Proposition 51K1370

Budget des voies et moyens pour l'année budgétaire 2005.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 29, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

budget national budget

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Ecolo FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 23, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will return today to some elements from the policy notes. At that time I could not agree with the way of working. The policy note was delivered to us a few hours before the committee meeting. At that time we were unable to make a thorough analysis of the text. This was also the case for the policy note on development cooperation. Colleague Van den Eynde, you did that with me too. For Development Cooperation it was even the case that many colleagues saw the note only for the first time when entering the meeting. Hence, Mr. Speaker, that my group regrets this course of affairs. We understand force majeure, but at the same time we hope that in the future the ministers will still respect this Parliament more.

Since last week there has been a new political fact: the European Council has predetermined a date for the start of accession negotiations with Turkey. CD&V has always said that it is too early to set a date for accession negotiations. We remain with this position. Now that this date has come, I would like to make it clear that it has not achieved an effective accession. For us, there are clear conditions for this. Their

First, the first phase of the negotiations must be limited to the political criteria. Turkey must meet these political criteria both in theory and in practice, in particular in the field of human rights and full fundamental freedoms. It is only in a second phase that a detailed examination of the 31 chapters that are normally the subject of the negotiation process can be undertaken. Their

Second, the negotiation process must be an open process. The result cannot be guaranteed in advance. It can result for us both in a privileged partnership and in an effective membership.

Third, negotiations must be conditional. This means that they can be suspended in case of serious and persistent violations of the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Their

Therefore, the progress and consolidation of political reforms in Turkey should be critically evaluated annually by the European Commission throughout the negotiation process. Their

Finally, it is also necessary to ensure that the necessary institutional reforms are carried out in a timely manner. They should enable the EU to incorporate Turkey without weakening itself in an unacceptable way. Their

If the ratification process for the European Constitution is stuck, the negotiations should be suspended immediately. Their

After the adoption of the European Constitution, of which we all know that it stipulates the extension of the ten, we need a second institutional reform that will not only change the institutional, but also provide a clear financial framework for the period after 2014. Their

Mr. Minister, you are calling for well-functioning and determined European institutions, for a Union that needs to work more democratically, more transparently and more efficiently in order to accommodate new accessions after 2006. Everyone in the Union wants this, but the reality is slightly different. Currently, it is uncertain that the new Constitution will be adopted in all Member States. The fear of exceeding the Union’s capacity is a legitimate concern. The political-technical discussion on the future financing of the Union and the broad public debate on Turkey’s accession demonstrate that there are limits to inter-European solidarity.

In addition, the European public opinion is very skeptical of the European story.

The approach to this in the home country is also problematic. If – I emphasize the word – there is a majority in favour of holding a non-binding public consultation on the European Constitution, the question is when it will be held. May 9, 2005 is the date set by the Government for the deposit of the instrument of ratification. I can hardly imagine that the public consultation will take place after the Parliament has already taken a decision on the Constitution. The danger is very real that the public debate on the Constitution will coincide with a debate on Turkey’s accession. If the people vote against the Constitution, you have a major political problem, Mr. Minister. CD&V will undertake a campaign for the adoption of the European Constitution. We will continue to promote the European idea because we believe it has a future. However, we must remain critical of recent developments within the Union.

With the further enlargement of the Union, Belgium chooses the strategy to establish close bilateral relations with new Member States. Although this is a good thing, I cannot get rid of the impression that the further enlargement of the Union increases the importance of bilateral contacts at the detriment of the Community model. The Europe à la carte, Member States forming alliances, enhanced cooperation in the most diverse policy areas can cause us to lose sight of the European project. You should not be surprised that you no longer get people explained what Europe really is and what it brings to them. CD&V hopes that Belgium will continue to pull the car from the bottom of the Union, the political project for which we have chosen, in particular a determined and democratic Europe.

So I come, Mr. Minister, to a second theme: Central Africa. We have already exchanged views on this in the committee and I am sure we will do so in the coming weeks and months. We regret, of course, the past diplomatic incidents, but I think the minister has taken lessons from them and that he is not blind to the African reality. Therefore, I welcome the appeal made yesterday by the Minister to all parties involved in the conflict. Rwanda must also abide by the peace agreements and respect the territorial integrity of Congo. We have warned: if Belgium wants to continue to play a credible role, we must be neutral and treat all partners equally. We should not close our eyes selectively. The entire international community sees what human dramas are taking place in East Congo right now. Someone is responsible for that. Therefore, Belgium cannot remain patient. Our commitments must be credible. I do not want to resume the debate here now about the conclusions of the Rwanda Commission, but it is clear, Mr. Minister, what the role of Belgium can, wants, should be. We need to balance what we do and what we do not do.

That brings me to another point regarding credibility on the international stage, namely Afghanistan and Iraq. With a lot of poeha this year, we announced that we would double our military presence in Afghanistan. That happened, but after six months it was already decided that we would reduce our troop strength so that there are fewer than there were originally, just now that the security situation in the country needs to be addressed! It is not because there have been elections, that it is now peas and free. What is the reason? No budgetary resources.

As for Iraq, I suspect that not sending Belgian soldiers has a principled reason. That, of course, continues to create the necessary tensions with the United States, no matter how good the personal relations between you and Mr. Powell may be. Now, I am curious whether Mrs. Reeze will be equally favorable to the Belgian approach. Therefore, Mr. Minister, I would also like to hear from you whether you can give some clarity as to whether Belgium will take a concrete commitment within the framework of the NATO operation in relation to Iraq.

Another country that has caused some turmoil in Belgian and Flemish circles in recent weeks is China. Our Crown Prince has not only put our country on the map, but also himself. There has already been enough written about it. I will not return to it today.

There is still a lot of uncertainty about the position regarding the lifting of the arms embargo.

Mr. Minister, from your policy note I cannot find out what the position of the Belgian government is. The conclusions of the Dutch EU Presidency also raise questions. I quote: "He" — the Presidency — "underlined that any decision of any kind must not result in an increase in arms exports from EU Member States to China, in quantitative or qualitative terms. In this context, the European Council recalled the importance of the criteria of the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports and in particular of the criteria in the field of human rights."

Another delicate point on the international stage is the Middle East. The Belgian government fully supports the roadmap. You have the support of my group, but if the European Union takes international law as its starting point and supports the International Court of Justice’s ruling over the wall, I wonder if the EU’s attitude is so consistent with regard to the application of the Association Agreement with Israel. In practice, this means that Israel is not blocked in terms of the designation of origin of products from the occupied territories and that the EU thus de facto recognizes the occupied territories as Israeli territory. The clauses on human rights in the Association Agreement are not for nothing. If we want to maintain our international credibility, we must comply with these agreements and use all the means offered to us by those international agreements to encourage the parties concerned to take action.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, there is also a very strange paragraph in the policy note on our relations with Cuba. Apparently, we are going to exert heavy political pressure — I quote — “to promote the evolution of the existing regime.”

Therefore, you argue that the European line of conduct appears to have a number of limitations. I assume that that paragraph was attached to your policy note at the express request of your coalition partner. Nevertheless, I would have liked to have some explanation on this surprising policy priority. What do you mean with this?

There are some important documents ahead of us next year. For example, there is the important Review Conference on the UN Millennium Goals. What is meant in this debate? The aim of the Review Conference is to evaluate the Millennium Goals. This will hardly bring the news. Most attention will be paid — even now, if you look at the newspapers of recent weeks — to the institutional reforms of the UN, such as the reform of the UN Security Council. I understand that the power game between the great, including for the press, will give the most fireworks but I think that as a small country, and as a likely future non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, we should try to emphasize the Millennium Goals as guidelines for development policy.

This is the responsibility of the Minister of Development Cooperation, Mr De Decker. Mr. Minister, we have already been able to discuss the policy note in the committee extensively with each other, but again I ask you whether we will get the 0.7% and in what way? During the discussion of the policy note for Development Cooperation, you promised a detailed overview of the distribution of the 0.45% we spend on Development Cooperation. Why did I ask for it? To get more clarity on how the development money is spent and who decides in practice. We fear that the growth path to reach 0.7% in 2010 will not be respected. You are talking about an integrated budget and about horizontal development cooperation, but my impression is that the own resources for development cooperation are reducing. For example, it is not possible for my group to include military initiatives in that percentage. As you promised in the committee, Mr. Minister, I expect from you a detailed overview of what is in that 0.45%, a overview on which we can exchange opinions in the committee.

The last point is foreign trade.

However, the passages dedicated to this in the policy note of the Minister of Foreign Affairs sound very different from the policy note of the Minister of Economy. Minister De Gucht emphasizes the support of the regions in their promotion of their own exports. I have been able to experience this again following my question about the Belgian Chambers of Commerce abroad. At Minister Verwilghen, however, it sounds like Belgium is the only thing to be sold in the world. When I read the passages of Minister Verwilghen, I wonder why the whole heisa around the statements of Prince Philip has been there. I wonder whether his statements, the policy note and the words of the minister are or are not in the name of the whole government.

Finally, I would like to raise a few concerns.

We need to think thoroughly about the role Belgium should play in the world. What role do we want to play in the European Union, which will end up in a completely new constellation? What is our role in Africa?

There are two important tasks ahead of us, namely the presidency of the OSCE and most likely also the non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council. What priorities are we putting there?

Of course, there are also the resources. Mr. Minister, you have said in the discussion of your policy note that you have too few resources. I would like to know what the Belgian government will do about this. We see today that the operating resources for our embassies are not raised, despite the new embassies you wish to open.

I come to my decision.

I would like to return to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Minister, you may have also read the impression survey in The Standard yesterday. Both children and adults were given pictures of 20 politicians. It shows that children find you the most intelligent politician in the country. Adults, on the other hand, find you the least reliable politician.

Mr. Minister, as you know, a child’s hand is quickly filled. I hope this doesn’t say anything about your intelligence. Whatever the adults think of you, you should still be adorned as the head of the Belgian diplomacy. Someone from the diplomatic circles once said, “There are three kinds of beings who, when one thinks they’re coming, go away, and when one thinks they’re going away, come: crabs, diplomats, and women.”

Mrs. Muylle, it is also said that the truth comes from a child’s mouth.

and ah.

Mr. Van den Eynde, keep a little reserve when you come to the speech desk.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, my speech will be brief and focused on three issues: the United States, the European Constitution and the problem of enlargement.

First, Mr. Minister, I would like to address to you from my group a number of good points on the General Policy Declaration concerning the United States of America and the European Constitution.

Indeed, I still see myself, here a year and a half ago, trying to reassure Belgian citizens, explaining to them that Belgium would not declare war on the United States. It is true that, by believing certain discourses or certain threats, one could have the impression that we would soon mobilize our air-hunting, our most sharp artillery to prevent the American aircraft from flying over Belgian territory.

Fortunately, this period seems to be over. For my part and on behalf of the MR Group, we welcome this because it is difficult to continue to support or imply that a policy of hostility towards the United States of America is a short policy.

It should be remembered that the United States is sometimes an overwhelming ally. Sometimes you have to be able to hold them. We must not, because we are allies, accept everything. But we cannot, because they represent a force necessary to defend the Western world and the values we believe in, and not simply by sentimentalism in the name of history, allow us to maintain permanent conflicting relationships about everything and anything with the United States of America.

In these circumstances, I appreciate for my part the document that has been deposited and which, evidently, testifies to a willingness to round the angles, to discuss without yet being the valets of the Americans whom it is known that they may be extraordinary misguided. Being their allies, of course, does not necessarily follow them in a number of folly.

The second point I would like to address is the European Constitution. I have heard with some disappointment the parliamentarians in committees make criticisms that I find totally unjustified about the European Constitution. I feel like being a perfect ignorant in history, political science and sociology is like not wanting to measure the extraordinary effort that has been made by a number of countries to build a space of freedom, justice, peace and security in the heart of the European continent.

Who could have imagined, in the 1970s—when Giscard d’Estaing and Schmidt dialogued by smoking the pipe or the cigar on a single currency, the equus, the money serpent and many other things—that one day the euro would exist?

Who could have imagined, even fifteen years ago, that Europe would have a Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Who could have imagined, ten years ago, that we would have a European Constitution that, undoubtedly, makes this bloc of 25 countries – just read Amnesty International reports – a real enclave of the best protected freedoms on the planet?

An extraordinary effort has been made. This deserves to be widely discussed and the information to be widely disseminated in our country. That is why, you know, Mr. Minister, the MR group in particular is in favor of a popular consultation. This European citizenship, this belonging to a Europe which is wanted to be increasingly integrated, constitutes a progress for human beings, a progress for Europeans. It is important that all those who feel they have responsibilities, who consider themselves as European citizens – the government, the parliament – participate in this information in order to make our fellow citizens more aware of the challenges.

