Proposition 51K1935

Projet de loi complétant la loi du 3 janvier 1933 relative à la fabrication, au commerce et au port des armes et au commerce des munitions, en ce qui concerne l'interdiction des sous-munitions.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

April 1, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

conventional weapon arms limitation arms trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld FN VB

Abstained from voting

MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Robert Denis (MR) voted to reject.
• Philippe Monfils (MR) voted to reject.
• Marie-Claire Lambert (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Alain Mathot (PS | SP) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Feb. 16, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, the Chamber, after the approval in the Senate of a bill proposed by Mr. Mahoux, has bowed over the present proposal approved by the Senate.

I think I can say that the National Defence Committee has taken the time to carefully study the proposal. The committee started with a hearing of three specialists on the subject, namely Mr Kevin Bryant of Handicap International, a lobbyist for the ban on cluster mines, Mr Paul Huynen, a representative of our FOD Foreign Affairs, who came to inform us about the status of international talks on cluster bombs and, finally, Mr Jean-Claude Lacroix, director of the Belgian Security and Defence Industry, a representative of the military industry.

The colleagues who wish to study the views taken by those representatives here, I invite them to read the written report. With such an excellent rapporteur, of course, it must also be an excellent report, which very well reflects what those three gentlemen have said.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly present my report. I suspect that all the groups that spoke in the committee, in order to clarify their position there, will soon come here on the floor. I do not dare to try to express their point of view. I would prefer that they themselves come here later.

Colleagues, I would like to limit myself to three sets of amendments, which provide a good summary of the debate in the committee. The debate in the committee was initially about what submunition is. A first round of discussion on this subject concerned the 15th amendment of the VLD colleagues. The VLD colleagues had submitted an amendment calling for the express exclusion of cluster bombs containing light or smoke ammunition, or penetration bombs which — I summarize it — are not explosive.

This amendment has been debated in the committee. A number of colleagues, including myself, have said that, according to our interpretation, the present bill, which was approved by the Senate, excludes that type of cluster bombs and that therefore it was not necessary to accept that amendment. Other colleagues have also commented on this. I think that I do not violate the truth, when I say that ⁇ a majority in the committee at the time was of the opinion that it was not the intention of the legislator to target that kind of submunition, because — this state is central — that kind of submunition cannot cause victims among the civilians.

A cluster bomb with light or smoke ammunition and also such an inert penetration tree could not cause casualties among civilians and it was therefore, according to a majority in the committee, not applicable.

A second round, still on the same theme of the definition of submunition, took place around Amendment No. 19 of his colleagues. These colleagues wanted to exclude from the ban cluster bombs containing a limited number of submunitions — if I am not mistaken less than 10 — and possessing a mechanism of self-destruction. Our colleagues of the MR have tried to convince the rest of the committee. They have failed there, I think, for the simple reason that they have not been able to convince us that we would have a hundred percent certainty that this type of cluster bombs would not cause civilian casualties anymore. The amendment was also rejected.

Finally, there was a third amendment concerning the supplies that the Belgian army itself has. The Flemish Interest colleagues had submitted an amendment in which they proposed that a stock should remain available in order to organize the training of our own military personnel. Thus, they could be trained to know, if they ever confront a cluster bomb during hostilities, how to deal with it. We also had a debate on this subject and the committee came to the conclusion that since the text as approved by the Senate in a third and a fifth paragraph of article 22 of the Act of 1933 also introduces the word cluster ammunition, this meant two things. First, the Belgian army must destroy its supplies. Second, the Belgian army continues to hold a number of cluster bombs behind to organize the training of our own Belgian military.

In the end, the committee adopted the bill unchanged with 11 votes for and 5 votes against. So far, Mr. Speaker, colleagues and colleagues, my report. I hope to be able to speak in the debate on my own behalf and on behalf of my group.

Registered were Mrs. Wiaux, Mrs. Meeus, Mr. by Monfils, Mr. Van der Maelen, Mrs. Belhouari and Mr. by Goris. by Mr. Monfils will start. It will then be to Mrs. Meeus and Mrs. Wiaux, due to the linguistic alteration.

I think Belgium is a virtuous country. When a European directive prohibits tobacco advertising, one wants to apply it before others. When Europe regulates the possession of weapons by individuals, the Belgian law — or in any case the successive projects — wants to be more draconian. When countries wonder how to judge their war criminals, Belgium votes the law of universal jurisdiction. And for submunitions, without asking what their NATO allies think or do, Belgium wants to ban them. by

“Citius, Altius, Fortius” is the Olympic motto. In the absence of an Olympic medal that we will ⁇ not have, Belgium ambitions the title of Don Quixote of international humanism. Note that this enthusiasm for big causes would be interesting if it was communicative. Unfortunately, this is not the case. One remembers the petty retreat of the law on universal jurisdiction to the editorial so crazy that it had allowed the filing of lawsuits against George W. Bush. Bush, which ⁇ entertains many of our colleagues, and even against Louis Michel, we remember.

As for submunition, the reception is little more positive, and it is an euphemism. The rapporteur will ⁇ remember, citing Alliot-Marie’s statements following a question asked in September 2005 by a French parliamentary: “France intends to continue its continuous and dynamic action in favour of the improvement of international humanitarian law. However, it does not consider that this action requires a complete ban on the production, use and transfer of submunition bombs, legal weapons the possession of which remains to this day indispensable for our armies.” by

In this case of submunition, at the European or international level, it is therefore the opposite of the motto of the Three Musketeers, it is "one against all and all against one". Why ride like this at the head of a group without waiting for the rest of the column? That is my first objection.

In a committee, the Foreign Affairs Representative long talked about diplomatic contacts that could one day lead to an agreement on the issue. Why not wait for the outcome of these negotiations? Would it be believed that the small Belgium alone will get a concise agreement on the ban it is proposing to vote today?

