Proposition 51K1774

Proposition de résolution concernant l'Iran.

General information ¶

Author

CD&V Herman Van Rompuy

Submission date

May 9, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Iran resolution of parliament human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR VB

Abstained from voting

FN

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.

Discussion ¶

April 27, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, your committee discussed these draft resolutions during its meetings of 25 and 27 April 2006.

The genesis of these draft resolutions, which eventually became a single draft resolution, began on 22 November 2005, when the committee concluded that several draft resolutions had been submitted, all of which concerned Iran. Therefore, the committee has asked the various applicants to submit a more general and, where possible, common text for discussion. Their

On 23 March 2006, Herman Van Rompuy and Nathalie Muylle submitted amendment no. It is a re-formulation of the various proposals in order to respond to the request for a more general text.

On 18 April, the committee decided, without commenting on the substantive aspects, to merge the 5 draft resolutions and to set up a working group tasked with drawing up a common and timely text. That working group met on 20 April under the chairmanship of Herman Van Rompuy. The amendment was taken as a basic text.

That work resulted in us having a completely new text at the next committee meeting, which took place on 25 April, to replace the previous various proposals of resolutions.

At that meeting, a number of sub-amendments were submitted by colleagues Van der Maelen, Verhaert and Boukourna aiming to introduce the fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the entire Middle East into the resolution dealing with Iran.

Mr Van Rompuy reassembled the working group. We have reached a unanimous text. I am pleased to inform the meeting that the committee unanimously approved the draft resolution this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, after this report, I would like to briefly explain the position of the VLD.

The VLD is very pleased to have succeeded in sending a strong and clear signal on the eve of the Security Council meeting. It is a strong signal because the House — I hope — will soon unanimously approve this draft resolution. It is also a clear signal because it is a strong call for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The resolution also strongly condemns the positions held by the current regime in Iran.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their perfectly appropriate attention.

This is proof that, when the Parliament wants it well, it can work quickly and well.

Please rest assured, I will be brief.

The CDH supports this resolution on Iran. It seems crucial for us that Parliament follows this matter with the utmost attention, as it expresses in particular a rebound of tension in the Middle East.

On February 4, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted a resolution calling for the transfer of the Iranian nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council. On March 29, the latter adopted a presidential statement urging Iran to bow to IAEA resolutions in order to allow it to verify the strictly civil nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

The Security Council also asked the IAEA to submit a report on the Iranian response within 30 days. The IAEA is expected to submit its report to the IAEA on 29 April, i.e. within two days. In this regard, it may be a shame that the resolution we are about to vote on cannot take into account the elements that this report will contain, and that in a few days.

Our resolution proposal may come too early, but there is no doubt that this issue will still raise questions within this hearing.

In addition, I would like to recall the words of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who called on all parties - on April 12 - to moderate their rhetoric. I am referring to mr. Kofi Annan: "I call on everyone to actively work in the search for a diplomatic solution, to moderate their rhetoric, and not to yield to escalation." Because let’s not forget that now Iran threatens to denounce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is in no one’s interest.

Mr. De

“Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia: Indochina wins.”

Yes, Indochina won, but what came in its place? A totalitarian regime in Vietnam — I remember the boat refugees —, a horrible massacre and genocide in Cambodia, and, right now, as in Vietnam, a dictatorship in Laos.

If I had ever been left, I would be deeply ashamed.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, if, in 2003, we wanted to submit a resolution on the situation in Iran, it was because it seemed to us ⁇ worrying. Yet, at the time, it was still the era of President Khatami and the situation was less worrying than it is now. However, even at this time of major turning points in Iran’s history, conditions were hardly encouraging.

Why this worrying situation? by

First of all, women’s rights. In this area, Iran is of course more tolerant than Saudi Arabia, but its situation is rather paradoxical: 75% of academics are women while a wide range of economic and democratic life remains forbidden to them. by

Another particular element of concern in Iran: the environmental situation. Iran’s policy is to keep oil prices ⁇ low. Thus, the urban centers experience a very damaging pollution for the health of the Iranians who reside there, without any consideration of this situation by the authorities. by

The third concern is the Iranian youth. Iran is fortunate to have a well-educated, intelligent youth with a fairly high socio-cultural level, but it does not allow them to have access to democracy or employment. The unemployment rate here is quite catastrophic. This is all the more unfortunate because the potential is huge. This is noticed when you meet young Iranians in our countries: they are trained, they have a lot of projects that, unfortunately, they cannot carry out in their country.