I will conclude with a question. It is about enlargement. I do not want to launch a debate that may not yet have its reason to be today, but I confess that I will allow myself to question you in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Nevertheless, I would like to start this debate by starting out from one observation.

We are beginning to talk a lot about the issue of Turkey and its possible accession, maybe in fifteen years. I am the first to say that it is normal, even for geographical and historical reasons, to first be interested in nearby countries such as Romania or Bulgaria. What surprises me is that there is an impasse in our debates and in all circumstances about the actual situation of those countries that I know quite well.

I have great appreciation and sometimes compassion for the Romanian and Bulgarian citizens who have experienced terrible trials throughout history. However, their economic situation is now incomparably worse than that of Portugal, for example, when it joined the European Union. Their political history has done everything except preparing them for cultural democracy, and this is seen in teaching.

I will take two examples. Do you know, my dear colleagues, that in the moment we speak, to learn to read Romanian pupils in primary school, we use textbooks written at Ceaucescu's time in which it is stated that all Germans are fascists? This is because the country is very poor, of extraordinary poverty. This is the instruction that is given today to children in primary school in Romania.

Let us take another much more important issue: that of university education and, for example, of Romanian responsibility in the Shoah. After all, and this is an aspect of the question often flattered, it is often forgotten that this country participated with Hitler’s Germany in a number of ravages in several places in Europe.

by Mr. Iliescu has officially acknowledged Romania’s responsibility for the Shoah. I suppose it’s because his country is knocking at the door of the European Union, but it’s worth emphasizing as it’s a considerable effort. For the first time, a few weeks ago, we finally come to a Romanian university to dare to talk about it to young adults, students, who are the adults and Romanian citizens of tomorrow. Therefore, I will not extend further on the issue.

I say that geographical proximity, history and many other reasons lead us to discuss with these countries. But have we well measured the economic and socio-cultural reality of those countries that are geographically close to us; which, historically, are less; which, culturally, are less than we can imagine because of the role that the Orthodox Church has played there?

I recall that the Orthodox Church was devoted body and soul to Ceaucescu. In this regard, I could put in front of you a number of absolutely reversing texts that show how much it was undermined by the whole system.

In short, Mr. Minister, as it is important to promote the enlargement of Europe, without falling into a free market, in the free competition, and by not escamoting the main objective that is to reach an integrated Europe, as the efforts deployed in this direction are meritorious and must continue, as it is necessary that we discuss it. Indeed, I am not sure that our opinion – and even the Belgian and European political world – has fully measured the consequences of these choices.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to my habit, in response to what Mr. Hasquin has just said here, I would like to pronounce a few phrases in French for one time on the floor.

Mr. Hasquin, you have been upset by the fact that young Romanians are still taught today that all Germans are fascists. I am not mistaken, but according to "Le Soir" and "La Libre Belgique", newspapers enjoying a very good reputation in French-speaking Belgium, young Wallonians are still taught that all members of my party, the Vlaams Belang, are fascists. It is not for this reason that I will say that we must send the Wallons to I don’t know which part of the world and that we must get them out of the European Union.

Having said that and returning to my beloved mother tongue, I would like to communicate that the main contemporary problem of Belgian foreign policy, Turkey’s accession to the EU, which is almost the only thing that touches the public opinion at this time, will soon be addressed by my excellent colleague Guido Tastenhoye. However, I would like to hold on to two points – and I have just agreed with him – because these are arguments I have heard in this house more than once in the last few weeks. First, if Europe includes Turkey, a very large Islamic country, then we will finally demonstrate that Europe is not a Christian continent, as if we had to wait for Islam to finally become secular. We have been there for a few centuries, but the people who proclaimed it here are apparently not aware of it yet. There are two different sources in that argument. The first source is a few Islamic colleagues. Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, you may be surprised, but I do not blame them. Everyone defends his religion, his opinion, his club, his society as you call it, his lodge or his business.

Others defended it in the name of freedom of mind. That shocked me, not because they are free-minded. I will confess to you that I myself am more than satisfied that our continent has been secular for several centuries, and I would not want that otherwise. But when I listen to these people, they are of the opinion that we should throw over the Christian sources, which are an important part of our history, or that we should at least forget them and never talk about them again. But what would the European culture be without our Gothic cathedrals, without our Baroque churches, without our Orthodox icons, without the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, or the Flemish Primitives? This is also Europe.

Mr. Minister, you are, like me, elected in Eastern Flanders and the Lamb of God I cannot imagine without Christianity. Without the music of Bach or of Orlandus Lassus, without the lyrics of Thomas of Aquino or of the great lady Theresa of Avila. To end in Flanders, without our mystics, I think in particular of Sister Hadewich and Ruusbroec, called by the French le divin Ruusbroec. This is also an important part of our European civilization and our European culture. Even though I am in favour of a secular Europe, tonight on this tribune I want to break a lance for this part of our culture.

I want to continue to do that because if I didn’t, I would deny Europe. I know that there are many other sources you can quote me and I will agree with you. Let us not deny this source. A second argument that is increasingly presented to me in connection with Turkey’s accession to Europe is the fact that the left-wing camp has become anti-American from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos to the absurd. Somebody was talking about Cuba. We are currently giving money from our development cooperation money to propaganda organizations for Cuba. These are organizations that defend the death penalty. That it is precisely those leftist organizations, which have always been anti-American, that in this case jump into the field with their fingers on the seam of the pants and say to Bush: ay, ay sir, we are going to bring Turkey into Europe. That, colleagues of the left, is your responsibility. Responsible to your left consciousness.

A colleague from the left asks for the word, Mr. Van der Maelen.

And that comes from the mouth of someone who belongs to the party, the UK, who just a few weeks ago said that she was going to get her inspiration and her values from the neo-conservatives of Bush.

We find our inspiration anywhere in the world. With Gramski, who is a Marxist, or possibly with Bush if it should, why not. What matters to us is our opinion and our reasoning. We don’t fall dead if we see an American flag like you. But we will not take care of American politics when it aims to completely “de-Europeanize” and disrupt Europe. You are now the servants and servants of the United States of America.

Mr. Van den Eynde, the Minister wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. Van den Eynde, it is not clear to me what this actually has to do with my policy statement.

and Turkey! My good colleague Guido Tastenhoye will give many more arguments on this.

However, it is intended that you replicate what I said in the policy statement. I have not said a word about your argument, really not. Maybe you’ve read another document, I don’t know. But in my policy statement, there is nothing about it.

I also have no problems with Gothic cathedrals, because they were built by those who also founded the lodges.

Can I congratulate the Great East on the construction of Notre Dame in Paris? Mr. Minister, I would like to tell you that it is my task as an opposition member to respond not only to the literal text that precedes, but above all to what lies behind it.

In this regard, I repeat that not only this country’s policy, but also Tony Blair’s – but that is less surprising – is the policy of people who are totally at the service of American politics, which is destabilizing Europe. I did not want to say more about this, but I will remain in that position and I will continue to proclaim it.

The [...]

Thank you for respecting that I at least remain with my position.

The second part of my presentation is about Africa. If there is one important classical theme in Belgian foreign policy, it is Africa. You will remember that more than once in the Foreign Affairs Committee I have defended the view that there are two completely different views in foreign policy about Africa: a Flemish and a French-speaking one. You will remember that I told it in tempore non suspecto, a few weeks before your first major trip to Africa, to the Congo and to the former mandate areas of Rwanda and Burundi.

My position on this subject was welcomed with some scepticism. That is the fate of the opposition. I did not get sick of it.

Mr. Minister, you traveled from Congo to Rwanda and made, in my opinion, some very strange statements. I have not blamed your statements about the Congo. Without wanting to compromise you, I say that you were right with your statements about the current policy and the corruption that prevails there. You may not be really satisfied with this epitheton, but I assume that you interpreted the point of view of a Flaming.

Mr. De Decker also goes to the same area. Mr. De Decker, who in part determines our foreign policy, because he is responsible for Development Cooperation and as such spends much of our acid earned tax money in those areas, explains exactly the opposite. Il tombe and pâmoison for the regime in Kinshasa. He tells us that he is a genius. Mr. Van der Maelen, you had already taken the position of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The government’s Minister of Development Cooperation, supported by you, almost falls on his knees from adoration, eternal worship for the regime of Kinshasa, which is genius and realistic. I will save you the listing.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I do not like that now: you wish that colleague De Decker would fall on his knees. He has already fallen on his elbows, now he should fall on his knees again. I do not find that nice of you. I do not consider this serious.

Mr. Minister, you won’t believe it, but I once had sympathy for Minister De Decker and even sympathy or compassion. That was the moment he returned from that communist country with two broken elbows. That will teach him to go to such a country! Nevertheless, my sympathy for this. Their

In any case, it was clear: the position I have been defending in the committee for several years now was beautifully illustrated here. One has a French-speaking vision on African politics and a Flemish vision. I do not deny Mr. De Decker the right to have his vision. I totally disagree with this, but that is another matter. However, that is his vision. I have already explained that: that is a little retro, a little old law, a little homage to the colonial era where French was spoken in Léopoldville and where everything went well, and where one could exploit the Negroes and occasionally cut their hands under King Leopold II. Everyone has a right to their view of the colonial past. We have another. Even our Minister of Foreign Affairs, you, who react from a reflex, has that vision as well. Mr. De Decker cannot do that. I do not determine his thinking and ⁇ not what he says, but it was perfectly consistent with the statement that I always defended. Their

I would like to have — I don’t want to stop on this anymore — that we draw the consequences out of it. It is clear: even when it comes to foreign policy in Congo, Flemish and French speakers have a completely different view. Their

Okay, it is so. Let us go apart, if theirs and we ours, and we will see who is right. In any case, we will be happier, because we will think and do what we want and they too. This is a recipe for Mr. Verhofstadt, who absolutely wants to get out of every conflict: segregate, get out of each other and it will go better, because no conflicts anymore.

Then I still stay for a while at the comments of my good colleague of CD&V, with whom I often disagree. Mr. Minister, I would like to protest against the fact that you call a young member of parliament, a lady who works hard and also commits herself as a mother of a household to do politics here, childish. I found it a little painful. I don’t have to defend her, she’s “woman” enough to do it myself, but I wanted to lose that for a moment.

The [...]

You did not say that. It is good.

You said that the truth comes from a child’s mouth.

I’ve said that the truth comes from a child’s mouth, but that’s not...

and no. Mrs. Muylle said something different, so she doesn’t have a child’s mouth, right?

Mr. Minister, I acknowledge your response and I will not stop there.

I have to go back to Cuba for a while. She was not wrong when she determined how we are strangely sympathetic with that regime, which is almost always a dictatorship where most of the opposition is in prison and where not so long ago people were sentenced to death and executed for trying to escape the country. We all forget that. We look at it from the height. We cover that with the mantle of love, all because a man with the initials S.S. He regularly visits and likes to drink rum under the palm trees. I give him that, but I tell you that it is not logical for a government that claims to highlight human rights.

I would like to conclude with the chapter on development cooperation. Mr. De Decker is not there for nothing. I have plagued him a little, but I have to touch his department. I will be very concise. I would like to go to the most essential aspect of development cooperation policy, especially the money we invest in it.

Just like so many others, before – you are indeed not the only one who sins so, but I give you the advantage of the circumstance tendencies – and just like our colleague of the CD&V, now, Mr. De Decker, you stick to the dogma of 0.7% for Development Cooperation. Well, I protest against it.not because I think we should not spend money helping people who are in need, anywhere in the world, of any people and of any race. On the contrary, they enjoy my solidarity.

However, that 0.7% is a dogma that was introduced 12 years ago, following an international conference. No one knows exactly why, but in the meantime it is there. Every political party, every politically correct party, every traditional party feels obliged, without thinking and without stopping, to respect that 0.7%. Sorry, but for that, they all fall on their knees, including the Freemasoners. Don’t apologize to me, but when you talk to the sector, when you make the effort to talk to people from the development cooperation sector – I do it from time to time – you sometimes get very strange results. I have already told this to Mr. De Decker, but I would like to return to it for a moment.

Just a year ago I had a conversation with a large French-speaking NGO, Terre des Hommes — I have already said, Mr. Minister. During lunch, I asked them what they thought of the 0.7%. They started to laugh and said they had it in the Netherlands and didn’t know exactly what to do with it, to such an extent that they asked them, a French-speaking organization, and not even the Dutch wing, if they didn’t need a few coins. They had to invest that. Their

I think, gentlemen ministers, that development cooperation is something different than just 0.7% pondering. Development cooperation is solidarity, that is to help, that is to learn, that is to reach a hand, but not without spending money on anything. I would like to emphasize this too.