How can we, in the eyes of other countries, justify our claims to maintain the headquarters of NATO or other international organizations in the field of defence if, without consulting anyone, we take measures in the field of arms, which are not admitted by any of our partners? You can teach others, but don’t be surprised afterwards to receive a stick back! by

In short, with regard to the MR, if one obviously welcomes in a positive way a will to prohibit submunitions, we do not want to concrete this will only in agreement with our partners, at least European, and on the basis of the same rules applicable to each of the States parties to the consensus. But they will reiterate to me that there is no reason to negotiate anything, because it is ethics and morality that are in question. Those who invoke this argument oppose, without saying it, two points of view: that of morality and that of economic development, more prosaically of employment, believing that it must give place to that one. by

My first answer is that thinking about people’s employment is also an ethical and moral concern. Is it not ethical and moral for men and women politicians to strive to provide as many citizens as possible with the opportunity to live in dignity? Unless one considers that working in arms is immoral, which some believe. I think it is essential to consider employment issues when considering decisions in the sector. Without resuming the debates and without playing the accountant, I point out that it has nevertheless been considered that in direct and indirect jobs, the case represented a loss of 250 to 300 jobs.

One might reiterate to me that one cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs, and that this is of little importance compared to the tens of thousands of human lives that would be saved by this ban. But this is a false reasoning. No one will be saved and the workers will lose their jobs. This is the sad reality. Why Why ? Because taking prohibition measures alone will have no humanitarian consequences. Contracts will be lost for our industry and recovered by other countries. We will continue to manufacture elsewhere, in this case, submunitions of all categories. They will always be used in the theatre of operations. Even worse, their danger will be greater, since we have proposed an amendment aimed at reducing this danger. by

This is where our splendid isolation will lead us to want to be right! We will not avoid a dead or injured, but we risk losing hundreds of jobs. I already hear the good apostles of pacifism reassure me by saying that it is necessary to be a pioneer; it is like the ball that goes down the first, touches the others and the whole goes on the right path! This is inaccurate, because no one wants to follow us! The case of anti-personnel mines is completely different both in terms of their purpose and their use. They have nothing to do with projectiles like submunitions. They were not included in the Ottawa Convention for the total prohibition of anti-personnel mines.

Saying “Let’s go, the others will catch us!” is an act of blind faith, a disgusting incantation of universal pacifism that has never existed! by

Shouldn’t we do anything and continue to manufacture this kind of ammunition? Obviously no! We had proposed a solution at the time by submitting an amendment that protected employment, but which, it seems to me, marked a significant advance by significantly reducing the possibility of manufacturing this type of submunition in our country: not more than ten per container and self-neutralization and self-destruction device, cumulative conditions.

The amendment was rejected. The bill is now being submitted to Parliament. Suddenly, when the problem has been raised for months and the supporters of the ban refuse dialogue, it’s efervescent: there needs to be an agreement between all parties! by

Dear colleagues, I probably recognize the fears of the PS and CDH in the face of the trade union reactions that hardly reminded them that employment also deserved to be a priority.

It must be said that, for the two parties of the government of the Walloon Region, it was hardly pleasant, at the time of blowing the Thébaines of the Marshall Plan, to admit not that 250 jobs would not be created, but that 250 jobs would be lost. by

How to do? A bill amending the proposal that we will vote on has been submitted. The procedure first. If we wanted to amend the bill as presented here, we could have returned the text to the committee, either with an agreement today, which would have allowed to vote the text around 7 or 8 or 9 o’clock in the evening, or in the coming weeks or months if the debate had taken a deeper turn. In both cases, the text had to be returned to the Senate for reference. And I imagine that the authors’ ego was such that they would not have accepted to lose their face; indeed, they had promised that the text would be voted today, without modification. by

Finally, we have adopted a system perfectly in line with Belgian surrealism: we vote as the prohibition law, we submit a proposal of law that modifies it, but we arrange that the prohibition law, once voted, is not published, therefore that it is not in force until the proposal of law that modifies the first is adopted. by

I don't know if you're following me: it's pretty complicated!

It was known as the “put to the refrigerator”; here it is a “put to the frigobox”: you put the law at cool while waiting to be able to taste the two laws together. Regardless of the circumference presented by this process, this assembly does not seem to present any serious guarantee, neither with regard to the Zeebrugge Forges nor with regard to the employment in this sector. by

What is the proposed amendment law? First, the smoke-giving and illuminating material. I address the rapporteur of the commission, who has done an excellent job for which I congratulate him even though, by the way, he was engaged in the debate, like me. In all the debates we have had, in all the groups — even those supporters of the ban — it has always been said that this material was not covered by the ban. So it is quite fun to read in the bill proposal received just recently: "... There could be legal uncertainty in this regard" and "... The details given by the parliamentary debates were summary.” I understand that the legal void of the amending bill had to be filled with some adventistic elements, but still. The authors of the proposal, probably taken by time, will have to read a few lines of the report to find out. by

Since it is a matter of summary clarifications, let us see precisely the text of the bill proposal which provides a derogation from the general prohibition. I speak of it because it is presented at the same time, although not voted today, and is an element of the problem.

These devices contain multiple ammunition intended solely to break through and destroy armored devices, which are used only for this purpose, without the possibility of indistinguishably saturating the combat zones, in particular by the mandatory control of their trajectory and their destination, and which, if necessary, can only explode at the moment of the impact and, in any case, cannot explode due to contact, presence or proximity of a person. It is Proust or a text of the famous writer who never put a punctuation at the end of a sentence!

By reading the text of the bill proposed today, what legal certainty do we encounter? What is the saturation of combat zones? What does it mean to explode at the time of impact, if any? What is the point of not being able to explode near a person? Will the tank driver or the soldiers who traditionally accompany this type of gear be asked to withdraw before the submunition is launched? It would seem like we’re back in the right time when we said, “We’re going to fire! Let the good people go away!”

More seriously, if a pacifist body files a complaint against a contract it considers contrary to the law, what will the judge do? With such a text and without legal guidance, he will judge according to his conscience or his appreciation of the facts, which can be variable depending on his personality. This means that the company and workers will be suspended ⁇ for several months ...

Mr. Monfils, I had thought that Mr. Sevenhans was registering for the discussion but he wants to interrupt.

I really want to interrupt. My respected Chairman of the Commission refers to a bill that would have been submitted and which clearly plays a role in the whole discussion and apparently will have a large impact on the bill currently in the process. I looked at my couch and I didn’t find it here. What kind of legislation are we talking about, Mr. Monfils? I would like to follow the discussion. You know I have a clear opinion. Of course, I need that bill, otherwise we should not conduct that discussion.