As the majority of non-governmental organizations point out, Iran is in a catastrophic state in the area of human rights, whether it is freedom of expression, freedom of the press but also cultural freedom, death penalty, stoning. The situation is denounced, year after year, by many international organizations, but with no result. by

Even today, we are arresting trade unionists of public transport, of which we are not aware. Some fear that they will not return. The situation is still critical, including in terms of economic rights. I think of ethnic minorities such as the Baya, who are ⁇ persecuted as they have developed a philosophy of peace that we would like to see spread. Sexual minorities also have serious problems in Iran, where homosexuality is severely punished.

The last element that finally allowed us to discuss the situation in Iran, while my text dates back to December 2003, is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are afraid to see an ever-increasing number of countries equipping themselves with nuclear weapons, using nuclear energy to meet their needs, which poses a major risk to all of humanity. Although we agree on the findings regarding the situation in Iran, we consider it useful to conclude an economic agreement with this country because there are potential markets.

Mrs. Genot, I am listening to your presentation. You left your proposal from the end of 2003. You mentioned a whole set of elements that you look forward to. We are pleased that a resolution is being discussed today. In all of your listing and the problem of minorities, however, I have not heard anything about the statements of the Iranian president, but maybe you will get to it.

Our proposal dates from 2003, a time when we still had the hope that the situation is evolving in the right direction. Today, it is obvious that the political turn Iran has taken does not even allow us to hope for this favorable development.

This is even more worrying when I see that we continue to discuss the possibility of concluding economic agreements with this country. This seems to me harmful. In my opinion, this is a sign of the banalization of this regime that does not give us any encouraging sign about the various points I mentioned and its international policy. by Mr. Khatami had done all the work of standardization in his relations with the rest of the world.

For us, two points are important.

First, it is not a matter of normalizing relationships by concluding, for example, economic agreements without seeing progress on a whole series of issues that concern us.

Moreover, after the heavy findings on the situation in Iran, it is difficult to assert to people in our country that there is no problem in Iran and that, if they are without papers, they must return there, asserting to them that they fear nothing for their security, for their lives, that Iran is a country like another and that if Belgium does not want to welcome them, they must return there. In fact, it is well known that you cannot expel Iranians because there is no readmission agreement with Iran. Therefore, we live in a completely crazy situation with Iranian undocumented, stateless, "inexpulsable" and who do not intend to return to their country given the situation described.

I would also like to take this opportunity to advocate in the direction of the examination of their dossier because the situation cannot continue like this!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, our group was pleased to contribute to the drafting of the resolution, as we are concerned about the situation in the Middle East.

The first source of our concerns is the preparation of Tehran. We note a lack of transparency with regard to that country’s nuclear program, ⁇ in the behavior in a recent past when lies were lied about the true goals of the nuclear program.

We are also concerned about the rhetoric used by the Iranian president, and about the support organized from Tehran to questionable militant groups in the Middle East.

Secondly, we are also concerned about the tone that some in Washington have. There are pledges for preventive military action, not excluding the use of nuclear weapons as well. We believe that this kind of arrangement will only result in strengthening the hardliners within the regime in Iran, that violence in the region will flare up and that there will be an arms race up to and with the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Third, we believe that there is a need for a European approach that advocates the diplomatic track. The threat is not imminent. Most observers say it will take three to fifteen years before there is a chance that Iran possesses a nuclear weapon. We propose to use this period usefully. We believe that the problem in Iran with Iran should be considered in the context of non-proliferation.

Therefore, on our question, a number of elements were included in the resolution, which I would like to emphasize. First, we ask for the commitment of all the countries involved in the conflict that have nuclear weapons to make public from now on that they will never use the nuclear weapons. Second, we believe that the track proposed by El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, to find a solution towards a tightened multilateral control by the IAEA over the entire fuel cycle, should be given a chance. Finally, we welcome the fact that we find in the resolution an initiative to support existing initiatives to ⁇ a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

For all of the above-mentioned reasons, our group will be happy to join the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I am delighted that today we can finally vote on a proposal for a resolution on the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is an important issue in international relations, about which it was appropriate that the democratic parties speak with one voice.

The genesis of this text is filled with reversals. Initially, the text submitted by the MR was inserted in a completely different context. In fact, the Iranian regime was dominated by the reformers. The then President, Mr. Khatami made — hardly, I admit — efforts to lead his country towards more progress and democracy. Further advances were yet to be made, and the political will of the Iranians was indeed present: therefore encouraging rather than stigmatizing – even though we should not lower our standards in terms of fundamental rights and democracy. Our proposed resolution was therefore going in this direction.

