Proposition 52K1047

Proposition de résolution relative à la situation des droits de l'homme en Chine et à la question tibétaine à l'occasion des Jeux olympiques de 2008.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Nathalie Muylle
LE Brigitte Wiaux
MR Daniel Bacquelaine, Xavier Baeselen, Jean-Luc Crucke, Daniel Ducarme
Open Vld Herman De Croo, Hilde Vautmans
PS | SP André Flahaut

Submission date

April 10, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

China Olympic games Tibetan question resolution of parliament human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD 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 ¶

June 12, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to briefly report on the work of the Committee on Foreign Relations on the draft resolution submitted to your vote concerning the human rights situation in China and the Tibetan question, ahead of the 2008 Olympic Games.

In its session on 10 April 2008, the House accepted the urgency for the proposal for resolution No. 1047/1 concerning Tibet and the organization of the Summer Olympic Games of Mr. Z. Baeselen, Mrs Vautmans and consorts. Five other proposals – i.e. the interest of the House on this issue – related to the same subject were attached to this text and the Committee on Foreign Relations was seen returning six different texts from virtually all the political groups represented in the House.

The Committee on Foreign Relations then dedicated its first meeting on 16 April to a methodological debate which resulted in the removal of all these texts to a working group tasked with drawing up a common text. This meeting was held under the chairmanship of Mr. François-Xavier de Donnea on 28 April and 5 May following, which gave rise to an amendment by Mr. Baeselen, Mrs. Vautmans, Mrs. Muylle, Mr. Flahaut and myself, who replaced all the considerations and requests addressed to the government.

This text served as a basic text following the work of the committee. These events took place on 21 and 28 May this year.

To be comprehensive, it should be noted that before the discussions on this draft resolution, the committee had heard the Foreign Minister on March 19 about the situation in China and Tibet and had received the COIB Secretary General, as well as Ms. Zhang Qiyue, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China, and three representatives of Amnesty International.

As I said, at the meeting on 21 May, the committee took note of the texts from the work of the working group and therefore replaced the whole proposal with amendment no. 57. It was also decided, in particular because the Minister of Foreign Affairs was at that time in China and because China was mourning over the earthquake, that the actual discussion on the draft resolution would begin on May 28.

I will not take here all the elements of the discussion, but I will summarize it broadly, trying not to distort the remarks of each of the members of the committee.

by Mr. Baeselen first recalled the key elements of Amendment No. 57, which takes into account both the political developments in China and the complementary elements that we have had to examine. He recalled that it was about ⁇ ining some form of pressure on the Chinese government, on the general issue of human rights in China, with a particular focus on Tibet. For him, the resolution does not exclude a boycott of the opening ceremony, whose decision should however be made at European level depending on the evolution of the situation.

In the general discussion, Mr. Bruno Tuybens first took the floor to state that this draft resolution constituted a signal of the highest importance addressed to the Chinese authorities on the occasion of the Olympic Games. He noted that fundamental social and economic rights were widely violated in China, ⁇ in the context of the construction of the Olympic sites.

I then took the floor to wish, among other things, that China simply retains its rank of great power by respecting the standards and treaties of the international community, whether in terms of human rights, environment, trade and social standards.

by Mr. De Croo took part in the discussion by highlighting the arguments for and against the proposal. He considered it appropriate to be extremely cautious, especially with regard to a possible boycott of the opening ceremony: it would be a ⁇ heavy decision of consequences. On the other hand, he believed that the draft resolution could have a useful effect on public opinion and leaders in China. He submitted an amendment to replace point 2 of the arrangement that takes into account the recent opening to foreign media and calls for this opening to be extended until complete freedom of expression reigns for all media, both Chinese and foreign.

by Mr. Wouter De Vriendt, on the other hand, first referred to the draft resolution submitted by his group in November 2007. He welcomed that a step has been taken in this matter. He said the human rights situation in China was simply deplorable. “This country is a dictatorship,” he said, “human rights have a universal scope and Belgium therefore has the obligation to react.” He believes that the human rights situation in China has deteriorated in recent years. He also believes that the boycott of the opening ceremony would have a ⁇ large symbolic significance.