Mr. Speaker, can you send me this bill? If not, we’re running an unrealistic discussion here.

Mr. Sevenhans, I am not a signatory to the bill; I know that there is a bill and I know its text. This is not a government project and the authors will ⁇ submit it as soon as possible. I do not know if they have already done it or not, but I know the text of the bill proposal and I give you my feelings. I do not want to go beyond or criticize the authors. I can’t answer you, I wasn’t the initiator, the editor, or the co-author. I just know that a bill should be on the banks or should arrive soon, so that it can be taken into consideration and sent back to the commission. I only talk about what I know.

I continue this analysis. As a result of the vague nature and uncertainty of this type of document, I am very deeply afraid that the company and workers will be suspended, as I said, for years to the court’s decision. There is a high chance that the contract will be lost. One can always work in a committee and amend, submit amendments or other bill proposals, say that the text is open, but I doubt very much when I find that we have refused to discuss our amendments while keeping the text as it is. The negative attitude of the last three months does not let me think that the initiators of the bill will go beyond and that they will add a number of limitations to the ban, which may be voted soon.

In conclusion, I would like to comment on a general issue. Why this harshness against weapons? If this was an isolated case, it would be a minor evil. Unfortunately, it is imperative to see that whenever a major contract concerns the defence industry, the panoplie of ethics and morality comes out. For example, the Minimi case in Nepal, the settlement of industries elsewhere, the sale of rifles in Mexico, etc. Examples are legion of difficulties or blockages caused by political positions. When it is known that the center of defence-related activity is essentially in Wallonia and in the Liege region, I wonder who wants the skin of the wallon arms industry. There was a time when French speakers still answered: “These are the Flemish.” Unfortunately, in the case that concerns us today, it is not just about the Flemish, it is also a number of Wallons. The initial proposal is due to a socialist parliamentary. In the Defence Committee, all Socialist and CDH deputies voted against our amendment and for the prohibition proposal. Today, ⁇ they would accept, from the bottom of the lips, a small derogation from the widespread ban.

I am reminding here that the Walloon weapons industry is a hub of excellence, but we must not have illusions. Potential customers are beginning to get tired of shutdowns or even political blockages that are systematically manifested in this sector. One very close day, if we continue on this path, they will supply themselves elsewhere; our technological advantage will disappear because orders will no longer follow. The last arms factories will perish. It is time to think about all this and weigh in the future the consequences of some extreme proposals! As far as I am concerned, it seems to me that the employees of the company deserved better than a restrictive text of which we do not know how and when it will be voted and what it will cover exactly. by

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, since the reasonable and balanced amendment we had submitted was rejected, because the prohibition bill is presented without modification and because the possible new proposal, of which we are talking, presents many legal uncertainties, the MR will not vote in favour of the bill that is subject to our examination.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, today the draft law on the prohibition of submunition will be submitted to vote in the plenary session. Before approving this draft law, it may be good to keep an eye on some elements in this draft.

The presenters of this bill aim to extend the law of 3 January 1933 on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines and trap-strike mines to a prohibition on cluster munitions. Submunition means, I quote, "All ammunition that, in order to fulfill its function, separates itself from a mother bomb." Therefore, it refers to all ammunition or explosive loads intended to explode at any given moment after being launched from a mother bomb. Submunition is a large bomb that contains small bombs. This bomb opens, launches these small bombs which then explode in order to ⁇ a greater spread.

In Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, many of these bombs were deployed, but with many adverse consequences. Testimonials from Handicap International clearly show that many of these small bombs, when they land on the ground, do not explode. They remain on the ground for years and often come, by the touch of innocent civilians, often playing children, to explode, with all the horrible consequences thereof; killing or for life mutilated people and children who in themselves had nothing to do with this war.

This can indeed not. The layout of ammunition during the war is not to hit innocent civilians and ⁇ not years after the war. The purpose of the use of ammunition is to destroy military infrastructure. However, the reality with the submunition is very different.

It is therefore our task to ensure that this type of ammunition is reduced to a minimum. Belgium can play an important role in this, by analogy to the fight with anti-personnel mines. That is a good thing and that supports the VLD also fully.

However, we have expressed some concerns, including in the Chamber. First of all, how far should we as a small country go in our role of example? Then we have the choice: do we make a law that is very strict and prohibits all submunition and in which ⁇ no country will follow us because the law is too strict, too strict, or do we soften this law so that other nations can also find themselves in this law and follow our example? Then the question is: what will we relax and what will we not? Where is that border drawn? Their

A second consideration that we make here relates to our industry. We have an industry here in Belgium that manufactures high-tech submunition. Also in cluster bombs there are indeed gradations. Our Belgian industry is currently making high-tech cluster bombs that are indeed exploding with great certainty and where the chance of mutilation for innocent citizens is almost null. This bill would also prohibit the manufacture and marketing of this high-quality submunition. Their

The question we ask here is the following: if our Belgian, better-perfected submunition is removed from trade, will the other countries then buy more bad submunition from the Asian partners, thereby increasing the number of victims even more? Are we not going beyond our goal a little? Wouldn’t it be better to allow the good submunition and replace the bad submunition? The field experience will teach us, because these questions were also asked in the landmines. It would therefore not be bad to evaluate this law after a period of a year and to see how many countries have followed our example and what the effect of this law on modern warfare, in order to update the law if necessary. Their

A third, for me very important consideration in this bill, relates to our own Belgian army. Cluster ammunition is a very general term, which includes both harmful and non-harmful submunition. Light and smoke ammunition also belongs to the general submunition. But light and smoke ammunition do not cause damage. The small bombs from the mother bomb produce either light or smoke, but do not explode and therefore do not hit innocent civilians. Light and smoke munitions, however, are of enormous tactical importance to our army. Without light, you can’t see at night. Without smoke, we cannot provide adequate protection to our army. Their

Also a large number of protection kits of our army consists of harmless cluster bombs. For example, submunition is used on the C-130 for missile defense. It then consists of light aluminum sheets, so that the fired missile follows a different path than our C-130. Their

Also for firing on tanks the Belgian army uses cluster ammunition, harmless cluster ammunition. This is for a performance penetration into the tanks, in the shield of the enemy tanks. This submunition consists mainly of rubber or scrap to weigh the bomb as it were and improve the penetration through the shield of the tank. In short, not all submunition is bad. A lot of submunition has the function of protecting the army. It is therefore not possible for us to issue a ban to protect innocent victims, but at the same time to expose our own military to additional dangers because, under this law, those bombs are no longer allowed to be used.