On my last point, I would like to address the Minister of Foreign Affairs in particular. In recent times, we have been talking about Europe, our continent Europe. Hasquin explained why Bulgaria and Romania may be less European than Turkey. That is his position, not mine, and it is of course his right to defend it. I would like to remind you for a moment of a few very ancient truths, but what are the truths at this time? Our continent, Mr. Minister, is not a continent of six, twelve or twenty-five countries and then another continent of twenty-five countries plus one country from Asia Minor. This is not Europe.

Europe is a continent bounded in the west by the west coast of Ireland, Galway and the Arran Islands; in the east by the Urals and the Caucasus. Now I would like to give you the details about certain areas there for a while. This is our continent. That continent has a community of many different cultures, many different languages. But what we have in common on that continent is what I — it is not the right word but I have no other — will call a very general view of life. Whether she is religious or secular, or she is Orthodox or Protestant or I know something else, we have something in common. We all come from a number of peoples who have something to share with each other and who undoubtedly have something to share with the rest of the world but who are somewhat more familiar with each other than they are familiar with the others.

When Europe ever comes, it is, in my humble opinion, not the Europe of money, not the Europe of American interests, or of Russian interests, or of any interest, but a Europe of Europeans. First and foremost, a Europe of Europeans. That it would then be limited to the Europeans, of whatever religion or language they may be, because they have something in common. You know very well what I mean. We understand each other simply because we all know what Europe is. I have always had the impression that the official politics, not only yours but that of Belgium and that of the rest of the current states of Europe, forgets that.

You advocate the inclusion of Turkey in Europe, a country that is very different and has a completely different religion and tradition, while countries like Ukraine don’t even get a chance. I will give Ukraine as an example, because I will go there tomorrow on behalf of the Chamber. I do not advocate for the immediate accession of Ukraine, but only ask that when we talk about Europe, think of our Europe and of that solidarity first, because then we can also help the whole world.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, in the time of speech that is meant, although the subject matter is extensive and important, I must limit myself to formulating only certain remarks and observations which cannot be exhaustive in a few short minutes. I will first formulate a formal note: the general policy notes arrived too late. I’m not going to talk about this issue in order not to be redundant with the colleague who preceded me.

I come to a few remarks and observations that concern only a few aspects of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Public Development Aid. I will begin my speech on the European Union and, more specifically, on the EU’s financial outlook for the period 2007-2013, as it is necessary to have resources tailored to the challenges of an enlarged Europe.

The Commission’s financial proposals for this period are not the result of an isolated will but are the result of guidelines given by the Member States. In order for enlargement to yield its full results and to help Europe thrive, it is crucial to meet the three main priorities set out by the Commission and the Council, namely sustainable development (growth, cohesion and employment), citizenship (freedom, security and justice) and the strengthening of the EU’s role as a global partner.

At the European Council in Lisbon in 2000, heads of state and government adopted a strategy aimed at bringing the Union to the forefront of the knowledge-based economy and society. By the middle of the course, the results are still somewhat mixed. The Union must boost this process by focusing on future investments.

It should be emphasized that the future financial framework will, among other things, have to be at the level of the fundamental challenge of a strengthened and renewed cohesion policy, which will be able to assist the new Member States, while continuing the recapture and reconversion work started in regions with lagging development or with structural problems. Transitional measures are proposed for regions that continue to face serious difficulties but which, as a result of statistics, are no longer eligible for the highest aid intensity.

It is crucial to support these measures, otherwise some of the efforts provided so far would be wasted. In this context, it is important to support the Commission’s proposal for this policy, as it must not jeopardise the very essence of the cohesion policy, namely to overcome disparities and inequalities in order to ensure sustainable growth and jobs for all in Europe. It should be recalled that the Union is not only a redistribution agency that costs some and reports to others, but that it brings added value.

It is therefore crucial that the Union budget for this period reflects the political challenges that the members of the Union have sought to meet and that Belgium is resolutely committed to this path by pursuing a strategy adapted accordingly.

I continue with Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in particular — to name only this country. Other countries also deserve special attention on our part, but I must be brief. In a few words, I will tell you that the DRC is a priority for the CDH, which firmly supports the democratic transition process in the DRC and the reforms it requires. The Congolese today more than ever need to be encouraged and accompanied on this difficult path. The DRC, which is at the heart of our country’s foreign policy, is now at the crossroads. The challenges are important and the least support is absolutely necessary for the country.

The Democratic Republic of Congo relies more than ever on significant international assistance in organizing the elections. These are only one of the essential elements for democratization. A democratic process in the Congo requires not only pacification but also political, educational, logistical and cultural support. While the CDH as a whole supports the Belgian Development Cooperation Plan in the DRC, our training, however, wishes to emphasize certain aspects such as: - the implementation of a transparent and responsible state apparatus; - the respect for human rights; - the support for economic revitalization, job creation and the sanitation of public finances; - the strengthening of cooperation in the social sectors and the fight against poverty.

In the DRC, the international community is facing a non-negligible challenge. The return to peace and structural stability in the DRC is a long-lasting but indispensable process for the fight against poverty and for sustainable human development. A disengagement could only lead to new disasters with incalculable consequences for the future of this country and the subregion, among others.

Signs of hope should be encouraged. The Congolese authorities are setting milestones for a process of political and economic reform. New prospects open up, both fragile and reversible, which Belgium and other actors and donors must explore and support. There are many more things to be said about this country and the region of the Great Lakes, but I will stop there today.

Another topic I would like to talk about, in a few words: the Middle East.

You have specified, Mr. Minister, that the search for a peaceful and sustainable solution in the Middle East remains at the forefront of Belgian concerns. Furthermore, we would like that Belgium should not merely reaffirm the principles of the Roadmap because the number of UN resolutions and NGO reports denouncing violations of international humanitarian law is no longer counted.

In this regard, Belgium is a member of the European Union, and the European Union is a member of the Quartet. As new offensives break out, is it not urgent that the European Union fully assumes its role in the Quartet and calls for a meeting of its members?

Now on to the OSCE. My speech will be limited to the prospects that open up for our country within the framework of the Belgian Presidency of the OSCE.

We can only congratulate you for your enthusiasm, Mr. Minister, with regard to the prospect of assuring the presidency of the organization in 2006, as well as your interest in the areas addressed by the organization. However, you may be surprised at the accuracy you have made regarding the loss of its influence following the enlargement of the European Union and the emphasis that would have been placed “a little too exclusively on human rights”, which has helped to make Russia catch up.

Indeed, while many agree that the pan-European organization suffers from some structural problems with regard to its organization and its decision-making methods, many may also admit that the enlargement of the Union can also be an opportunity for the organization.

Regarding the importance given to respect for human rights within the OSCE, it is difficult to agree with your remarks, which are also reflected in the report of the commission, Mr. Minister. There is never too much emphasis on respect for human rights, either in the OSCE or in any other institution. Within this institution, human rights are one of the means deployed to ⁇ peace.

It is true, however, that the iron arm between the countries west of Vienna and the other countries led by Russia is based on a call for “less human rights.” If the Russian requests are to be taken into account, we must not forget our priorities, especially in the current context.

Institutional reform should be undertaken. Following the ministerial meeting in Sofia in December 2004, it was decided to appoint seven specialists to conduct a reflection on the reform. We hope that you will follow this work very closely.

I will conclude my speech with the evolution of the budget of public development aid.

Mr. Minister, you have repeatedly recalled, and in particular during the discussion of your general policy note, in committee, your commitment and that of the Government to gradually increase, by 2010, the budget for Development Cooperation, with the aim of reaching at that date an amount of 0.7% of GDP. This increase is in line with a long-awaited increase and re-inserted on the agenda, thanks to the surge created among policy makers by the Millennium Development Goals.

In a very comprehensive, but also very concise manner, the evolution of all the 2005 budgets relating to public development aid does not reflect a strong growth that will lead us, in 2010, to devote 0.7% of GDP, except to postpone the majority of the effort on recent years. If we sum up all the budgets reserved for public development aid, it shows that this overall budget is in stagnation, to be, in 2004, almost at the same level as in 2002.

How do you explain such stagnation? Has the government given itself a clear and precise timetable for achieving the target set for 2010 with a position-based ventilation?

The table presented in the solidarity note is significant in this regard. It ⁇ follows the development planned until 2010, but no increase is planned for 2005.

In other words, the government announces that it wants to increase the public development aid budget, but does not make any additional effort this year.

How do you explain your choice? Have you predicted how and how this increase will take place in the future? Wouldn’t it be appropriate to have a strategic plan in this regard? In addition, will you conduct an in-depth assessment of public development aid budgets to identify the most effective allocations on the ground?

I thank you for your attention.

Thank you Madame Wiaux. Mr. Boukourna, I think I know that you would like to address the Minister of Development Cooperation, Mr. by Decker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, my political group could not dispose of the general policy note before the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations on 16 November last year, during which it was debated.

On behalf of my group, I would therefore like to highlight the following few points.

We welcome, above all, the continuity principle you advocate, even though we would have wished to have more clarification on how to apply it.

We also welcome your concern for establishing a concertation at all levels. This is one of the most important challenges to face, a challenge that requires a political will for dialogue between the different actors of development cooperation, but which also requires the setting of conditions to make this dialogue possible, effective and effective.

Among the tools to be strengthened to improve consultation, we will mention, in particular, in the framework of bilateral cooperation, the preparation of joint committees in Belgium and in the beneficiary countries. Unfortunately, we find that, despite praised intentions and speeches, the so-called moments of consultation between international organizations and NGOs, for example, are not always designed and organized as they should be. We welcome your willingness to simplify and accelerate the current procedures which, by their weight, slowness and rigidity, in particular, stifle NGO initiatives.

It would also be appropriate to consider an action by the European Commission and its services in order to simplify and speed up the co-financing procedures.

We are pleased to note that this year several assessment procedures have been carried out, in particular by the DGCD’s PMEO department and the SPF Foreign Affairs Special Evaluator (SES) department. We hope that this evaluation policy will continue and can serve as a tool for analyzing the quality and efficiency of our development cooperation as a whole.

To return to the financial means, if we look at the 2005 budget, we observe that it is far from actually taking off. It is progressing, of course, but only 4.4%.

In the introduction of your general policy note, you recall, in particular, the Government’s commitment to increase the funding for development cooperation to reach 0.7% of the gross national income in 2010, in accordance with the 2002 Monterrey Conference. Nevertheless, given the evolutions seen and probably predictable, we can only express our concerns about the difficulties that will exist in achieving this goal, if the current trend is not corrected.

Do you think Belgium will be able to fulfill the commitments made in Monterrey? What about the search for new financial mechanisms for development?

In general, Mr. Minister, we support the idea that the increased means of Belgian development cooperation should enable a broader deployment of Belgian actors of bilateral cooperation, both direct and indirect, the maintenance of a high level of competence, a more direct and manageable evaluation and control.

With regard to direct bilateral cooperation, which has seen a sharp decrease in the resources allocated to the projects and programmes implemented by the Belgian Technical Cooperation (CTB), we are just concerned about the deployment and the effectiveness of the projects and programmes implemented. Efforts should be made to ensure that the DGCD-CTB duo operates faster, more efficiently and with more resources. The Belgian development cooperation must have a financially credible direct bilateral cooperation.

With regard to multilateral cooperation with increased resources, we will pay particular attention to the rapid, coherent and effective implementation of the programmes of international organizations. For information, Belgium currently funds 35 international organizations for a total of approximately 75% of the budgets allocated to this sector.

It is also important that the Belgian government and parliament, in close synergy with the European Commissioner for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid, Mr. Louis Michel, and with the European Parliamentarians, ensure a vigilance on the implementation of European cooperation. Cooperation and mandatory contributions should not be equated with white checks.

We also closely follow the efforts of the Belgian Development Cooperation to strengthen its role within the management bodies of international organizations. In addition, the participation of Belgian NGOs in European cooperation is important and must be supported.

We have no doubt, Mr. Minister, that you will do everything in your power to ensure that the resources that are devoted to it are ⁇ ined and strengthened.

For indirect cooperation, we are pleased that you explicitly recognize the role of NGO consultation bodies - whether they are couples, coordinations or federations - as interlocutors. Those NGO federations could also, in the context of international courses and group internships, contribute closely to the definition of needs, the search for individual and institutional local competencies, the organization of courses at the local, regional or national level.

You stress, Mr. Minister, the importance of working for greater synergies between the three pillars – direct bilateral cooperation, multilateral cooperation, indirect cooperation – in support of local and national policies when they are based on a broad consensus between public authorities and civil society. Can you, Mr. Minister, give us more information on the implementation of this will?

For the five topics within the existing priorities defined by the Millennium Development Goals and the International Cooperation Act, on which you draw our attention, we share your concerns. I summarize them: the fight against AIDS and malaria; respect for the rights of the child; equal rights and opportunities for men and women. But for another point that you have highlighted, namely water – and more ⁇ access to drinking water, which is a vital commodity – we believe that it must imperatively remain safe from any merchandising.