But turmoil has occurred. Legislative elections brought the Conservatives to power, after several reformist candidates were excluded from the electoral lists by the Council of Guardians. The reforms were paralyzed. But that is not the worst. Soon after, a new president was elected. This, a forced conservative, immediately put an end to the reforms initiated by his predecessor. It was then that it appeared that Iran should no longer be considered in the same way. Not content with applying in his country methods of another time, this character embarked on a campaign to enrich his uranium. The Iranian president claimed that the purpose of this research was purely civilian, not military. But the hypocrisy of his remarks came to light when he prophesied recurring messages of racial hatred towards Jews, calls for the destruction of Israel, as well as statements purely and simply denying the reality of the Holocaust.

Therefore, it was necessary to fully review the proposals submitted in order to reach a common and unanimous text. by

This is the work that has been done. The text submitted is the result. The MR group is therefore satisfied because this text provides a response from the whole of the democratic political parties to a burning and constantly evolving international security problem.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in my turn, I would like to welcome, on behalf of my group, the unanimous adoption of this resolution, among other things because we were at the basis of it. If it is true that the work took a long time, it was at the request of the government that wanted to give a chance to the opening of the Khatami government. by

I am especially pleased that this resolution — an important point that Mr. Van der Maelen — is part of the spirit of multilateralism that we stand up for in the face of a unilateralistic vision, especially the Atlantic, whose damage is now known, for example in Iraq. I therefore insist in favor of the part of the resolution that requires the government to transmit to all instances and to spread the message of this resolution. We have time: in the nuclear field, they will not be operational before maybe ten or fifteen years. “Human rights and internal democracy in Iran.” by

We must avoid still facing interventionist wars because, let’s recognize it, the struggle for democracy that was announced to us after 2001 brought a sharia-based constitution in Afghanistan, chaos in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine. In Lebanon, after the assassination of Hariri, we all thought that democracy was restored: it must be observed that the electoral law is a deception and creates a lot of injustice. by

I will not say more, but I think that this resolution belongs to multilateralism which is today one of the major challenges at the global scale in the face of a hegemonic and unilateral will advocated by some.

I am delighted that it has become a unanimous text. It is also a topic that is worth being unanimous on.

We say too easily that world peace is somewhere in danger, but it is really in danger in the Near East or in the Middle East by an accumulation of problems. I think of the rising Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the rising fundamentalism that has found its origins in the Middle East, the situation in Iraq, the oil reserves that are very strongly present there and finally the new regime in Iran. This sum is a threat to world peace. It is therefore important that we can speak unanimously on this issue.

Iran plays a very important role in the situation in the Middle East, by strongly supporting terrorism and fundamentalism, including in the Palestinian Territories and Iraq. Iran is contributing to the entire destabilization of the region. This is said too little. A very important moment in this is the discovery by the Iranian opposition, steamlessly, that they were working on an atomic bomb. This was achieved after much patience from the International Atomic Energy Agency, led by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mr. El-Baradei. After a lot of patience, we have come to the conclusion that there is evil will in the game, that the developments are not about the peaceful use of nuclear energy but can lead to the creation of a nuclear weapon.

The matter was referred to the Security Council. This has happened after a lot of patience and a lot of effort, including from the European Union. The European Union, together with China, Russia and the United States, has taken this initiative. We are on the eve of an important decision in the Security Council.

We will not change things, but I think this is symbolically important. We have taken the initiative here to have this resolution approved by the plenary session of this Chamber before tomorrow. If Iran does not respond to the Security Council’s request, in particular to stop uranium enrichment, which is very likely, pressure must be increased. Our resolution states, among other important considerations, that diplomatic, commercial and financial sanctions should be considered. These are peaceful and not military means that increase pressure.

It is a regime that is very ideologically established, that only takes into account the relations of power, that does not attract anything from the international public opinion and that therefore more than just words and diplomatic language use, must be brought back into the speed of the peoples. So it is the emphasis on sanctions, on considering sanctions, which here in the resolution at the end has come to be very central. The pressure must be increased so that Iran effectively comply with the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as other countries in the same region require.

The discussion is close. The discussion is closed.

The title has been changed by the commission to "proposal for a resolution on Iran". Het opschrift werd door de commission gewijzigd in "voorstel van resolutie betreffende Iran".

No amendments have been submitted or re-submitted. There will be no amendments in the past. Dear colleagues, you have seen that there is a whole series of considerations ranging from letter A to letter V, followed by a device — if I can express myself this way — which is articulated from 1 to 30. It is obvious that the request you make to the chairman of the House is primarily for the latter to ask the government to pass on to the executives of other countries. I will, of course, forward it to the legislators you have designated in your proposal for a resolution.