Denis Ducarme, for the MR, also indicated that the text of the resolution had a great importance in his eyes and that it had been long debated. He also believes that the organization of the Olympics has resulted in a deterioration of the human rights situation in China. Freedom of expression is further undermined; the number of incarcerated dissidents is increasing, he said.

by Mr. Van den Eynde also estimated that there were no human rights in China, no freedom of worship, no freedom of information, no freedom of the press, nor political freedom. He criticized the attitude of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government’s decision to offer an artwork to the Olympic Village.

Nathalie Muylle, for CD&V - N-VA, said that, in her opinion, two issues were essential: on the one hand, the human rights issue to which her group has always been ⁇ attentive – she ⁇ insisted that China finally ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights –; on the other hand, the Tibetan issue, the re-establishment of political dialogue and the need to conduct investigations into recent events. She believed that the issue of boycotting the opening ceremony should remain an open issue depending on the developments in the coming weeks.

Finally, Juliette Boulet concluded the general discussion by referring to the fact that a boycott of the ceremony could constitute an interesting means of pressure. She pledged that the resolution invites the Dalai Lama to the Belgian Parliament and that it be especially attentive to the fate reserved for the prisoner Hu Jia as well as the issue of electronic attacks.

At the end of the general discussion, the committee proceeded to the discussion and vote on the sub-amendments to the general amendment no. 25 of the President. Baeselen and consorts.

I will not return here to all the items that have been discussed. I am referring to the written report for the most important thing.

The amendments were submitted by Mr. Van den Eynde, De Vriendt and consorts, by Mr. From Croo and by Mr. by Tuybens.

Amendment no. 57 of the basic amendment was finally amended, taking into account in particular the amendment of Mr. De Croo on the recent opening of the Chinese authorities to foreign media, according to Mr. De Croo’s considerations. The question of the death penalty and Mr. De Vriendt and his colleagues on the issue of cyber attacks and the limitation of the use of the Internet in China.

The other amendments were rejected for the reasons you will find in the written report.

The title has also been amended by an amendment. Concomitants and consorts. The original title was therefore replaced by "Proposal for a resolution on the human rights situation in China and the Tibetan question on the occasion of the 2008 Olympic Games". This amendment was approved unanimously.

Finally, the amended and corrected draft resolution was adopted by nine votes and one abstention.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the authors of this resolution, in particular Ms. Vautmans and Mr. Baeselen and all members of the committee, both the majority and the opposition, who have actively contributed to the quality of the text submitted for your approval today.

I would also like to thank Mr. of Donnea, although he is absent for the moment, who has chaired the working group charged with proposing a common text, for the quality of his work.

I am confident that the text that will be put to the vote soon is both clear and nuanced and that it will contribute usefully to positive progress in China on the issue of human rights and that of Tibet.

I would like to add a few words on a personal basis. Of course, this resolution is not about hurting China. It is simply a matter of not shaking ourselves, not turning our eyes away and not closing our eyes to what is still happening today in Tibet and elsewhere in China. I believe that China can understand that the celebration of the Olympic Games will be wasted if, while the Games carry out their legitimate fast, joy and excitement, Tibet continues to suffer behind closed doors of repression, political rehabilitation and denial of its legitimate aspirations to be able to exercise its social, cultural and political rights.

I have a few registered speakers. I suggest that amendments are also defended in the general discussion; this is easier.

The speakers are MM. Baeselen, Ducarme, De Croo, De Vriendt, Flahaut, Mrs. Boulet, Mr. Tuybens, by Mr Van den Eynde, mevrouw Muylle in M. by Cocriamont.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. the rapporteur, whom I thank the passage for the quality of his report, obtained the urgency in plenary session on 10 April 2008.