Human beings must remain at the center of the development process and the Belgian cooperation partners who work on the ground must be given all the importance they deserve. I also had the opportunity to address this issue with the Minister of Foreign Affairs when it came to talk about the Congo and its wealth. But we must not forget that before the country and its wealth, there is its people.

The wealth of development cooperation lies also in human resources. This wealth can only be ⁇ ined by involving more young people in international solidarity policies carried out in Belgium and Europe as well as in developing countries.

Regarding the link between development cooperation and the security dimension, it is important to emphasize that while peace and security are essential conditions for sustainable development, no role or security function can be assigned to the development cooperation policy.

Similarly, with regard to the condition of good governance, indispensable to the success of good cooperation, we stress that the fight against corruption is also linked to the fight against impunity and therefore to the establishment of international justice.

Several budget posts have been reduced, but it appears in the budget that the amounts allocated for the involvement of the private sector in cooperation policies have increased sharply.

Can you explain the reason for this increase?

Should not, in parallel with this increase in the budget, measures be taken to ensure that the Belgian Investment Society for Developing Countries operates efficiently and transparently?

In this regard, do you consider it necessary to provide an evaluation?

While economic activity is essential to development, we regret, however, that there is no link in your general policy note between support for the private sector and the issues of corporate social responsibility and fair trade.

Mr. Minister, we also regret that your general policy note does not mention development education, but only communication and awareness raising which are very important matters, I acknowledge. Education for Development is, in our view, a real tool of international solidarity. We hope that you will do your best to ensure that the conditions for the emergence of strategies in this area are met.

Finally, it appears that you have a lot of difficulty filling the framework of the affiliates of Development Cooperation, in place in the embassies of Belgium in our partner countries. The question would ⁇ concern French-speaking affiliates who, despite their competence and professional experience in the field of cooperation, would not, in many cases, succeed in the examination of Dutch whose level of difficulty would be ⁇ high depending on the needs of their mission. This situation would create a net imbalance between the number of French-speaking and Dutch-speaking affiliates actually in office. Can you confirm this information? If it turns out to be accurate, what steps are you planning to take to remedy this situation?

In view of the general policy note and the budget presented, and while remaining attentive to the Minister’s consideration of the points I have just mentioned, I would like to express my satisfaction, shared by my political group. We will support the general policy note of the Minister of Development Cooperation.

Madame Genot, I will keep you for the mouth, if I can say. Does this not bother you? As I am an equalitarian, for me, women can be the last.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, in the question of whether or not to open accession negotiations with Turkey, which is of capital importance for our European future and our European identity, the Flemish Interest finds itself with its position that the Asian Muslim country Turkey cannot become a member of the European Union in the excellent company of important European statesmen. I mention here Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Helmut Schmidt, Frits Bolkestein. I ⁇ do not forget our own Karel Van Miert, former chairman of the Flemish Socialists and also former European Commissioner.

We can add to that line prominent party leaders from our neighbouring countries, such as Angela Merkel, chairman of the German CDU, and Nicolas Sarkozy, chairman of the French, neogaullist ruling party UMP.

With this eminent company, I want to show that we are not alone with our position, not among the great, European statesmen and ⁇ not among the population. I will return to that later.

Colleagues, in the meantime, the naive have also learned about Turkey. Turkey is not yet a member of the European Union. However, at the Brussels Summit on 16 and 17 December 2004, where the Islamic country acquired its provisional entry ticket, it already gave a sign of its brutal show of power.

Turkey is — the truth has its rights — an imperialist state, which has occupied part of Northern Cyprus for thirty years with an army of 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers, against the United Nations. No state, except Turkey itself, has recognized Northern Cyprus. During the conquest of Northern Cyprus in 1974, serious human rights violations were committed. Tens of thousands of Greeks were robbed of all their possessions and expelled to the south. More than 1,500 Greek Cypriots were arrested and deported to Turkey. Nothing was ever heard of them.

The southern part of Cyprus, Greek Cyprus, became a full member of the European Union on 1 May 2004. However, Turkey persistently refuses to recognize Cyprus and holds with its troops occupied Northern Cyprus. The European Union is tormenting what is actually unacceptable and refuses to act.

Against the argument that the Greek Cypriots rejected the UN referendum on the reunification of Cyprus in April 2004 and thus themselves sought a solution, it is right and reasonable to argue that Kofi Annan’s proposal contained such heavy concessions and humiliations for the Greek Cypriots that they could not swallow it.

The irreconcilable attitude of the Turks at the EU summit last December on the Cypriot issue is a beautiful example of the hardness and unwavering with which the Turks undertake political activities and impose their will on Europe. At some point, it even got the impression that not the Turks were the party asking for accession, but that Europe was almost kneeling for the Turks. One surrender after the other followed. One was given a taste of what a masochistic scenario Europe will welcome if in a decade it effectively allows the powerful Turkey to join, which then with more than eighty million Muslims will be the largest state of Europe, and with a still continuously growing population.

The latest EU summit was really shocking. At first, Cyprus had very rightly demanded that it be recognized by Turkey before the Muslim country could start negotiations. But Turkey refused to go. The EU immediately took a step back and only demanded the approval of the Ankara Protocol, which extends the customs union of the former fifteen member states with Turkey to the current twenty-five member states. Turkey refused again. Then the EU took a second step back, asking only that the Turks provisionally parapher the Ankara Protocol, in order to sign it at a later stage. The Turks refused for the third time, and for the third time the EU took a step back. The EU could only stipulate that the Turks will verbally promise to sign the Ankara Protocol by 3 October 2005, the date on which accession negotiations will begin.

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, who was caught up as a hero after the summit in Istanbul, immediately said very clearly after the summit at a press conference: "This does not mean recognition of Cyprus." The Turkish press triumphed. As a stable of Turkish power show, that could count. The EU rests and bends its head. It gave me a sense of recognition. The negotiations reminded me of the numerous community negotiations between Flemish and French speakers. Indeed, the EU has behaved here like the Flammers. They have allowed themselves to be blackmailed by a yet weaker opponent and have always given and given. This is a scenario that is familiar to us.

When something has opened our eyes at the December 17 summit in Brussels, it is the wretched after-smaak that the arrogant Turkish performance has left in everyone, an insulting performance that will continue to decline for a long time. “The debate with Turkey,” said Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, “was at times difficult to tolerate.” His Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Asselborn, said about Prime Minister Erdogan: “The provocative way he laid out over Cyprus during the final drinking was unacceptable.” That bad feeling lived in almost all the delegations and it gives us hope that the tearls over Turkey have not been thrown away.

That is also why the Flemish Interest, as the only major party in Flanders, fully continues the struggle against Turkey as a member of the EU. As the only major party in Flanders. The CD&V faction leader Pieter De Crem and former party chairman Herman Van Rompuy may have held protests in the Chamber against Turkish membership and have given their sincere personal opinion – I am very willing to believe that – but they cannot hide that CD&V blasts warm and cold on the question of good habits. For example, the three MPs of CD&V, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Marianne Thyssen and Ivo Belet in the European Parliament very consciously and with enthusiasm approved the accession negotiations with Turkey.

This is a fact, colleagues, which we will explain well to the public.

The Flemish socialists and liberals, with their parliamentary groups, will stand square behind Turkey, despite the well-founded pleas of Karel Van Miert and Frits Bolkestein not to do so. Particularly for the VLD, this surprises us because the VLD has still not recovered from the heavy burden it suffered in the recent elections of 13 June and which was largely the result of its stance on the issue of migrant voting rights. Well, the issue of immigrant voting rights will prove to be small beer in what will bring about the threat of Turkish membership among the population. In the perception of public opinion, this becomes a foreign voting right in the square. It says something about the absolute world strangeness of a Guy Verhofstadt that he counts it as one of his Seven Works in 2005 to bring the entry of the candidacy of Turkey to a good end. Has the VLDtop then lost every feeling with what lives at the base? Are there then no more members of parliament in the VLD who say: now it has been enough, we are going to listen to the voice of our backbone again? Apparently not. It be so.

A vote against Turkey will be a vote for the Flemish Interest in Flanders. And then please do not regret after another black Sunday in a row. That the Belgian population is against Turkey as a EU member, was demonstrated in an unmistakable way last year by the Eurobarometer of March 2003. The Eurobarometer, the six-month scientific poll of the European Commission, stated that in Belgium 70% of the population is against Turkey as a member of the EU. In Flanders, that percentage may still be slightly higher than 70% so that we can really talk about the issue of foreign voting right here. Only this phenomenon will spread over a much longer term.

To suspense the public opinion, it is said that nothing irrevocable has happened yet, that the negotiations have no finality yet and that they can still be blown down. In the best case, Turkey will become a member of the EU only in 10 years.

Ladies and gentlemen, do not believe that! I quote Karel Van Miert in De Morgen of December 21, 2004: "I find it unacceptable that one has gone through the knees for the blackmail of the Turks. They wanted to negotiate a full membership. In my opinion, given the many questions, it would have been better to choose open negotiations. It is clear that the Turks will try to speed up the timing in the coming years. I never think it will take another ten years for Turkey to join the European Union, especially because there is a huge amount of pressure being put on by the United States.” Frits Bolkestein said the same in an interview with the Volkskrant on December 6. I quote again: “It will go much faster than one thinks. I would not be surprised if in five years we are already in front of the final membership.”

Meanwhile, we note that the progressives are not awake to the many human rights violations in Turkey. They shut a blind eye to the subjection of women. They look away from the oppression of religious and ethnic minorities, for the treatment of the more than 15 million Kurds as third-party citizens. Prime Minister Verhofstadt is doing even better. Turkey’s inclusion in the EU will, in his opinion, be the only way to counter Muslim fundamentalism in Turkey and to see a kind of moderate European Islam emerge in Turkey. Karel De Gucht also swings with this argument.

Colleagues, the opposite is true. An eminent Islamist expert such as Professor Urbain Vermeulen has pointed to this. The paradox is that it will be a fully-European Turkey that will feed a radical Islam. Now, colleagues, the power of the army in Turkey dominates. It is precisely the military that in Turkey knows how to keep the radical Islam under the knife and ⁇ ins a separation of church and state. In order to join Europe, Turkey must democratize and the power of the army must be restricted. Europe cannot tolerate a general regime in its club. Immediately the radical Islam will be able to unfold and rise in full strength in the “democratized” Turkey. A democratic Turkey is, therefore, a Turkey with an Islam that loses itself from its bonds and radicalizes it.

Another argument is: Turkey as a bridge to the Islamic world. You and the Prime Minister also use this argument, Mr. Minister: Turkey would be the bridge to Islam. This is another argument that does not cut wood. Which bridge and to whom? All surrounding countries hate the Turks because they were occupied by them in the past. Arab nationalism has always been directed against the Turks. They no longer know their history. So I ask again: which bridge. If, for example, France and Britain have their own foreign policy, why should Turkey not? With Turkey joining the EU, a united political Europe is further away than ever, and we are stopping at a threatening destabilization of the European Union. Per ⁇ it is precisely that prospect that the Americans so laughed.

Let’s also look at the financial catastrophe that Europe is facing with Turkey: an agribusiness-developing country where the gross national income is only 30% of the EU average.

A calculation by the European Commission itself teaches us that by 2025 Turkey would invest as much as 22 to 33,5 billion euros in agricultural subsidies. In addition, the entire territory of Turkey is eligible for grants from the Structural Funds. That is another 5.6 billion euros. This is completely unpaid. Turkey and Europe are on the verge of a guaranteed bankruptcy. Colleagues, Mr. Verhofstadt and Mr. De Gucht have made one of their biggest political mistakes by giving Turkey its sense. However, it is not yet too late. In order to effectively start the accession negotiations on 3 October 2005, a new decision is needed. Each country can still resist and/or impose stricter conditions. Their

In any case, for the actual accession in a few years, a new decision is required and each country has a veto right. A referendum can be held in any country. Together with our many allies abroad, the Flemish Interest will stimulate the struggle against Turkey as a EU member. We will not give up courage, my colleagues. Their

At the same time, we extend our hand to the Turks to live with them in the best cooperative relations and help them in their development into a modern state where we can. Turkey in the European Union is and remains for us, however, to say it with the title of the readable book of our MEPs Philip Claeys and Koen Dillen, "a bridge too far."

Madame Genot in Dan mevrouw Vautmans. of the ministers. And then the finances. And we still have several projects to consider before the budget of the House and that of the organisations endowed.

Mr. President, it is Mr. From Decker, Minister of Development Cooperation, which I would like to address primarily.

