any reconsideration of the cooperation with Suriname would need to be based on a clear infringement of any or all of these essential elements, in which case a procedure as outlined in Article 366a would need to be set in motion.

2. Article 4 of the same Agreement states that 'support shall be provided in ACP-EC cooperation ... in order to promote the ACP States' social, cultural and economic progress and the well-being of their populations ...'. Community cooperation with Suriname therefore clearly aims at the population at large and is governed by the same appropriate control mechanisms as applicable to other African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States.

3. The Commission has no further information than that of the Honourable Member on the allegation of a secret presidential bank account.

4. The Commission is aware of the economic risks caused by the 'nearbanking' activities which have also been highlighted to the government of Suriname by the most recent Article IV International monetary fund mission.

Both the above issues relate to considerations of good governance, which is 'a particular aim of the cooperation operations' under the Lomé Convention (Article 5). Although lack of good governance is not one of the three above-mentioned essential elements that could lead to a reconsideration of Community cooperation with Suriname, the Commission nevertheless wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it gives particular importance to good governance in its cooperation programmes, as specified in Article 5.