The vote on the draft resolution will take place subsequently. The vote on the draft resolution will take place later.

We consider this a strange procedure. We were not in any way involved or consulted about the different candidates. As I know, there was no assessment or hearing. Other colleagues also confirm this. We do not intend to participate in such a procedure unless you can explain, and can reassure us, that the method of appointment and the recognition of their qualities have passed in an orderly manner, but we have our doubts about it.

Mr. Laeremans, I have outlined the procedure here at the meeting on 20 April. Maybe you remember that? I have presented all the candidates. The government makes the proposal. What is the choice of Parliament? You have the choice between all the candidates. Will be effective he or she who is designated as effective. A substitute may also be appointed. I have no control over the candidates.

Mr. President, have I understood you correctly? Does the Government make a proposal for a nomination that Parliament should make?

The law stipulates that there is a double list from the government and that we ratify. That is the law and you apparently approved it, Mr. Annemans.

I am sorry, Mr President. I don’t think I approved that law.

I don’t know, we can check it out.

You have a list. Of course you do what you want. There are permanent members. I ask you to vote for a first candidate. This will be the effective president. You also have a second candidate. For members there is a first and a second candidate. I do not have to explain it. The same procedure applies to the substitute.

A vote by “couple”, is it clear?

So you vote for one chairman, for one member, and so on. Then for the Deputy, Mr. Tante, in the same way, of course. Is this clear?

Is it clear, Mr Van der Maelen? Mr. Vice-President of the Chamber, with all your weight that you put in the scale, I must still ask your attention. You vote for one Chairman, one Member and one Deputy.

You vote for a member and a replacement member.

What do you mean by one member? There are two members, right?

You can vote for the first or second candidate. Take the example that the second candidate has more votes than the first candidate. Then he was elected! Have you voted in your life? There is no third candidate.

A l'appel de son nom, chaque membre est prié de venir déposer son bulletin non signé dans l'urne, and montant à la tribune, the ma gauche à ma droite. I ask each member to come and deposit his unsealed ballot note in the ballot box when calling his name. Please come along my left side on the speaker’s seat and leave this on my right side.

I invite the secretaries to proceed with the nominal appeal. I need secretaries out of names by calling you.

The nominal appeal is made. It is overgegaan tot naamafroeping. Did everyone put their ballot in the urn? Has everybody gestemd? (Ja) I declare the vote closed and invite the examiners to proceed with the disposal in the Conference Hall. Voting is closed. I need secretaries out over te gaan tot de stemopneming in Conferentiezaal.

Mr. Speaker, I have a vote agreement with Mr. Bex.

Mr. Speaker, I had promised to abstain in consultation with Mr. Cortois, but I forgot that. For the next votes, I therefore have a vote agreement with Mr Cortois.

Deze interpellatie werd gehouden in de openbare vergadering van de commission voor de Financiën en de Begroting van 19 april 2006 This interpellation was developed at the public meeting of the Committee on Finance and Budget of 19 April 2006.

Two motions are ingediend (MOT nr. 837/1): - een motie van aanbeveling werd ingediend door mevrouw Trees Pieters in de heer Paul Tant; - een eenvoudige motie werd ingediend door mevrouw Anne-Marie Baeke in de heren Luk Van Biesen in Dirk Van der Maelen. Two motions were submitted (MOT no. 837/1): - a motion of recommendation was submitted by Ms. Trees Pieters and M. Paul Tant; - a simple motion was submitted by Mrs Anne-Marie Baeke and MM. Luk Van Biesen and Dirk Van der Maelen.

Daar de eenvoudige motie van rechtswege voorrang heeft, breng ik deze motie in stemming. The simple motion having the priority of law, I put this motion to the vote.

Does anyone request the word for a vote declaration? (Nee) Does anyone ask for the word for a statement before the vote? (Not to)

Beginning of voting / Beginning of voting. Has everyone voted and checked his vote? All the world has voted and verified its vote. End of voting / End of voting. Results of the vote / Results of the vote.

(Voting/voting 2) Yes 91 Yes No 45 Non Abstentions 2 Abstentions Total 138 Total The simple motion was adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is dismissed. The motion pure and simple is adopted. Consequently, the motion of recommendation is caduque.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that every country has the right to defend itself and to choose its means of defense, especially when the potential enemy also has the atomic bomb.

Silence please. Everyone has the right to speak here. I do not judge: I have heard like you.

( ... ...