As you know, the issue of cooperation is ⁇ important to us. 2004 was not a ⁇ good year for cooperation since its budget had been increased quite artificially, repatriating a whole series of international organizations such as, for example, the International Labour Organization (ILO), which was previously included in the Employment Budget. A number of World Bank budgets suffered the same fate. But the other ministers retained the guardianship. In 2004, Mr. Verwilghen and the violet coalition that the ILO, IOM, the Ducroire, the American Investment Bank have entered the wing of Development Cooperation. It was under the PS-MR government that these artifices were used. It also includes investments in Iraq.

No, no, it’s just reading the budget. You are not going to pretend that it is under the rainbow that ten million dollars have been inserted into the budget of Development Cooperation for the reception of asylum seekers! The first year this happened was 2004. Check your budgets!

Last year was also the year of the reduction of the NGO budget; you can witness that. This was not a ⁇ good year.

Let us now look at the 2005 crude. We see a very slight increase in the budget and fewer crafts than last year. This is not difficult given what happened last year. There is no real increase. However, in order to meet the commitments made in Monterrey and those of the 2002 Program Act, and to reach 0.7% in 2010, it would require an increase of 0.04% per year. We are far away this year. There will be a lot of work to be done over the next two years.

I wonder what prospects you give yourself to consent to these efforts. There is no willingness to give up a whole series of debts, which would allow for further budget increases – but you may be able to explain me – or to resort to mechanisms such as the Tobin tax which, too, would allow for satisfactory financing of the projects of the South.

Let’s look at these budgets. The parliament has many municipalists among its members. I am often told that the accumulation of mandates is useful because it helps to defend the communes in parliament. We now see a reduction of 60% of the cooperation budget allocated to municipalities. I don’t know where our municipalists are today, but they don’t shine with their presence! This is a shame because many municipalities, with very small budgets, carried out partnerships with other countries between administrations, exchanges of officials, associations, people, which allowed mutual enrichment and awareness of proximity. I am sorry to see this decentralized cooperation budget amputated. As these are small budgets, maybe at the budget adjustment, we will have the opportunity to revise the shot. A number of municipalities are questioning the future of their projects. They may not be able to keep them on their own funds. It would be interesting to have a signal in this area.

Non-governmental cooperation also raises questions. I would like to know your intentions regarding partnership with NGOs. For example, the NGO opinion committee saw its mandate end in March 2004 and is currently in uncertainty. How do you plan to continue this partnership? Will you renew this opinion committee? Will you still set up regular mechanisms of exchange with NGOs in order to build a cooperation, a true partnership with the very active North/South movement in Belgium?

Also in non-governmental cooperation, we must also note the cuts in budgets allocated to scientific institutions, university cooperation, students from low-income countries, the African Royal Museum or the Institute of Tropical Medicine. It is a little pity. The same applies to trade union initiatives.

I am concerned about the budget line assigned to the IOM. You speak in fact in the title of "projects meeting both the priorities of Development Cooperation and that of the SPF Internal". This reminded me of your predecessor’s bad plan to condition aid to the fact that countries accept the return of their nationals. I hope that this is not the way this phrase should be heard in the justification of the budget.

For the multilateral budget, you have decided to reduce the number of international organizations. I would like to know on what criteria you are based to make the choices. It seems to me that international environmental organizations have suffered several dark cuts.

This is a shame because Southern countries are the first to pay the environmental note at the level of global warming or when exporting to them our aging and polluting companies. by

For a whole series of NGOs, no amount was provided in 2005 for multilateral environmental treaties. This is a relatively surprising fact, although 12 million were spent in 2004 and the same amount is planned for 2006. What happened in 2005?

One UN program is to support Southern countries in their efforts to acquire know-how for WTO negotiations. This was one of the projects planned at the Doha summit. If I am not mistaken, there is nothing in the budget on this subject. However, this program seems quite interesting. Did I misread the budget or do we not want to make this issue a priority? by

One of your stated priorities is participation in the Global Fund for the Fight against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Therefore, I am ⁇ surprised to see a decrease in the budget on this subject in 2005. In fact, it has increased from 5 million in 2004 to 1 million in 2005.

I asked you a question in the committee to which I did not receive a response. We know that human rights defenders in the Southern countries do a ⁇ difficult job and under very dangerous conditions. A targeted program aimed at helping them develop a series of protective mechanisms would be interesting. Is there any reflection on this issue? Are you holding contacts to try to see if Belgium is able to support this type of initiative? by

I come to a new line in the budget: the line for MONUC. It is very important to intervene in peaceful actions in the Congo. But do these initiatives have their place in the budget of development cooperation? We know that at the present time the expenses related to the fight against terrorism and defence, etc. They are growing ⁇ significantly; on the other hand, the costs for cooperation are quite ridiculous. I therefore regret this tendency to include military operations, even if they are peace operations, in the cooperation budget. If they are necessary, they do not have to be included in this budget.

You also claim to attach particular importance to supporting private initiatives in the South. I was then surprised to see a technical assistance fund reduced to zero, i.e. a fund that helped Southern companies conduct feasibility studies, for example for export purposes. Other organizations aimed at helping entrepreneurs who want to start in the South saw the amount granted to them reduced by half.

There is no word about fair trade in your general policy note. Fortunately, a budget was provided for a awareness-raising campaign, but that was unfortunately taken from budgets for other awareness-raising actions.

I would also like to return to one of your important points. The attention you are paying to genders is well present, but we do not yet see very well how it will be realised. What types of budgets will be unlocked for Beijing? We find it difficult to link the statements, which seem to be going in the right direction, and the budget.

For example, it is quite surprising to see that Belgium does not support the largest progressive organization working in the field of reproductive health. It is known that the IPPF, which works in this field, was seen removing all of its subsidies by Bush who found that his action on contraception was too innovative. Fortunately, the European Union came to its rescue. I hope that Belgium will also be able to bring its stone to the building.

and impeccable! I have not seen anything about this in the budget justifications, but you will be able to explain to us in what budget line it is in place.

Another budget line that I thought was ⁇ important is the contribution to development banks and the program for high-debted small poor countries. In 2005 there was zero euro. This is quite regrettable. Are actions to reduce debt in over-indebted countries planned in 2005? If yes, which ones?

A Minister of Cooperation is expected to be a defender of the South within the government. It is necessary to be able to hear you on important issues such as the liberalization of services, for example the liberalization of water. You say: access to drinking water is an important point. However, you don’t hear much about the negotiations that will take place at the WTO. What is the point of view you would like to see adopted by Belgium to safeguard precisely the interests of the countries of the South?

Other records are ⁇ iconic, such as frozen chickens — even chicken waste — that are exported to Cameroon and that cause intoxication. Above all, given the subsidies our farmers receive for this market, this completely dismantles local trade.

Ms. Vautmans is the last speaker in this budgetary approach of, among other things, Foreign Affairs and Development Cooperation.

Mr Vautmans, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, colleague Tastenhoye just said: "I do not understand the VLD. The VLD is a world stranger when it supports Turkey’s accession to the European Union.” Collega Tastenhoye is not in the hall, but I will explain why the VLD is in favor of Turkey’s accession to the European Union.

For us, the European project is not a closed, but an open project. The Union is a project based on freedom, equality, openness, peace, progress and prosperity. With the opening of the negotiating talks with Turkey on 3 October 2005, we have the opportunity to build a bridge, not only over the Bosphorus between different continents, but above all between different cultures, different histories and different people, between everyone’s private past and our common future, a better future. That requires time.

Strict criteria were set for accession to the European Union. Colleagues, Turkey will have to meet those conditions if it wants to be part of the European club someday. The European Council agreed that the negotiations will not be concluded until the financial framework 2014-2020 has been adopted. Colleagues, it seems to me very far away, because I will then be over 40 years old. Turkey’s accession is not for tomorrow.

In 1999, Turkey was officially recognized as a candidate country. In 2002, European heads of state and government decided that accession negotiations would be opened if Turkey met the Copenhagen criteria by the end of 2004. Now we are so far. Turkey has fulfilled the conditions we had set forth. Now it is up to us to keep our promise.

Welcome, colleague Tastenhoye. Colleagues, I dare to defend the position of the VLD among our people. There are other reasons why we are in favor of starting talks.

Mrs. Vautmans, I would like to hear from you if you dare to say in honour and conscience that Turkey meets all the conditions. Do you dare to say that in honour and conscience? First of all, I think of respect for human rights.

Mr Tastenhoye, if you have read the Council conclusions of the last week, you know that Turkey currently meets the criteria to start negotiations. There is still one way to set.

It is incredible that you say there are no more human rights violations there.

Mr. Tastenhoye, if you let me speak and listen to the continuation of my speech, just as I have listened to your speech, then you will find an answer to your questions.

There are other reasons why we at the VLD are in favor of starting these talks. The VLD is the party of progress, of freedom, of democracy. In all these areas, Turkey has made progress in recent years. We are not the only ones who believe this. Who in Turkey are the biggest supporters of opening accession talks? Who has the most to win? The Kurds, the Armenians, the Turkish Christians, the Turkish Jews and the human rights organizations. In addition, there are also economic benefits associated with Turkey’s accession to Europe. As with previous expansions, this expansion will also be an economic win-win situation, both for Europe and for Turkey. Critics fear the relocation of companies, the loss of jobs if Turkey joins the European Union. I am convinced that this fear is unfounded. This has been demonstrated by previous expansions of the European Union. In Belgium, some had the same restraint towards Spain and Portugal. What has been shown? The economy has grown on both sides. In addition, both Spain and Portugal both turned from net emigration countries to net immigration countries. The VLD believes that the current level of prosperity in Europe can only be ⁇ ined and improved by the economic integration of trade partners such as Turkey. I know, colleagues, that the possible accession of Turkey to the European Union is viewed with skepticism by many Belgians. In all countries of the Union, some people are outright opposed to the possible accession of Turkey. Colleagues, they are guided by fear. They are afraid of the borders of Turkey. Suddenly Europe would be bordered by Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Georgia. Some are afraid of the size of Turkey.

With Turkey, more people would join the European Union than the population of the ten countries that have now joined it together.

Some people, colleague Tastenhoye, are afraid of Islam. 99% of Turks are Muslim. Critics of Turkey’s accession to the European Union often – we’ve heard that later – screen with cultural, ideological and religious arguments, but the Union is not a cultural, ideological or religious project. It is a political project and religion does not belong to the Copenhagen criteria that candidate countries must meet. That would also be too absurd. Since the Enlightenment, more than 200 years ago, the separation between religion and state and tolerance between disbelievers have been fundamental values of the Union. These values are already contained in the Belgian Constitution of 1830 and the secularity of the state is also the basis of the Turkish Republic, founded in 1923 by Atatürk.

Other opponents of the enlargement with Turkey fear that the progress that Turkey needs to make in economic, social and political terms is still too great to be able to integrate harmoniously into the European Union. These pessimists wonder what we get on our necks, why we make it difficult to allow Turkey or Croatia into the European Union. The reasons are political. The European Coal Steel Community and Euratom were created because we no longer wanted France and Germany to go on the fist with each other and then usually with us. The first expansion to the east came because we no longer wanted our closest neighbors to be economically underdeveloped communist dictatorships. The gradual incorporation of the former Yugoslavia comes because we no longer want the Balkans to be Europe’s barrier. The current fear that the EU’s enlargement to Turkey would be a step too far also existed at the time of the accession of Greece, Spain or Portugal. It is the fear of the unknown. I still think that fear of the unknown is a bad adviser when making decisions.

The VLD therefore fully supports the position of the Belgian government to open the accession talks with Turkey. As I said before, it will be a big challenge, both for Turkey and for us. It is up to us, colleagues, to convince the skeptics that the start of these negotiations is good for the European Union. It is up to us to help people with threshold fear overcome their cold water fear.

But also for Turkey, the challenge is enormous, because the road that Turkey will have to take is long and difficult. The European Union has now handed over the key to accession to Turkey. It is now up to Turkey to use that key.

Colleagues, in fact, I would like to conclude with a second topic, which I have not heard today, namely the European Constitution. In this context, I would like to clarify why the VLD is in favor of a public consultation on the European Constitution. You know, colleagues, that the VLD has submitted a bill for this purpose that was approved in the committee. Of course, I would have preferred that, if we organize a consultative referendum in Belgium, the appearance would not be mandatory, as I am also against the appearance obligation in ordinary elections. Many will say that the subject of the European Constitution is not the right topic for a popular consultation. People can never read it, they say. Well, that is right. It is a very difficult matter. But, Chairman De Croo, you declared in the House on 16 November 1972 — I was just born at that time — following the accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom: “We must be honest: the public opinion of this country feels little passionate about the European problem.”

More than 32 years later, this is still the case. The President also stated...

The constant turns out to be De Croo in those matters, when I hear you like that?