Both Handicap International, the Senate and the Chamber have clearly stipulated that this is not the purpose of this law. It was clearly pointed out that this law deals with the harmful cluster bombs, the explosive cluster bombs. These types of bombs are fished and not the inert submunition. This considers the VLD of primary importance. Smoke and light ammunition as well as protective ammunition should not fall within this law. It was clear that even with this exception, the vast majority of the current existing submunition still falls under the prohibition.

Our military must be able to protect itself, both in NATO operations and in operations in European context. The VLD will continue to strive for this. It is obvious that the Belgian army also still possesses a large stock of dangerous cluster bombs, including the 155 mm artillery munition. It is also obvious that the military is prepared to destroy these weapons as quickly as possible. For this purpose, a plan has already been drawn up in the past and has already been provided in budgetary space.

Dear colleagues, the VLD fully supports the objective of the applicants of this bill, but on the condition that the prohibition is defined a little more clearly. If we do not want to mortgage the operation of the Belgian army for operations and manoeuvres, then the military force must have light-smoke and protective ammunition. The operation of the military force within NATO and Europe must remain guaranteed. The defense industry should also be given the necessary time to further complete the current contracts.

This is what the VLD stands for and which the VLD will continue to watch over, also in the future.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, submunition weapons have disastrous consequences for the civilian population. In addition to the devastating and especially cruel initial effects, they have a delaying effect: between 5 and 30% of their submunitions do not explode at first. Very unstable, they then burst at the slightest contact or as a result of vibrations produced in particular by the passage of vehicles. Joining anti-personnel mines to the number of weapons of shame, sub-munition bombs remain dangerous for civilians, and especially children, well after the end of a conflict. by

The use of these weapons was denounced during the Kosovo War in 1999, then in Afghanistan and Iraq. During a bombing that struck the city of Nis, they had caused the deaths of 11 civilians - which prompted President Clinton to suspend their use. In Iraq, NGO reports attributed the deaths of more than 1,000 Iraqi civilians to submunition bombs and their non-discriminatory range. Many organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, Handicap International, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, call for the elimination of these weapons by denouncing their incompatibility with the essential principles of international humanitarian law. It should also be emphasized that our country has decided to destroy existing stockpiles of submunition.

Also, I would like to make you very briefly aware of the position of my group, the CDH, and refer to the various statements expressed during the discussions in the committee, without showing too much redundancy. According to international humanitarian law, States are obliged to ensure that no new weapons, methods or means of war violate the rules in force of international law that prohibit them, because they are capable of causing unnecessary evils and that they strike without discrimination. However, submunition weapons violate these rules and have immediate effects, but also a posteriori.

With regard to their immediate effect, these weapons have, by their dispersing effect – since they cause something similar to a carpet of bombs – a non-discriminatory scope, not distinguishing between civilian populations and military targets. This is contrary to the fundamental principle of protection of civilian populations in international humanitarian law. by

As for their a posteriori effect, these are unexploded remains. There is no certainty about the manufacture of ammunition that would explode 100%. These unexploded ammunition de facto transform into anti-personnel mines. In this sense, the consequences of submunition weapons are considered non-discriminatory.

The use of such weapons is therefore contrary to the prohibition of using projectiles, materials and methods of war that produce unnecessary evils. That is why we support the principle of a ban on submunition weapons and therefore the bill as transmitted to us by the Senate.

In this regard, similar parliamentary initiatives exist in other countries such as Switzerland, France and Canada. I also think of the resolution adopted on 19 January 2006 by the European Parliament supporting the eradication of submunition weapons.

By voting for this bill, Belgium will demonstrate pioneering ambition in terms of the development of humanitarian law just as it did a few years ago in the context of the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. In this regard, we enter into the line already defended by our group at that time. by

By voting this bill, we give the signal that there is no longer room for submunition bombs in the conduct of war in the 21st century. It is the recognition of the atrocity of submunition bombs that must now belong to the past. Banning submunition is a very important signal we are giving to the international community. Belgium can thus be at the origin of a dynamic that will lead to the elimination of submunitions by the international community. By sending this signal, we can prevent the four billion submunitions stored on the planet from being responsible for thousands of innocent civilian casualties in the future.

For all these reasons, we support the bill as it is presented to us.

The bill supplementing the law of 3 January 1933 concerning the manufacture, trade and carrying of weapons and the trade in ammunition with regard to the prohibition of submunitions was unanimously voted in the Senate on 7 July.

In the House, before being adopted in a committee on February 1, 2006, the bill was the subject of several debates, with in the background the difficult question of which argument to prioritize in this file: the economic argument or the ethical argument. by

Why should we ban submunition weapons? Submunition weapons are causing a real shooting among the civilian populations of the affected countries. According to figures from Handicap International, there are 15 to 20,000 new victims of mines, submunition and unexploded machinery each year. In Iraq, for example, submunition has killed several thousand civilians since 2003. According to Handicap International, up to 90% of the victims of submunition weapons are civilians, including at least 23% children. These weapons massively violate the most basic principles of international humanitarian law, including the principles of discrimination and proportionality, which impose the distinction between civilian and military targets and a use that is not disproportionate to the identified threats.

Furthermore, submunitions that have not exploded at the impact turn into real anti-personnel mines that kill and mutilate long after the conflict ends.

During committee debates in the House, some were concerned that the definition of submunition proposed in the project would be too broad and would prevent the development of a state-of-the-art technology that would not have an anti-personal effect. In particular, the case of anti-tank mines has been mentioned. In our view, devices intended to pierce and destroy armoured vehicles should not be covered by the bill, nor should lighting ammunition, smoke ammunition or electrical or electronic countermeasures.

I would like to make two remarks.

First, industry representatives bear a heavy responsibility in the inability in which they have placed the House to assess the relevance of their arguments.

