EU FUNDING TO THE MIDDLE EAST: A TURNING POINT OF EUs

VIEW TOWARDS THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS?

Europes integration process is moving forward, the wheel cannot and should not be stopped.
The European Jewish Congress (EJC), being a European-wide organization feels the need to
inform and update you in addition to the information already provided by the media and it
will pay particular attention to any developments, events or news that occur in the field of EU
politics.
This article focuses on an issue that has been a major bone of contention in the last few
months, the request for the constitution of a temporary committee of inquiry concerning
EU funding in the Middle East initiated and supported by some Members of the European
Parliament such as Rijk van Dam (EDD, The Netherlands), Willy De Clercq (ELDR,
Belgium), Gianfranco DellAlba (NI, Italy), Frdrique Ries (ELDR, Belgium), Ilka Schrder
(GUE/NGL, Germany), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE, United Kingdom) and Franois Zimeray
(PSE, France)1 .
The European Union is the Palestinian Authoritys (P.A.) main source of financial aid it has
provided on a continuous basis 10 million euros per month in direct budgetary assistance to
the P.A.2 since June 2001. The EU has clearly committed itself to playing a crucial role as a
supporter of the Middle East Peace Process. In the last months, considerable evidence has
come to light indicating that senior officials within the P.A. have condoned the channelling of
some of the European Unions funding into the hands of terrorist organisations. Thus, some
of the money intended to provide aid to the Palestinian population and promote education for
peace, has been misappropriated and used to fund textbooks and teachings that promote racial
hatred and glorify martyrdom.
Therefore, MEPs from different political groups have
requested the establishment of a Committee of Inquiry in order to examine the potentially
illegal use of EU funding to the Palestinian Authority.
In order for this petition to be successful, formally requesting the opening of an official
investigation, the initiators needed signatures from at least a quarter of the Members of the
European parliament.3 As a result of a determined and concerted effort on the part of the
initiators, by January 30th 2002, about 170 MEPs had signed the petition and thus paved the
way for this investigation into the use of EU funds.
However, things started to change in the following weeks. The day after the initiators
announced that more than a quarter of MEPs had signed, the European anti-fraud office
(OLAF), an independent EU investigative body, announced that it would start its own inquiry
into claims of irregular use of EU funds sent to the Palestinian Authority. Responses to the
OLAF initiative were mixed, though it is well worth noting that the EU Commissioner for
External Relations, Chris Patten, publicly welcomed the OLAF initiative.
This, after
1

EDD : Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities

ELDR : Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
GUE/NGL : Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left
PPE-DE : Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
PSE : Group of the Party of European Socialists
NI : Non-attached
2
Request for the constitution of a temporary committee of inquiry (by virtue of article 151 of the Rules of
Procedure) concerning the EU funding in the Middle East
http://www.ilka.org/presse/pms/pms54anlagen/Request_EN_PDF.pdf
3
The European Parliament consists of 625 Members (situation as at 27 March 2003)

vehemently opposing the establishment of the European parliamentary committee of inquiry

for months; announcing that the EU needed it like a hole in the head,4 and putting
considerable pressure on the initiators of the petition, its signatories and those MEPs who
seemed likely to sign. Significantly, some MEPs also had pressure exerted on them from
within their own parties not to support the petition.
MEP Willy de Clercq, Minister of State, former Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium, former
Chairman of the IMF Interim Committee, former Belgian Minister for the Budget, Finance
and Foreign Trade and former Member of the Commission with responsibility for external
economic relations and trade, summed it up; "we are not for Israel, for Palestinians, anti-Israel
or anti-Palestinian. We want only the truth and transparency. Transparency is the key.5
Commissioner Patten must be aware that if the allegations of the EU funding terror holds
true, this may result in negative consequences for the Commissioner for External Relation,
Chris Patten.
With the requisite number of signatures for the Parliamentary Inquiry, the stage seemed set
for this inquiry to proceed: The Conference of Presidents, a body that basically sets the
parliaments agenda and whose members are the Presidents of the Political Groups in the
European Parliament, had to authorise it. At that time in early February, it seemed a mere
formality. However, they decided to reject the committee of inquiry already supported and
signed by the 170 MEPs. This political decision to reject the parliamentary petition was
unique in the history of the European parliament.6 The Conference of Presidents opted
instead to launch a much less formal inquiry. This less formal inquiry is separate from
OLAFs investigation and is weaker, thus having much less influence than the parliamentary
committee of inquiry would otherwise have.
Consequences? With hindsight, one could easily conclude that this petition for an inquiry
into whether the EU has funded terror has not reached its ultimate goal, thereby
disappointing its supporters. Nevertheless, though the investigation in its original form may
not take place due to opposition from some major European power players, the impact of the
initiative may have redirected the momentum in a European Parliament that MEP Charles
Tannock calls anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.7
This debate over EU funding towards the Middle East may perhaps be a turning point in the
EUs view on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As MEP Franois Zimeray, the Socialist partys
only signatory and one of the initiators of the petition, has pointed out: There will be a
before and after . . . I wanted a political awakening on this issue, and I think it is taking place.
One can now talk about the corruption and the incitement of the P.A. in the European
Parliament without being a heretic.8 It seems that some people in and around the European
Parliament and EU infrastructures are starting to open their eyes.9 Hopefully, the entire

Black, Ian. Patten faces battle over EU funds for Palestinians

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,889025,00.html
5
Spitei, Sharon. "Patten faces pressure over EU funds inquiry."
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=9258
6
Kuhar, Z.S. Strassburg lehnt Untersuchung zur EU-Finanzierung von PA ab
7
Spitei, Sharon. "Patten faces pressure over EU funds inquiry."
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=9258
8
Perelman, Marc European Pol Wants Oversight of P.A. Funding
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.28/news9.html
9
Ibid

debate will trigger an ideological change, not only in the European Parliament, but also in
other EU institutions.
It is vital though to differentiate at this point: this debate is not about opposition to financial
aid to the Palestinians - no one supporting this initiative is opposed to the principle of the EU
sending funds to help the Palestinian population.
The European Unions motives to further the peace process by funding the social
infrastructures that help the Palestinian populace to live decently are not in question. The
funding is intended for the support of dialogue and coexistence if instead the European
taxpayer is reinforcing rhetoric of racial and religious hatred, those in office who vote the
funds are entitled to know about it and act accordingly. Transparency as to the use of the 10
Million euros the EU sends 12 times a year to the Palestinian Authority is what the inquiry is
for. How much of the funding actually reaches the Palestinian population? - is a legitimate
question.
The Conference of Presidents decision to reject the inquiry committee has highly astonished
and even alarmed some MEPs.10
In the short term, it is frustrating and signifies a setback
for those, including the European Jewish Congress, who support the initiative.
Over time though, this debate may well have a successful outcome. The definition of its
effectiveness will depend on whether the fall out from this straightforward initiative and
subsequent political posturing has tipped the scales in favour of a more evenly balanced view
and a more constructive focus from the European Parliament and its associated institutions on
Europes role in the Middle East peace process.
Manuel Seiffe

10

April 9, 2003

Rijk van Dam (EDD), Willy De Clercq (Liberals), Gianfranco DellAlba (NI), Frdrique Ries (Liberals), Ilka
Schrder (GUE/NGL, Germany), Charles Tannock (PPE) and Franois Zimeray (PSE) Who is afraid of the
tuth