I leave the conclusion to you. The President also stated: “With the enlargement of the European Community, very often the question has been asked whether the democratic participation, or the control of this mechanism, is indeed fulfilled by the European Parliament.” Colleagues, as Democrats, we want a policy that is supported by a majority of the population. Especially for historical decisions that will have a lasting impact on our society, we are convinced that citizens must have the last word, because in a democracy everything begins with the voice of the people and everything must also end with the voice of the people.

Mr Laeremans, you are asking for the word. It was such a beautiful final.

It was a beautiful ending and I fully agree with it. I support Ms. Vautmans in her very democratic discouragement. Mrs. Vautmans, why do you not apply this to Turkey? We ask that you extend the referendum, the popular consultation, to the issue of Turkey, which is also so important.

Well, when we are so far that that accession of Turkey will become a fact, then I am more than 40 years old and then there will be enough wisdom present in Parliament to then ⁇ conduct a popular consultation.

Why not now?

We are just starting the negotiations.

Here is !

Turkey has not yet joined.

Nevertheless, this is a very important topic.

Mrs. Vautmans, I don’t see what wisdom has to do with your future 40-year-old within this and a few decades.

Thanks to you.

Eleven colleagues have spoken. Now, the government will react with its usual concission.

Mr. Speaker, you are disappointing me. I think it is the first time in the debate, which has been going on for two days now, that you insist on cohesiveness.

That is expected from the ministers.

I have been asked a lot of questions. Getting into all these elements might not lead us too far, but would lead us too far. Therefore, I will focus on those issues that have been discussed recently or that have not yet been answered in the committee meeting.

I would like to start with what Ms. Muylle said, namely that she hopes that I have learned lessons from the diplomatic incidents.

Mrs. Muylle, I must say that you are mistaken. I did not take any lessons from it. I am convinced that what I said in Congo was correct. The DPKO, the UN Deputy Secretary-General responsible for peacekeeping operations, openly said in Kinshasa that I was right. Mr. Ayello also said this. I do not want to link directly. However, I feel that, much more than a few months ago, the problem of corruption is a topic of discussion, also internally in Congo. That is good, not because I would like to work as a mosquito-sweeper, but if one wants to give the transition a chance, there are a number of elements important, especially the answers to the following questions. How are elections organized? How is it ensured that the necessary legislation is adopted?

That is important to create a security situation that allows elections, initially in the east of the country. This is all but an obvious thing. However, it is also important that the people who want to vote — that element we must not forget — also feel that there is a perspective, in particular that they can sooner or later live in a country where there is less corruption and where they can try to build something, either together or as individuals.

I do not come back on that. I will not repeat it either. That is something else. However, I will not return to it either.

You also asked a question about Iraq, to know what Belgium will do in the light of the NATO commitment, which is gradually taking shape. The position of Belgium on this is very clear: we will not send Belgian troops to Iraq, in any form or in any capacity. After all, what it is specifically about is about the officers that are part of the NATO command structure. At this point, too, we say with all clarity: we do not. We agree with NATO’s action in Iraq. However, the government has also made it very clear from the beginning that it will allow it to happen under a NATO umbrella, but that Belgium will not actively intervene. After all, we continue to have our concerns about the war that was unleashed in Iraq.

We must now think of the reconstruction of Iraq, which is a ⁇ difficult matter. We must also think about creating conditions for elections to take place, which is at least equally difficult. We will look to the future and try to work positively with it. However, a military engagement should not be expected by NATO from Belgium.

Mr. Speaker, that is different for Afghanistan, where at the moment 600 Belgian soldiers are active, among others for the protection of the airport of Kabul. We will also continue to be active in Afghanistan. We will reduce our efforts by half in 2005. That is also logical, if we look at the long period that the Belgian military has already been active there and the yet large contribution that has already been made there. We will also not participate in territorial operations set up in Afghanistan. Our commitment remains, only it is reduced to a slightly more limited level.

There was a question about the arms embargo against China. The text adopted by the European Council is, in my opinion, quite clear. It is necessary to work towards the lifting of the arms embargo during the first half of 2005, but under certain conditions. These conditions include the prior ratification of the BUPO Convention on Civil and Political Rights. This is a Belgian amendment. The treaty was approved by the Chinese Parliament, but we want it to be ratified as well. There are also conditions related to strict compliance with the European Code on Arms Export and there is the so-called toolbox, the obligations we want to impose on China. This is further discussed in order to reach the lifting of the arms embargo during the first half of 2005, provided that China also takes steps in the direction we want.

Mrs Muylle asked a question about Cuba and about the meaning in the policy statement that states that there are certain shortcomings in the European strategy. Europe has done something about it. Europe had issued a directive that dissidents would also be invited to receptions on the occasion of the national holidays of the countries represented in Cuba by an embassy. Europe itself has come back to this and says that while it is important to maintain contacts with the dissidents, it is not within the framework of an official reception. This has only a counterproductive effect. I note, however, that the discrete diplomacy conducted by Spain and which, by the way, was supported by Belgium, has led to some recent political prisoners in Cuba ...

The [...]

Mr. Van den Eynde, that’s six more than when one doesn’t release one. For those six people, that is not insignificant. This was not achieved through a confrontation policy, but through silent diplomacy. This silent diplomacy must continue. I think that this way can also ⁇ most of the results for the political prisoners who are currently still imprisoned in Cuba. We are working together with Spain in this approach.

However, those hundreds of others are waiting for Mr. Stevaert.

Mr Hasquin, I will not talk about the United States and the European Constitution. I fully agree with you in this regard.

You may be surprised, but I also largely agree with your statement on Bulgaria and Romania. I say that especially because one makes the possible accession of Turkey in at least 10 years an incredible, insurmountable problem, while one hardly asks questions about the enlargement with Romania and Bulgaria. Problems also arise with some countries that have joined in the meantime such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other countries of the former Eastern bloc and the Baltic states where problems continue to arise. These problems will also arise in Romania and Bulgaria. We have less eye on this, Mr. Van den Eynde, because these are smaller countries. You should ask yourself what is most difficult here: integrate 12 countries with a population of 90 million or integrate 1 country with a population of 90 million? What is most obvious? Romania and Bulgaria are European countries. In Bulgaria, significant progress has been made in the last three years, unlike in previous years. There are still serious problems in Romania. Until the last moment, there was also discussion about Justice and Home Affairs and then also about competition and state aid. Clauses have been incorporated to ensure that if the conditions are not met in the course of 2005, the effective accession can still be postponed. There are serious security problems with Romania. There are a lot of touring groups with Romanian ties. Fortunately, Belgium can do much more now than it did a few years ago. We must not pretend that Romania is not a problem. Only one needs to have a certain belief in the power of the European Union to solve the problems. I believe that the great power of the European Union to solve these problems consists precisely in the fact that the country concerned must fully adapt to the Community acquis already during the negotiation phase and thereafter. Before negotiations begin, the conditions of Copenhagen must be met, and that also applies to Turkey. Mr. Tastenhoye, the European Commission, by the way, does not say that the country fully complies with this, but that it has sufficiently evolved in that direction. This is also the condition that is prescribed in Helsinki.

Once the negotiations begin, the Community acquis is systematically overrun. It is constantly examined how the Member State should adapt to this. By the time the accession is effective, the legislation must be adjusted. This means, in the future for Turkey and now for Romania, that at least two-thirds of the legislation must be completely rewritten.

You must imagine the incredible machine behind the enlargement of the European Union to spread our social model, our economic, social and cultural model across an ever-increasing part of Europe. With certain parts of Europe we have traditionally not so many ties and socially fundamentally different from us. This also applies to Romania. This applies to Bulgaria to a certain extent. This will ⁇ apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia-Montenegro. These discussions are waiting for us.

Either one believes in that machine and in the power of the European Union to make those countries “European” or one does not believe in it. That is ultimately the fundamental difference. Either one believes that expansion is a way of spreading European civilization across an ever-increasing part of Europe, or one does not believe that.

I believe that Europe can have very many religions. The secular character of Europe, in my opinion, will not be undermined by the accession of Turkey if this is done under the established conditions. However, I do not believe in a European Union with two different civilizations. Hence, my clear approach is to plunge all these countries into the same civilization.

This is the challenge with Turkey. We will negotiate for ten years and evaluate year after year whether it will succeed. It will not always be as easy. Within ten years we must evaluate whether sufficient progress has been made towards Europe. It will not be an easy process. However, if we can make this conclusion within ten years, we will have made, in terms of peace and security in Europe, the greatest contribution we can make during our generation.

Mr. Van den Eynde, as far as Africa is concerned, you think there are two political approaches, a Flemish and a Wallish. This is an argument that you can expect from your party.

That is the reality.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I think you are mistaken.

There is only one political approach to Africa and the Great Lakes region, and that is the approach from the government agreement as used in our policy on Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. We are actively working to bring the transition to elections that will set up a new political system in Congo. That is the policy of this government. We ensure, among other things, the construction of civil society, the adoption of the laws necessary for the elections to take place, the establishment of a uniformized army.

( ... )

No, Mr. Van den Eynde, it is far too easy to measure the importance of an operation to the fact that 16 people have deserted in Elsenborn. If it fails in the Congo to set up an army and if Belgium does not continue to engage in it, then within the shortest time there will be a new open military conflict that will kill hundreds of thousands of people.

( ... )

Mr. Van den Eynde, did you know that in the last ten years in the area of the Great Lakes 3 million people have died, directly or indirectly, as a result of war? Try me to quote one conflict that has cost more casualties since World War II.

As a relatively small country, we are making an effort to try to put an army on our feet. We have already trained a brigade. We signed explicit agreements with Congo and South Africa a few weeks ago to work with the three of them on building up the army. We will make every effort to ensure that this effort is also co-financed by the European Union. We cannot solely do this financially. We are undertaking that effort and I think this is a praiseworthy attempt. If we don’t do that, if we don’t engage in it, if we don’t pull that carriage, then an open military conflict in Congo threatens to break out again with hundreds of thousands of deaths. That you do not feel responsible for this, I leave it to your account. I think the government should do that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say something about the European Constitution, which was signed in Rome a few weeks ago and which now needs to be ratified by all Member States in accordance with their internal procedures. The European Constitution is not ideal. It is an intermediate step. That Constitution will probably never become ideal, as our Belgian Constitution is never ideal, because we are still working on it. Their

However, I dare, and with great conviction, say the following. The European Convention is the result of the Belgian Presidency. Under the Belgian Presidency, the decision was made to convene a European Convention of European and national parliamentarians, together with the representatives of the government and the representation of the Commission. Well, if you look at the European integration in the last 50 years, you can see that there are three major moments. The first is the Treaty of Rome. The second is the Maastricht Treaty. Third, there is indeed the European Constitutional Treaty. These are the three major stages of European integration since 1957. This is a reality that can hardly be denied when one looks at the procedures that are being democratized and the role of the European Parliament that is being emphasized. Their

I joined the European Parliament in 1980. At that time, the European Parliament was a mere advisory organization. We voted on an incredible number of amendments. We already referred to them as amendments. There were thousands a week. I quickly found out that no one read those amendments, except occasionally in a specialized environmental council, but we still had little or no environmental powers.

If you compare that with today, 25 years later, with a European Parliament that decides on an equal footing with the Council of Ministers in more than 90% of the European Union’s decision-making process, you can hardly deny that this has been an incredible evolution. Their

Parliaments are often questioned. There are, by the way, quite a few people who say that the parliaments on the European mainland lose a lot of power over the executive power. Within 25 years, the European Parliament has managed to become a real Parliament with powers that can very easily withstand the confrontation with the powers of a national parliament. I think this is a historical evolution. Their

I also consider it a historical evolution that we barely 10 years ago in Tampere started the integration of what I would call the common European internal policy: asylum, migration, police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters. We will now decide by a majority on all these issues and within five years have a complete European policy in these areas, which, by the way, is absolutely necessary. I give a third example. We have entered into the European Constitutional Treaty that a European Minister of Foreign Affairs will come. Well, I see in the Council of Ministers in a field where Europe has always had particular difficulties to be active, that Europe is now becoming very active and has played a decisive role in the conflict over Iran’s uranium enrichment. This was a potentially ⁇ dangerous conflict. If we did not get out of that, it had to go to the Security Council and there we got the confrontation between the great powers. Let’s look at what this has led to in Iraq. I am very pleased that this is left out there and that it has been able to keep it through European mediation within the International Atomic Energy Agency and that we have been able to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment. Their

The same in Ukraine. This was a potentially ⁇ dangerous conflict. Europe has played a mediating role and we will have the third round of presidential elections in Ukraine within three days. That will produce a president that everyone now agrees – including Russia – that the outcome of the elections will be respected and, in other words, Ukraine’s right to self-determination will be respected much more than in the past. I think, frankly, that in the coming months we will see the same evolution in the Middle East and that, unlike in the last ten years, Europe will play a much more important role in the Middle East peace process than ever before. Their

These are three recent examples I give you, showing that European foreign policy is indeed taking shape. Well, these three elements — I could give many others — namely the development of the Parliament, the development of a common domestic policy and the development of a common foreign policy — these are essentially the European Constitutional Treaty. That is a treaty that is indeed very important, which deserves to be defended, and this government will do so. (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues of the Government, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank the many speakers for the interest they have shown in the matter of development cooperation. It is true that this area is of great interest to the Belgians and that Belgium can be proud of the efforts that it has undertaken for a number of years and decades in this area. Mevrouw Muylle has me first in particular undervraagd over de doelstelling om 0,7% van het bbp te bereiken vóór 2010. It is correct that the objective in the regeerakkoord is stated. This goalstelling stands also in the programwet van december 2002 in versterkt of international engagementen die in March 2002 bevestigd zijn te Monterrey. Het is correct dat of initial budgeting of 2005 no evolutie voorziet in het kader van de doelstelling for 2010.