Secondly, we are talking about threatened jobs, but there are no ones. The information given to us was vague. We had no clear element that allowed us to have a precise view of the jobs concerned and the particular quality of industry projects. In commission, on 19 December 2005, a statement was heard that went in one direction and, a month later, a advertising clip disguised as a report, with different and contradictory information, was broadcast in a JT. The way the industrial lobbying intervened did not advocate in favour of its arguments.

However, it may be agreed that dispersion devices containing illuminating or fumigent equipment or those intended solely to pierce armor should not be covered by law. In the face of this legal uncertainty and the vote on this draft in the committee, our group is in favour of the prospect of considering the definition in the law of dispersing devices which are not submunitions but which contain only smoke material or lighting material or equipment exclusively designed to create electrical or electronic countermeasures or which are still devices containing multiple ammunition only intended to pierce and destroy armored devices.

This will allow you to have the absolute guarantee that dispersing devices not covered by law could not carry in them the possibility of having an anti-personal effect. The definition we will have to give will have to be based on the requirements of international law. For the rest, if the industry, of which we still do not know exactly what it does, claims to manufacture such weapons, then it would be normal and fair that it plugs under international law.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it was not my intention to speak about the bill. I have already done this in the committee. The committee is also the most suitable place for this. This is a rather technical issue.

The discussion in the committee was apparently not clear enough for some members. I have listened to Mrs. Belhouari very carefully. She came to debit her text. I fear she has never seen submunition before.

What is the term submunition or sub-munitions? Submunition is simply a translation of sub-munitions. In Dutch it has a completely different meaning. With this everything begins. Here we are discussing a term that is not correct.

Are there human weapons? They do not exist in my opinion. A bomb is there to kill people. I have never seen a bomb to laugh. I suspect that such a bomb will not be invented. There may be one bomb that is not meant to kill people. I am not talking about a sex bomb, but about a neutron bomb. The neutron bomb could indeed possibly save people and leave the home. But I think that is the only weapon of this kind; all the rest is shameless.

( ... ... ) That would be equally nonsense.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I will come to you immediately.

This is not about ethical principles. I could support the principle without any problem, if it were about that.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you now let clearly look at your cards. It is just about being the first. We must and will be the first. That is all. It will be a kind of Tobin-bis. That is your intention. You have already held four press conferences on the date on which the draft will be approved. You will and you must have your trophy. You will also get your trophy, I understand. That is why it is. You just want personal satisfaction. What causes you further with it is the least of your worries.

The reason I give my presentation is that strange curves are being taken here today. We had the discussion in the committee. However, there was some inconsistency. After all, I have understood that a number of arguments put forward by both the MR and the Flemish Interest have continued to diminish. They gave rise to a sort of bill hanging somewhere in the Chamber.

I am sorry that I do not have the bill. Otherwise, I might have to adjust my text. However, as long as I do not have it, I must keep it with the known things.

In the committee, we voted against the draft because the discussion was not conducted correctly. I have already said that of course we support the principle. However, I have clearly felt that it is a bad bill. I have also tried to get rid of it through a number of amendments. However, they were rejected by the majority — not all parties — with the argument that, if they would accept the amendments, the draft should be returned to the Senate, thereby wasting time. They risked not being the first.

I have now understood that there will be a bill to dismantle the bill on which we vote today. So we already make laws in which we simultaneously submit a bill to de-annul the law on which we are going to vote. This is Belgian, which is ridiculous. Why can’t it be addressed seriously, in a defective way? Send it back to the committee, let's seriously discuss it and seriously listen to each other's arguments and not go into a war of claims in advance. That would lead to a better result.

I will not repeat the technical arguments I used in the amendment. You can read them all in the report that Mr Van der Maelen debated.

My party ⁇ does not want to give a wrong signal. We are also not happy with submunition, but we have to stay a bit correct. I did not see that correctness here today. I have seen a lot of hypocrites gathered here. I wonder whom we can help with this. Mr. Van der Maelen, you will receive your Tobin bis today.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, for a very long time, ECOLO has been conducting a political struggle to ensure that weapons, if weapons must be there, meet the minimum standards required by international law, that is to say that they save civilians as much as possible and that the damage caused by permanent weapons does not prevent a population from re-appropriating its territory. This is how, with my colleague Martine Dardenne, we fought for the prohibition of anti-personnel mines, this is how we fought under the previous legislature for the integration in the Belgian legislation of the European Code of Ethics, in such a way as to make it binding. by

While at the time we were treated as “job killers”, who were claimed that because of us, the National Factory would close, the economic consequences were ultimately null. And this is because we dared to face conflicting situations between economic actors who had some fears and political actors who wanted to introduce regulation. This resulted in texts that responded to the political objectives that we pursued and that allowed these companies to continue their business while respecting the desired ethics and deontology.

The project submitted to our vote pursues the same objectives by addressing submunition weapons. ECOLO can only support the prohibition of such weapons, as this also involves combating damage inflicted on civilian populations and preventing such submunitions from invading too large geographical areas. by

We believe in the value and the opportunity of a pioneering state, on the condition of course that international organizations continue the struggle for the same arrangements to be made in other states and on the condition that the parties, our political families, fight in the same way in neighboring states at the European level but also at the international level. by

Nevertheless, the way the discussions have been conducted so far indicates that the subject has not been sufficiently prepared with all the actors. In the committee, I intervened to say that we should be aware of what we are prohibiting.

We are not only prohibiting old submunition weapons, placed on the ground and that explode all the time; we are also prohibiting submunition weapons that are currently being studied. by

This law meets some of our objectives while recognizing that the current state of research and technology does not yet ensure a primary element, namely the guidance of each submunition, so as to be sure that they will not drag into the geographical areas not targeted. But I believe very strongly in the ability of the Belgian economic actors to evolve in their technique and ⁇ this goal.

Certainly, I would have been in favour of the entry into force of this law on 1 January 2007, for example, so that research and technological development can be supported by the European budgets provided for this purpose as well as by the budgets of the Walloon Region where some majority parties are in the House.

