Terrorism funding report causes controversy
ANDREW BEATTY
02.04.2004 @ 09:53 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A parliamentary investigation into the possible misuse of EU funds in Palestine has split those carrying out the probe.
The group, investigating allegations that EU funds to the Palestinian Authority fell into the hands of terrorists, by a margin of just one vote, backed a report, that said there was no conclusive evidence that funds had gone to terrorists.
Members of the group were split over what should be considered sufficient or conclusive evidence.
The 'majority report' - backed by seven of the 13 members of the group failed to rule out the possibility that EU funds could have been misused, but took the view that only evidence that could be submitted to a Court should be considered as sufficient proof.
This ruled out the admission of intelligence material and transfers of funds to activists where it was evident that the transfer had been authorised, but where there was no evidence for the sums being received.
However the alternative 'minority report', backed by six of the 13 members of the group, said that, from a political point of view, the evidence that the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat authorised payment "cannot be discarded".
Welcomed
The European Commission, which was responsible for the administering the monies, welcomed the adoption of the majority report.
Emma Udwin, Spokesperson for External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten told the EUobserver that the in spite of "intensive investigations", evidence that funds were misused has not been found.
She said: "This form of assistance has been subject to more scrutiny than any other area...No one has proven a direct link, it is as simple as that".
Pointing to the lack of convictions of the people who money is suspected of being transferred to, she added that no link has been found between them and terrorist organisations.
However, Parliamentarians remain divided over whether this legalistic definition of evidence accurately reflects the situation.
Next Steps
Representatives of the European Parliament's groups and its President have received both reports.
The so-called Conference of Presidents did not debate either of the papers when they met this week, but decided to come back to the matter on 15 April when they convene again.
Because of the close to even split among members of the group, sources who took part in the Conference of Presidents discussions say the investigative team may be asked to prepare a common conclusion.
This would open the door to fresh wrangling over the wording of the text among the MEPs carrying out the investigation.
Another more likely possibility may be that they decide to do nothing more, or they ask the three committees in the Parliament involved in the investigation to draft their own reports, which would then come before the parliament.
The last solution is unlikely to be completed in time for the Parliamentary elections in June.