However, I would like to point out to Mrs. Muylle that in a difficult budgetary context, the appropriations for Development Cooperation will increase by 4.4% in 2005. Taking into account inflation and the evolution of gross national income, we thus maintain an effort of 0.45% in 2005. I also point out that this is a minimum, as additional debt reductions could improve this figure. Thus, the contribution of Belgium was 0.61% in 2003. Furthermore, in the solidarity note submitted as part of the general explanation of the budget, it is stated that from 2006 the appropriations will need to increase annually by 0.05% in order to reach the target of 0.7 in 2010. As for the international context, I would like to point out that our country, based on the 2004 report of the United Nations Development Programme, is ⁇ not in a bad turn. Per capita population of the donor countries, we are in the seventh place in the world. In percentage of gross national income we occupy the sixth place, after Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

I admit that I will need the support of all democratic parties to reach the 0.7%. In any case, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his support for this goal. M is Hasquin a parlé des États-Unis — il nous a quitté, mais vous suppose qu'il va revenir —, de l'Europe et de l'élargissement.

Regarding development aid policy, I would like to make a brief comparison. He is quite right to emphasize how important relations with the United States are for Europe. But when it comes to deep vision of the evolution of the world, it can be conceived that Europe and the United States often have a relatively different perspective. Some key figures reveal that the world spends $1,000 billion a year on weapons, including $500 billion in the United States, $300 billion to protect our exports and our markets, but only $56 billion for development. We can see how balances and choices have not been and are not necessarily ideal for achieving stability, peace and development in the world. One of Europe’s characteristics is its willingness to devote much more resources to development than to the military budget to stabilize and pacify our planet. This approach will, in the long run, be much more effective. De heer Van den Eynde has in relation with Africa a caricatural attitude verdedigd, zoals zo vaak. I know him for years.

He wished to do beloven dated in the Belgian government of in the Parliament two different visions bij de Franstaligen in the Nederlandstaligen leven. He is completely wrong, of course. There is only one government declaration, not two. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defense, and myself, we consult about Africa about once a week; we defend and pursue the same goal.

Of course, the Vlaams Belang is not very comfortable in the field of development. If Vlaams Belang voters believe that they will forever be able to selfishly rely on their fragile wealth and live ignoring the inequalities of the world, and more ⁇ those of Central Africa, and that we should not help this country take its fate into hands and take off, then I think these voters will very quickly be disappointed, which would be very good news! by

Furthermore, what is quite surprising, surprising and interesting is to find that in fact, your position in relation to development policy coincides with that of the former communist parties; they dedicated nothing to development and, today, they still do not do so any more. The Vlaams Belang and the communist parties often do the same job! What u niet beseft in niet wil beseffen, is dat of relationship between North in Zuid de belangrijkste inzet van de eenentwintigste eeuw is. But I believe that events will quickly prove the opposite. by

Mr. Boukourna, I thank you for your intervention although I have sometimes had the feeling, as well as for the intervention of Mrs. Genot, that we were in commission. It is true that in the committee, the report, the budget and the note were submitted very late.

That being said, you speak to me of coordination at all levels between the different actors. I agree with your point of view, I regularly meet with the couples and federations. You talk to me about the preparation of mixed committees to which I would not sufficiently associate NGOs, coupoles or federations. This is interesting since, after four months, I have not yet chaired a mixed committee, so this reproach cannot be made to me. You are talking about simplifying procedures at European level. I fully agree with your point of view and this is the main work that is delivered to the Council of Ministers of Development Cooperation at European level. You talk to me about the necessary continuation of an evaluation policy, I reassure you, it continues. You regret that the budget does not take off. I have just explained to Mrs. Muylle the whole problem of the 0.7% and I hope that your party will provide its full support when drafting the next budgets. It is obvious that in order to reach the 0.7% in 2010, it will be necessary that everyone, in the majority and in the opposition among the democratic parties, develop all their energy to do this effort which will correspond each year to an increase in the budget of 0.05%, or about an additional effort of the order of 5 billion former Belgian francs annually until 2010.

You referred to the question of the French-speaking affiliates. I thank you for doing so because it is true that there is a crying linguistic imbalance among those attached to Development Cooperation. The vast majority are Dutch-speaking. On the occasion of the last oath of the new members at the end of the internship, I received thirteen oaths in Dutch for a oath in French, which undoubtedly proves the existence of a structural problem in the organization of the examinations of the members of Development Cooperation, a problem to which the government, with your support, will need to find a solution.

Madame Genot, I thank you for your intervention. You also talked about the low budget increase. I can only repeat that 4.4%, while the state budget progresses generally 1% this year, this is a less bad result although this is ⁇ not the ideal result. There will be further efforts to be made in the following years, as I have just said. by

You talked about alternative financing. I reassure you immediately: on the one hand, Belgium voted a law on the Tobin tax. On the other hand, in all international meetings, I participate very regularly in discussions on this subject, in particular in the analysis and in-depth consideration of MM proposals. Chirac and Lula da Silva and the British. We are moving forward and the European countries are progressing in their awareness of this issue.

You regret that municipal development aid has been reduced. Do not think that I would be opposed to seeing municipalities play a role in this area. It may be modest, but it is real. Particularly large cities can play an important role. It happens that in recent years, four municipal federations have introduced projects that often lack consistency. The coming year will give us the opportunity to put some order in the approach of municipalities to give more weight and better results to their projects.

You are talking about NGOs. You seem to fear that the budgets for NGOs are decreasing. It is obviously the opposite! The budget was 93.2 million euros last year; it will be 95.6 million euros this year. NGOs have nothing to fear, on the contrary. What I simply wish is to coordinate as much as possible with them and make their policy as coherent as possible based on a number of objectives that Belgium has set itself, and by concentrating our objectives that are quite related to those of the Millennium Development. Together, we will do a better job.

You talked about the World AIDS Fund. You see, rightly, that we have reduced its amount by one million euros this year. This does not change the commitment that we take in a general way, all organizations confused, to fight AIDS since the budget for fighting AIDS will, this year, be equivalent to that of last year, i.e. 24 million euros.

It is true that we have reduced our commitment to the Global AIDS Fund by one million euros, for the simple reason that this body, this global “basket fund”, currently has enormous funding reserves and that it has the greatest difficulty in implementing them and transposing them into its projects. Therefore, at the moment, they do not need additional funding, but this does not take away the interest of Belgium in the fight against AIDS.

You asked me about Cairo and Beijing, about all the issues of gender, women, the defense of reproductive health, etc. We obviously continue all programs, especially with our Dutch and Luxembourg friends; it is essentially us who have compensated for the disengagement of the United States in this United Nations program of the “Population Fund”. It is with this “United Nations Population Fund” that we have just launched one of the most important programs for the defense and protection of women and children victims of war in eastern Congo. This commitment of €8 million over four years — in collaboration with the Red Cross, UNHCR and others — is probably one of the largest programmes ever in this field.

With regard to the WTO, I obviously agree with your point of view: we cannot talk about development without coherence. It will be necessary at some point that those in the governments of Europe and the world who are engaged in this issue of development, make coherent actions within their governments. The policies of the Ministers of Development Cooperation must not be different from those of the Ministers of Economic Affairs. I believe that this consistency is being born in the minds because it becomes inevitable. I am delighted. In this way, we must ⁇ results such as achieving the Millennium Goals and reducing poverty by 50% by 2015.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, first of all by thanking you because no one has better than you and more than you explained to the public opinion how important it was to deploy resources for development. We are fighting for 0.7% while you are talking about 25% of our gross domestic wealth that we should devote to development. This is a huge evolution that you are proposing. Your approach goes in the right direction and allows for a greater awareness of the public opinion.

I will conclude by saying that what is essential in development policy is, first of all, to recognize that there must always be a global vision in this area, that one cannot separate development policy from security policy and international trade policy. As we once said, François-Xavier de Donnea and I, in Africa, whether in Sudan, whether in Côte d’Ivoire, whether in Congo or Rwanda, how do you want to talk about development if there is not first peace and security? This is obvious and therefore we must stop trying to make people believe that development and security policies are incompatible and cannot meet.

There is obviously no question of financing military operations such as those that are sometimes put on the table in a caricatural way such as Iraq, as a means of development. This is obviously false. But when the United Nations decides on peacekeeping, pacification and stabilization missions, I think that some parts of the investment for this peace and stability are linked to development policies. It must be recognized.

Secondly, there will be no development, nor success in development until we look at good governance first.

When we look at the evolution of the Millennium Goals in the world, we find that they are progressing quite well in Southeast Asia and India and that they are progressing very hard in Central Africa.

What is the difference between Southeast Asia and Central Africa? It is that in the countries of Asia, there is a State, while there is no one in the countries of Central Africa. There is one that is developing, seeking, structuring itself. When it is structured—and that’s why we’re putting so much effort into this region—development will begin to be possible and that’s what the government is working on.

Finally, the issue of development cooperation must be europeanized. The more we work with other European partners, the more we work with the European Union, the more we get results. We need to think more about the latter than to plant our national flag on one or the other project.

We must always keep in mind that development policy is first and foremost a human policy which must have as its aim to respond to human distress. When you jongle with these policies and budgets, you must always—and that’s what I’m trying to do with Belgian development cooperation agents—insist that their thinking must first go to those people and the results for them.

I will conclude by repeating what I said recently: let us all be well aware that reducing the gap between the north and the south of the planet is the most important challenge of the 21st century, whether it pleases Vlaams Belang or not.

Mr. De Decker has provoked me a little too much to avoid answering. Mr. De Decker, together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has apparently disappeared in the meantime, stated, among other things, that I, on behalf of my party, the Flemish Interest, made a caricature — and he even said that I was that — of the politics in Africa when I stated that there were two lines, the Flemish and the French-speaking. That would not be true. Their

Well, I will follow the reasoning of Mr De Decker. Following “Le Soir” or “La Libre Belgique” I am of course prejudiced, “fanatized” and I know a lot of things. I have here at hand, for Minister De Decker, today's editorial from "Het Belang van Limburg" — the newspaper has long been called so, ask that only to the Limburgers present here. Mrs. Roppe can testify that the newspaper has been so called for fifty years. What do we read in "The Importance of Limburg", Mr. De Decker? I quote: “Not two months after Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel De Gucht gave the Congolese politicians a big ballwash, Minister of Development Cooperation Armand De Decker performs openly throwing the praise trumpet of that same political class in Kinsjasa. The Decker used Monday words such as “a lot of experience” and “a great sense of responsibility”. And then the newspaper itself writes: "Have De Gucht and De Decker, who, however, belong to the same political blood group, not matched the violes to each other?" It is added — and that is very important to you, Mr. De Decker, listen carefully — “The recent events in eastern Congo prove that the political culture and customs in Kinsjasa have not really changed much. The aid organization Doctors Without Borders has fled the region after its cars were seized by plundering Kabila troops. Approximately 180,000 people have fled in recent days for battles between various units of the Congolese government army" — of the Congolese government army, Mr. De Decker — ". Especially the government-oriented troops were once again outstanding in looting, rape and murder, according to eyewitness reports. How mature is a political class," Minister De Decker, "which can't even keep its own army in control"? So far “The Importance of Limburg” today, Mr. De Decker.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has no mistake when he defamed the political class of Kinshasa in Rwanda. Only he makes a mistake when he calls the regime of Rwanda fair. As it turns out, Mr. De Decker, the regime of Rwanda is currently waging war in eastern Congo. All your stories about training brigades and troops resulted in: nihil, nothing, nothing du tout. It must be dared to say.

A last comment, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has just left us, which is a bit strange.

He is nearby.