Unfortunately, the majority did not want to adapt things in this way. Consequently, we will support the text submitted to our review while also supporting the steps that will help to ⁇ these objectives, whether at the level of companies wishing to evolve in their technology or at the level of the Walloon Region that could encourage them to do so. I am confident that they will succeed. In this case, they will no longer de facto enter the scope of this law, since a sub-munition that is guided is no longer a sub-munition; it itself becomes a munition. by

The discussions we had lacked some respect for the actors, whether they are economic actors or workers. It is important to say that the project supported today will allow them to advance in their technology. Ecolo will in any case support them in this approach. We will be available to all those who want to guide the provisions or encourage economic actors in this direction.

Since the beginning, I have supported the principle of a ban on submunitions that threaten the safety of civilian populations. My attitude from the very beginning has been part of the pragmatic line, both of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and of Human Rights Watch, which recommend a reinforcement of the reliability of submunition rather than claiming a total ban, which remains illusory and which even falls within a certain angelism in the current international context.

Therefore, I had submitted an amendment aimed at meeting this goal. I regret that this amendment was rejected because it would have helped to get as close as possible to the goal we all pursue, namely to expose as little as possible civilian populations. by

In order to be consistent with the amendment I had signed, which consisted in prohibiting everything, except fragmentation bombs containing less than ten sub-munitions capable of self-destructing, I will vote against the text, which everyone acknowledges as bad, but which some refuse to amend in any case. by

Nevertheless, I will remain attentive to the discussions in the committee during the consideration of the bill the filing of which is announced. The announcement of this deposit is also the best proof that the project that will be put to vote today was not the right one.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I begin with the good habit of congratulating the rapporteur, Mr. Van der Maelen. His excellent report was produced under difficult circumstances. After all, there were quite divergent opinions between and sometimes even within the groups. He brought his report to a good end.

I heard for the first time about a cluster at the highly respected organization VVSG, the Flemish Association of Cities and Municipalities. We talked about clusters of municipalities. These were groups in which equal - equally strong or equally weak - municipalities could be found. You will immediately understand why I give that example in my introduction. In my opinion, the great confusion of speech, which initially began in the Senate and subsequently partially took over in the Chamber, has led to a lot of misconceptions. I will come back to that later.

A cluster is the technical given that in a comprehensive whole there are a number of equally large parts. In the field of Defence, we are talking about a cluster bomb with which we mean a hole containing a number of equivalent submunitions. I unfortunately find that, among other things, in the Senate report, words such as cluster ammunition, submunition, fragmentation bombs are mistaken, wrongly, since they are all different things.

Colleague Van der Maelen, I am convinced that our ambition is the same, namely to ban this type of weapons. The effects of such weapons are unfortunately burned on the retina of most of us: think of children in Southeast Asia who pick up things that resemble a tennis ball and explode in their hands or in their faces. They are disgusting weapons. Sometimes they cause damage even years after date. Not only the groups in the hemisphere, but also 99% of the Belgians are, in my opinion, opposed to this. We must bear in mind that such weapons are bound.

What weapons are we talking about? We are talking about antipersonal fragmentation bombs. Every anti-personal fragmentation bomb is indeed cluster ammunition, but every cluster ammunition is not anti-personal fragmentation bomb. That may be somewhat technical, but it is very important. Most ammunition is used in clusters, but therefore does not necessarily pose a short-term or long-term danger to civilians.

That is a very important first point, especially because the reason for the debate was the belief that our achievements internationally on antipersonnel mines, with which we have been pioneers, should follow in terms of antipersonnel cluster ammunition, the fragmentation bombs.

There are two approaches possible.

A first approach – that is also my approach and colleague Van der Maelen knows that because I have said that too in the committee meeting – is that we examine whether we can place the criterion on the security mechanisms. All types of cluster ammunition are then linked to a criterion of safety mechanisms, in particular self-destruction mechanisms, which we ask for example to be 99% certain, the so-called smart ammunition.

We would take the lead in the debate, also at the international level, to make it a criterion, such that from now on only smart ammunition can be sold and traded worldwide. In this way, we can ban all products of Chinese and Russian crafts, which today are sold and traded everywhere, and unfortunately also used, for example in Africa. This is a first approach.

This approach is also shared by the European Parliament, as well as by other international institutions.

This approach has not been achieved in the committee. Unfortunately, because this approach also ⁇ my preference. It was also my conviction that we would have better chosen that track, but we must admit that it was not chosen in the committee. There has been the assumption that we can better prohibit everything, because that 1% is still too much. If there can be one ball left so that the life can cost one child, that is too much. In fact, there is something to say about it.

The second approach is that we define which specific types of ammunition we want to allow and which we want to ban.

The initiative was given, from the Senate, to ban everything. So we were almost forced to examine what we wanted to keep out of it. Then we come, as my predecessors already said, to light ammunition, smoke and exercise ammunition, defensive ammunition, as colleague Meeus correctly cited, and finally also the anti-tank ammunition with inert loads, holy loads, and so on. We would all let them out.

In my personal name, I said in the committee meeting that it seems to me better to reverse the reasoning: instead of prohibiting everything and making a very long list of what is allowed, we can better say specifically what we want to prohibit. We are prohibiting the so-called CBUs, which are anti-personnel fragmentation bombs. This reverse reasoning, however, requires a full amendment of the text, and a reference to the Senate. Then we come back to the story that will last weeks and months. There were colleagues — and I follow them — who chose to finish the bill and approve it.

I note, in the margin, that in this debate we are actually somewhat the hostage of the quick work of our colleagues in the Senate. Our respectable colleagues, for whom I have great respect, and who very often do very good work in the depth, have, in my opinion, taken us a little hostage this time.

We are facing the difficult task of addressing this issue, after a lot of hearings and discussions in our committee. It is a difficult task, but ⁇ we have found a solution.

After all, colleagues, the complete ban is not only not pragmatic, it is also difficult to defend internationally. I invite those who want to take the lead to go and defend it everywhere in the window of the United Nations. I wish them good luck, but it will probably not succeed. It will succeed if we focus specifically on one aspect of it, namely the anti-personnel fragmentation bombs.

For all clarity, it is not just about employment in the Leikse. It is not just about employment in the port of Antwerp, which could also be affected by such a complete ban. It is not just about the interests of the allies, who also want to talk about it. It is about choosing pragmatism, for clarity, for clarity.

