EU support for politicised NGOs which oppose official EU Middle East policy
4.12.2006
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5488/06
by Paul van Buitenen (Verts/ALE)
to the Commission
Answering my previous question on funding of NGOs (E‑2209/06), the Commission writes that the objective of funding under the Middle East Peace Projects is ‘to provide a solid foundation at civil society level for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East by strengthening and increasing direct civil society relationships and cooperation based on equality and reciprocity between Palestinians/Arabs and Israelis, including the Arab Palestinian minority in Israel.’ The EU document ‘National financing plan 2004 for the West bank and Gaza’ states that the EU should support ‘local and international civil society initiatives which promote peace, tolerance and non-violence’ and ‘ideas … for achieving the two-state solution’. It furthermore says that the programme aims to promote initiatives: ‘less politicised, more practical activities which will promote communication and understanding’.
Several NGOs, funded by the EU, show disrespect for the above EU objectives. What did the Commission do in order to ‘amend the actions so that objectives are met’ (answer E 2209/6). Does the Commission consider these violations of EU objectives as misuse of EC funds? If so, was funding suspended and standard investigation procedures launched including OLAF? If not, why not?
Does the Commission agree that projects executed by outspoken political NGOs do carry the message of the NGO involved and that NGOs who spread a message contrary to the objectives and policy of the EU should be excluded from EU funding? If not, is the Commission prepared to fund projects of the settler movement in Israel?
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights accused Israel of ‘ethnic cleansing’, denounced Israeli policy as ‘apartheid’ and ‘extreme racism’ and called for a total boycott of Israel. Does the Commission see this as ‘reinforcing the engagement of civil society in conflict prevention and resolution’?
Miftah wrote in an op-ed on the Miftah website on 2 August 2006, that Israel was deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians. It also describes suicide bombings against civilians as resistance. Do these statements build a solid foundation for a just and lasting peace, as is one of the Commission's objectives?
ICAHD director Mr Halper wrote that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs an international campaign for a single state. Does this comply with the EU's objective of ‘ideas … for achieving the two-state solution.’ ?
EMHRN called on the EU to re-establish its financial aid to the PA after the election of Hamas and claimed that the EU displayed a double standard, by tolerating the violations of human rights by Israel. EMHRN failed to mention the violence and terrorism employed by Hamas, nor did it call on Hamas to adopt the demands of the Quartet. Are these the ‘more practical activities to promote communication and understanding’, which the Commission supports?
All of the above NGOs receive EU funding.
Please refer to: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/infofile/eu_funding_231006.html
OJ C 293, 05/12/2007