Yes, but I think a minister should still remain until the end of a debate that concerns him. It may surprise the Minister of Foreign Affairs if I say that I fully agreed with one point of his replica, namely when he said that he could not imagine that two completely different civilizations would arise in Europe. He is right! This is why my party advocates the preservation of Europe within the European borders. You don’t think that Turkey becomes European because in Ankara you have McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken or because in Izmir German ladies in monokini are burning in the sun. Turkey is Turkey and if you don’t believe me, I refer to the largest Turkish newspaper that appears every day with a phrase on the first page.

Mr. Drèze, I did not notice you at the beginning, but your group leader even tells me that you can intervene briefly.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I had submitted an up-to-date question to the Minister of Cooperation, which you referred to the discussion of the 2005 budget. So I’m just going to answer briefly about the famous 0.7%.

We appreciate your high point of view and your appeal to democratic parties, including those of the opposition. And we obviously support you on the goal set a few years ago to reach 0.7%. I see that you are showing diplomacy to the Prime Minister by thanking him for the budget increase. But I would like to know how you will demonstrate diplomacy with regard to your daily interlocutors such as the CNCD, Operation 11 11 11 and Acodev who – you know it better than I do – have published a detailed statement analysing the budget of Development Cooperation a few days ago. This analysis leads to slightly different conclusions than yours.

In fact, they estimate that in 2005, for the whole of Belgium, it is not 0.45% but 0.424% of GDP that will be achieved, that is, one fifrelin less than in 2004 and as much as in 2002. Of course, this kind of statement casts doubt, because it means that, over a period of four years, we have completely stagnated. We will therefore be behind you from 2005 to try to get corrections, especially during budget control, in order to restore the trust of the operators with whom you work daily.

You talk about the problems of the 2005 budget which is a carcass; but it is a carcass for all policies. We have seen this in all areas. Some are obviously more affected than others. But, although you were not a member of the government at that time, we have the impression that the government has made unconscious promises to the people. Now, today, he does not know how to hold them in a whole series of matters, while we have returned to economic growth, that we should be strong and now make the necessary efforts. Therefore, it is a problem of breaking confidence. Return to 2006. We will, I hope, be here again in this assembly to make the balance sheet. However, we want to put pressure immediately to avoid that, in a year, we find ourselves with 0.424%, 0.425%, etc.

Of course, as Ms. Wiaux, Muylle and Genot have said, the opposition is behind the Minister of Cooperation to obtain from his colleagues - in particular the Minister of Budget and the Prime Minister - an increase in its budgets up to the promises made a few years ago.

I would like to thank you for your support in the development cooperation budget. I don’t hide that I will definitely need it.

Mr. Drèze, I am intimately convinced that, whatever the communication of the government, we are facing the same problems. When one struggles for an objective of such importance, of such a height of view – if I can express myself so – and that, at the same time, one must respond to budgetary realities, compromises and balances must be found. The government has decided and proposed to parliament a growth of 0.4% which, along with inflation and growth, will allow to keep this budget at the same level. Mr. Drèze, I disagree with the coupoles and federations you mention. This year, the budget will ⁇ increase more than expected because everything has been decided on the basis of calculations for a development cooperation budget representing 64% of the amounts of development-related spending recognized as such by the OECD. In the remaining 36% there are debt remissions. I can already tell you that this year debt relief will allow us, I hope, to approach 0.5%.

This debate was long and interesting.

We initiate the discussion of the volet "Finance". We begin the discussion of the “Finance” section.

I had an appointment with my colleagues that they would keep it short. We have postponed the discussion of the Finance section from yesterday to today. I also know that it only means an hour difference.

Mr. Devlies, I think Mr. Bogaert will take the floor. Do you take the word, Mr. Devlies? No to?

We had an agreement to voluntarily limit our speaking time to ten minutes. There was a second loop and I think you’ve a little forgotten that. The second point of the agreement was that Minister Reynders would come.

Mr. Jamar is there, the Secretary of State for Finance.

But Secretary of State Jamar is not Minister Reynders. That was the second loose of our meeting last night, I think around an hour or ten.

Give to Mr. Jamar has the opportunity to show that he is worthy. The Reynders!

You are also a young member of Parliament. Are you the first to speak?

My group calls for Minister Reynders to come. An appointment is an appointment. You said it yourself last night.

Please be careful, but in this case, I will convene a meeting tomorrow. You have to know what you want!

There is no problem! At what time tomorrow, Mr. President?

It was agreed yesterday that Mr. Reynders would take the floor. However, imperatives have made that today, at this time, he cannot be here. I believe to know that the Rules of the Chamber clearly allows a Secretary of State to answer questions posed by parliamentarians.

The problem comes from the fact that we planned to deal with the Finance section much earlier.

That is the reality. We thought to cover the section Finance much earlier, but because it was requested that the section Home Affairs be followed directly to the section Defense, the section Finance was moved for the budget.

Initially, the Financial Part was scheduled for 16:00.

The Prime Minister and Mr. Jamar is present. You cannot have more. by

Colleagues, there was an agreement with the Finance section to start in the afternoon. Due to circumstances, our work has gone out.

Mr. Bogert, I ask you to begin your speech. There were actually appointments made, but it was also planned to start twelve hours earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I could agree with your proposal if the House meets on this matter tomorrow. We request the presence of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. De Crem, the Prime Minister is present and Secretary of State Jamar is present.

Why should the Minister not be present?

It was agreed that the financial part would be introduced much earlier. If we talk a little more, it is Christmas.

On the eve, we had a one-way discussion with the Prime Minister. The opposition made its comments on the Christmas message.

You had suggested that these interpellations could take place tomorrow. CD&V has nothing to do with this. As long as we see the star standing at midnight tomorrow and can attend Christmas, there is no problem.

I suggest that you advance the Minister of Finance. That is nothing more or nothing less than following the plots. CD&V has no problem with this.

I understand you. I repeat that Finance would be dealt with at the beginning of the afternoon. In order to be benevolent towards everyone, we addressed immediately after the Section Land Defense, the Section Homeland Affairs. I ask you not to insist on the presence of Minister Reynders while the Prime Minister and Secretary of State Jamar are present.

Agreements must always be honored. The agreement was that the Minister of Finance would be present during the discussion of his budget part.

The [...]

This is Parliament, this is Parliament. Let us not polemize. I will not engage in the demagogy of the confrontation.

I am speaking on behalf of my group to the Minister of Finance.

There are two things. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of Finance are present today. I parafrase the Minister of Budget who referred to the past and said that it was always the custom that the Minister of Budget or the Minister of Finance was present at this discussion. He even said that the Prime Minister was not needed. Colleague Van der Maelen, it is your party partner.

For this part of the discussions, the Minister of Finance must be present in the Chamber. That is my held question. I will not deviate from that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Finance are present in the homicide, if you haven’t noticed it yet. Therefore, the requests of Mr. The creams are indeed abusive. Democracy is not expressed only through the people. of the cream. Per ⁇ we could ask for the opinion of this Chamber on the continuation of our work.

No, clearly, if I have a written request, I have to seriously think about it. Now there are two possibilities.

Mr. Prime Minister, I insist on Mr. De Crem not to do that. If it is formally requested, Mr. Reynders may be here within two hours. I suspend until in two hours.

I do not think it is elegant. I tell you my thoughts on this. The Prime Minister is here and the Secretary of State is here. With Mr Flahaut’s departure to Kabul, we changed the agenda and exchanged parts. That is also true.

Mr. De Crem, I would like to ask you not to press that through. There have been changes, with which neither you nor I have anything to do directly. I would ask that they act.

But come on, it is now 01.09 hours. We are the day before Christmas. I don’t want to exploit it, because I know that we are here to work. But I think, given what has happened through the reversal of the agenda — which we had agreed upon — that you can find the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State acceptable here.

In connection with the presence of ministers, I would like to say the following. For the bills that are numbered first and second on our agenda — especially number 1, document no. 1247 — must normally minister Onkelinx be able to be present. Otherwise, you can also postpone it, because it is not so urgent in our opinion.

But that has nothing to do with the budget. For this reason, I would like to give the word back to Mr De Crem.

You will make my life acid!

Mr. De Crem, I think that is a correct proposal from mine.

I totally disagree with your proposal. I adhere to our proposal, namely that Minister Reynders is present at the discussion of those parts of the draft budget which fall within his competence, as set out in the Rules of Procedure. You just have to apply the Rules, you cannot lay down the Rules next to you. I suggest that you contact the Minister of Finance. You inform me and the Chamber within a reasonable period of time when the Minister can be here.

Send me your claim in writing. This requirement is regulatory but I consider it to be abusive. Therefore, I ask not to insist, given the particular circumstances.

I ask that to Mr. De Crem, given the amended agenda, for which the fault lies neither with him nor with me.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on the presence of the Minister of Finance and I will also let you do so within this and one minute in writing, as provided by the Rules of Procedure. The Minister of Finance should be present.

Can I ask, then, that Mr. Bogert has already begun his presentation?

This is impossible if the Minister of Finance is not present.

The Minister of Finance should have spoken today. by Mr. Flahaut, leaving abroad for reasons that belong to him, asked to intervene before the Minister of Finance as part of a comprehensive arrangement. In the meantime, other personalities came in.

As a Secretary of State, I was appointed to replace the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister is also present. I have been seen here for four hours. For four hours I have observed members of all groups and no one has reacted at any time, not even when we presented ourselves before you to know the registered speakers! In front of me, you told Mr. From Crem that "four interventions were planned, following which Mr. The Secretary of State will intervene.” But Mr. De Crem did not raise the word and did not demand the presence of the Minister of Finance!

The [...]

( ... ...

You will force me to vote, which I do not like to do.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that the House vote on whether or not the Government is duly represented by the Prime Minister. I don’t see how our assembly could not decide on this issue. I propose you to vote on the question of whether a majority considers that the prime minister properly represents the government and let’s stop this ridiculous cinema!

If it is as Mr de Donnea says, I would like to put another question to the vote, namely that we would contact the museum of Madame Tussaud to provide for a new type of replacement and here to check whether the House agrees that a washed image of Mr Verhofstadt is sufficient to represent the government.

You know I don’t like this type of vote. But Article 50 clearly states this: "The House may require the presence of a member of the Government upon a proposal of members made in writing."

I received this proposal here by note. There is a reference to Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure, but I also have a Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure. Article 30 relates to the committees. Mr. De Crem, the article you referred to is about the committees, not the plenary session. Their

If you want the Chamber to decide whether or not Mr. Reynders will be present, then I must let the Chamber decide. I can do this by letting votes sit and get up. I prefer not to do it. I tell you that honestly. You refer to Article 30. I can still read.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday you asked for an agreement from colleagues Massin, Devlies and myself. You have requested to limit the speaking time to 10 minutes. That was the first part of the agreement. The second part of the agreement was that Minister Reynders would be present.

Part three of the agreement was that it would take place in the early afternoon. The amendment, with Mr. Flahaut, was not foreseen.

You did not say that yesterday.

I will let the Chamber decide.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the application of Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber, which allows the presence of the competent Minister to be requested. You made a proposal on the occasion of the Conference of Presidents to have Minister Flahaut come earlier. So I ask here, today, now the presence of the Minister of Finance. I ask them now and ask you to suspend until we know whether the Minister of Finance can be there or not.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out for a moment that Article 50, which you refer to and which is correct, clearly states that the Chamber — not Mr. De Crem — can claim a member of the government. There is a written question. I do not like this, but I think that the question of Mr. De Crem is highly abusive at the moment. Well, the Chamber will speak in these. As far as I am concerned, I will also take this into account in the future if there is another friendly question from the opposition. What is happening here is not serious.

Colleague Daems, since the previous elections, the friendly questions do not come from the opposition, but from the majority and very especially from the VLD, so please be favorable to their proposals. That’s what happened, Mr. Daems.

I think Mr. Daems is right. La Chambre is the Room and I need to know what the Room wants. I don’t like to do that, I say that very frankly. I let the members of the Chamber enter and then ask the Chamber to speak about it. I would not insist, Mr. De Crem, if I can repeat it. Their

Colleagues, since Mr. De Crem remains with his position and invokes Article 50, I will ask the Chamber whether, given the fact that the Prime Minister is here and that the Secretary of State for Finance is here, she is seeking the presence of Minister Reynders or not. We vote on this and stand up.

Whoever advances the presence of the Minister stands up.

The proposal is rejected by sitting and standing up. The proposal is rejected by assis et levé. The House does not advance the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our group, I would like to inform you that we will leave the meeting for the budget talks that follow from now on. (The CD&V and cdH fractions leave the hall)

Mr. Speaker, out of respect for this institution and for my colleagues who want to go to sleep, I give up my speech time. (Applause and Applause)

I think it will be the same for me.