That has led us, colleagues, to prepare a second bill, which has been signed by the majority parties, to be submitted here. Indeed, as I said to the colleagues who asked for it, it has been submitted, but it has yet to be translated. It must follow its path and will most likely be considered in the course of the plenary session next Thursday. I hope, together with the other signatories of the majority parties, that we will then very quickly be able to proceed to the examination and approval of the additional bill.

Can Mr. Sevenhans interrupt you for a moment, Mr. Goris?

I have tried to interrupt you several times, Mr. Goris. You have just started your argument with the word "conceptual confusion." Can you explain what you mean by "an anti-personnel weapon?" Or what is the difference right? I would like to know, because that is important.

What I ⁇ disagree with you is that you now want to blame our colleagues in the Senate. The guilty is there: Mr. Van der Maelen. Mr. Van der Maelen wants to get his trophy and therefore he wants a bad bill to be approved here. Indeed, we are held hostage, but not by the Senate. I now feel the protector or the defender of the Senate.

Not only you, also the MR has spoken about a bill that would be submitted here and that would have a fairly large impact on that bill. Should we have access to that proposal, Mr. Goris?

It is called an anti-personnel fragmentation bomb, because one speaks in military terms of both personnel and equipment. That is the name of it. That is my answer to the first question.

Second, I have the utmost respect for our colleagues in the Senate. I am also convinced that they have dealt with, discussed and approved the text with the best intentions, just as we also have the best intentions and share them with each other. In the end, we all have the same intention, let that be clear. But for the pragmatic application, not only for the industry but also for the allies, it is of the utmost importance that there is clarity in the terminology. Read the Senate report. Read, in the two languages, French and Dutch, the two versions of the report on it and you will find yourself that there is ⁇ more than one misconception possible.

This misconception is completely corrected by the additional bill submitted to the services and currently being translated. It will be published next week so that next week’s Thursday can be considered. I have no problem with sending a copy to anyone who wants to see the piece. However, I am concerned that the document is currently available only in French.

I would like to emphasize that the VLD has always fully supported the purpose of the bill. Therefore, we will approve the present bill today. Nevertheless, we are very pleased that a corrective bill is coming, which will clarify the pragmatism we support. In addition, it will provide a number of clarifications to the stakeholders involved. I also call on the government to work quickly and with insight. Parliament will also have to take responsibility in this regard. In the end, we must come to a simultaneous entry into force of both proposals, so that there can be no misconception as well.

I also have a call to the members of CD&V. I see that colleague De Crem is just as absent. I also had a conversation with him about this. He declared himself in principle in favour of this pragmatism and was willing to support the initiative. This is not an exclusive Belgian issue. It is a document that we must defend to the outside world. We need to find other countries that want to step in our direction. We have the good habit of taking one position in international affairs across party borders.

The VLD will fully support the present proposal. We hope that both proposals can be fully approved and implemented very soon.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in the debate on cluster bombs, which has taken place in the House over the past two months, I have very often had a sense of déjà vu. It reminded me of the debate on landmines, which we held here eleven years ago. In itself, this is not surprising, because the reasons why we here eleven years ago issued a ban on landmines in Belgium are the same as for a ban on cluster bombs. In fact, cluster bombs are more dangerous than landmines.

I want to say something to Mr. Sevenhans. Mr. Sevenhans, you may know nothing about neutron bombs, but you know nothing about international humanitarian law or war law. International law states that war may be justified, but that the obligation rests on the conflicting parties to respect civilians as much as possible by using weapons that distinguish as much as possible between military and civilian.

Therefore, one has the duty to use weapons that make as much distinction as possible between military and civilian. Landmines, but ⁇ cluster bombs, have a big problem. The figures are clear. The numbers of victims caused by cluster bombs indicate — listen carefully — that 90% of the victims are civilians, civilians, non-military. Disaster over disaster, 25% of those 90% victims are under 18 years of age. That is why we say that cluster bombs are inhumane weapons, weapons that enter against the duty that rests on the conflicting parties for the sake of international humanitarian law and the law of war.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I ⁇ do not feel called to defend cluster ammunition, submunition or whatever you want to call it. No one likes to defend ammunition, no one likes to defend bombs and grenades. However, this is not his concern. I have made it clear that I can understand you ethically. I think that every party has the same intention, namely to make as few civilian casualties as possible.

I also said in the committee that human weapons simply do not exist. You always want to create the atmosphere that cluster ammunition is just meant to kill children. This is not true, it is a consequence of it. I think we want to fight as much as possible, both my group and your group. This is not the matter at all.

I have heard here clearly say, by different people, by members of different factions, that we are all convinced — apparently not you but you are then the only one — that this is a bad bill. There is a need for repair, that’s all. If this law fits well, I would more than want to support you. However, you have delivered a bad threat here and I have a problem with that. That is why I voted against in the committee, not because I would be against the principle, but simply because it is technically so bad. It hangs with heels and eyes together. That is the essence.

Do not put words in my mouth, I ⁇ do not feel a defender of cluster ammunition.

I would only like to give Mr Sevenhans the good advice not only to be informed by the military and the weapons industry but also to look at the internationally available information on cluster bombs. Take a look at the information provided by the United Nations or internationally recognized organizations such as Handicap International in this area. 90% of cluster bomb victims are civilians. The point.

I have said that I have had a déjà vu feeling several times. When we debated about landmines, I saw active lobbying from the weapons industry. In this case, they have been very active until the last moment. In the file of the mines I have seen the action of military organizations such as NATO. Also in this file there have been signals from Evere with the urgent request to Belgium not to do this.

The big brother from over the ocean intervened in 1995, when we debated about landmines, and has also done so in this file. All other interests, port interests from the Flemish side, have in the landmines file a stake for this bill attempt to steal. This is the case in the landmines. This was also done in this dossier.

Colleagues, I am delighted today that we all take the only possible ethical position, namely that for weapons that make civilian casualties to such a degree no economic argument can weigh heavy enough not to ban those weapons. No diplomatic argument can move us to allow these weapons. Nor can any military argument encourage us not to ban this weapon.

I hope that in the future, at the time of the vote, anyone who weighs and wonderes whether there are economic, diplomatic or military arguments that can lead to not proclaim a ban on this type of weapons.

Another déjà vu feeling. The opponents of this ban point to us as the naive, the dreamer. In the case of land mines, the same thing happened. We approved this in the Chamber in 1995. The Treaty of Ottawa was already on the table in 1997. Today, 147 countries have joined, who have signed the Ottawa Convention and who, like Belgium in 1995, which was the first country to ban those mines, are now on our side. If we develop an equally active diplomacy — I call on the government and our Minister of Foreign Affairs in this — then I am convinced that, counting from today, 10 years from now, it is very well possible that we have an equally great success.

Currently, 160 NGOs are actively working to edit all Member States, public opinion, parliaments and governments. Last year, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called on all UN countries to take measures in 2006 to limit cluster bombs. This current is rising more and more.

Those who do not enroll in that stream should, in my opinion, undergo a conscientious examination as soon as possible.

Colleagues, I had a sense of déjà vu several times in this debate, but also a sense of du jamais vu. From the Flemish Importance we are a lot ordinary. We know that in the case of the night flights, the Flemish Belang in the Rand takes the lead of the resistance against the night flights. At the same time, the aviation specialist of the same party, Mr. Van Gaver, is for night flights. There is another case, that of: the Vaaslandhaven. In Antwerp they are for the development of the Waaslandhaven. In Switzerland, they are against it. We know the Flemish Importance of the Two Faces.

Colleagues, what they perform in this dossier — I invite you to read pages 37 and 38 of the report — is incredible. Within a period of less than half an hour we hear black and white in this file. I quote the final sentence of Mr. Van den Eynde’s speech: “The Flemish Interest fully opposes the further manufacture of this kind of ammunition.” I repeat it. His group strongly opposes the further production of this type of ammunition.

Please read the report and amendment. 9 of Mr. Sevenhans. Compare that with all other amendments submitted. There is no other amendment that favors the weapons industry more than this amendment.

First Van den Eynde with the Flemish army that stands on the IJzervlakte, the pacifism. I think the soldiers on the Iron would have reversed themselves in their grave if they saw with what kind of amendments the Flemish Interest comes forward. I repeat the most comprehensive amendment that best meets the needs of the weapons industry. It must be done!

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions. You will understand that I feel somewhat concerned and hope that this year I will be able to meet Mr. Van der Maelen at the IJzertoren. He is definitely welcome. I ⁇ don’t want to contradict the fact that there are two bells with sound in the committee. On the one hand, there is the ethical principle. The Flemish Interest can follow you in there. On the other hand, there is the practical implementation.

Mr. Van der Maelen, in my speech I have made clear that for me it is about the practical fulfillment of this bad bill.

This is very clearly and with so many words also admitted by the VLD: it is a bad bill. I have always kept that in mind. The ethical principles were defended by colleague Van den Eynde and I can fully agree with that. Their

Second, a contradiction in the party? I heard Vande Lanotte this week, both as Stevaert. I can also make a list! Give me 5 minutes and I have a list. In our party, we are thinking and discussing, Mr. Van der Maelen, and there is nothing wrong with that. Their

I would like to ask you a technical question. You are quite one-sided in raising arguments. You say that cluster ammunition affects 90% of civilians. I believe you, but can you mention this for other bombs or weapons? Otherwise, it is quite unilateral. An atomic bomb that still exists. What is the percentage of civilian casualties? What is the point of calling a number, if you do not compare it to anything else? From you, the great weapons specialist, or weapons fighter, apologize, I liked to get a little more argumentation, and not always one-sided.

In response to what is said here, I actually have only one question. I am curious who will follow the Flemish Block Fraction later: Francis Van den Eynde or Sevenhans? Will they, in the so-called Flemish pacifist tradition, follow Van den Eynde or will they follow Sevenhans in the militarist tradition? This is the question I ask. I am curious to see whether the whole Flemish Interest Group will soon be the only group that will vote against this bill.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I do not have to explain to you how a parliament works! There is the work in the committee and there is the vote here in the plenary session. The work of the committee involves the discussion of whether the draft is technically correct, whether all the arguments are cited, whether any corrections need to be made and whether amendments should be submitted. Here, in the plenary session, the great principles are defended. You will soon see our voting behavior. Their

It is not about who one follows, it is about whether we defend the ethical principle here or the practical fulfillment. The answer to the practical fulfillment was already given by my good colleague, Mr. Goris, who also says that they will approve it, but that it is a bad bill. He says he is being held hostage by the Senate, but no: we are being held hostage by you. You want your trophy today and it will tell you what damage you are causing. You just want to go into history as Mr. Van der Maelen who arranged it. If you ever want to win the Nobel Peace Prize, you are on the right path.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss technical issues, but look at Mr. Sevenhans’ amendment. That amendment allows that a cluster bomb with less than 10 submunitions should not even have a self-destructive mechanism. None of the supporters has dared to go so far to propose such a kind of cluster ammunition. That is what you did, Mr. Sevenhans. You are the one who best meets the needs of the arms industry. I do not know who wrote your amendment. Is it the Forges de Zeebruges? Is it someone else? Your signature is underneath it.

I am moving around in two moves. Let me start with some bad news. How many countries have submunition? in 20 countries. How many countries produce submunition? of 34 countries. How many companies produce submunition? of 85 companies. How many countries export submunition or have they exported? 12 of countries. How many countries store submunition? in 73 countries. So far, the bad news, my colleagues.

I come to the good news. How many countries have destroyed all their stocks of submunition? and 16. How many countries decided not to use submunition with a high percentage of non-exploded submunition? of 10 countries. How many countries believe that no cluster ammunition can be used near populated areas? 4 of countries. How many countries have already proposed a ban on cluster ammunition in the past? 13 of countries. How many states require a moratorium on cluster ammunition? Two countries plus the European Parliament. Which countries called for an international treaty on cluster ammunition? 3 countries: Denmark, Mexico and Norway. In which countries are parliamentary initiatives taken to reach a ban on cluster ammunition? In Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, France and Italy. Which banks or funds no longer invest in cluster ammunition producers? KBC, Fortis, ING, Dexia and the Norwegian government pension fund refuse to invest in companies that produce cluster ammunition.

Now, my colleagues, the best news comes. Which country will be the first to announce a ban on cluster ammunition, later, if you want it? our country .