Two months later, we are finally discussing our proposal for a resolution in a plenary session. First of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues, both the majority and the opposition, for working on improving the text of this proposal for a resolution. Some will not get it fully. By the force of things, it is a text that wants to be balanced – Mr. Germany recalled it.

Let us be clear! Will voting for a text in Belgium on the human rights situation in China and on the situation in Tibet serve anything? Obviously yes! First, because an assembly, in order to elaborate and vote on this text, must have some political courage. So far, no European Assembly has voted on a draft resolution on the human rights situation in China and the situation in Tibet. This, therefore, shows some political courage and I hope that all the groups will support this text soon.

I think this text will be useful only because of the reactions it may have caused here and there. The hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee of Ms. Ambassador of China in Belgium was instructive, as it allowed us to open the dialogue, but also to explain our different views on the issue of the evolution of human rights in China. This reinforces my conviction that we must, in the name of what the Ambassador herself called the universality of human rights, denounce the human rights situation in China, but also improve and strengthen the dialogue with China on this issue.

Together with the colleagues who submitted and amended this text, we wanted to extend the subject of the proposed resolution to the issue of human rights in general and not just to Tibet. If you allow it, I will delay a moment on the Tibetan question, reminding you, in the first place, that the European Parliament voted in April 2008 on a proposal for a resolution on the Tibetan question in which it takes a position.

On the one hand, the European Parliament strongly condemned the brutal repression exercised by Chinese security forces against Tibetan protesters and all acts of violence. The European Parliament has denounced the often discriminatory treatment of Chinese ethnic minorities that do not belong to the Han group. The European Parliament has called for an independent investigation into recent riots and repression in Tibet. The European Parliament called on the Chinese authorities to open Tibet to media and diplomats, said concerned about the growing economic marginalization of the Tibetan population in Tibet, which must face the arrival of an increasing number of Chinese migrant workers who come to Tibet and take over Tibetan jobs and land.

Finally, the European Parliament solemnly regretted the failure of the six sessions of negotiations between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama and called for the opening of a constructive dialogue without preconditions in order to reach a comprehensive political agreement on the situation in Tibet. We should welcome this position of European parliamentarians on the Tibetan question.

What is the text of the resolution proposal that we are going to vote this afternoon? First, the text, through its considerations, addresses the events that took place in Lhasa, Qinghai and Gansu. He also mentions the fact that these riots have unfortunately resulted in severe and sometimes hasty condemnations by the Chinese central authorities.

We denounce the fact that Tibetans are still suffering severe discrimination today. We must dare to say it and repeat it in the public tribune of this assembly. They are subject to discrimination in relation to the right to the exercise of culture, in relation to the right and use of the language, in matters of religion and teaching. We also denounce the fact that a policy of assimilation is being carried out in Tibet with, in particular, as the European Parliament has recalled, the sending of Han Chinese to Tibet.

Finally, we mentioned, in our resolution proposal, the first attempts to dialogue because in reality, it is not really a dialogue that opened today between China and the representatives of Tibet. This is a dialogue on the first conditions that will allow the opening of a more constructive dialogue – we hope – between China and Tibetans.

What are we asking in the resolution proposal? We ultimately demand in a very moderate way, as does the Dalai Lama – I would like to emphasize that the Dalai Lama also takes a moderate stance on the Tibetan question – an increased autonomy for Tibet and I specify, as he also does, in respect of the Chinese unity and its territory. We call for the resumption of a genuine serious dialogue with the Tibetans and we ask the Belgian government to maintain pressure on the Chinese authorities in this regard, including after the Olympic Games. This is very important because, today, we no longer talk about it in the media.

We also wish that the government can exercise influence for a thorough and independent investigation of the events in Tibet to be conducted on behalf of the UN and we ask the Belgian government to advocate for the opening of Tibet to the world, including foreign media.

I have finished with the aspect relating to the Tibetan question. Now I would like to address the more general issue of human rights in China. First of all, we must recognize and emphasize that China is a great country. This is a complex country, difficult to understand. One does not manage such a large country, such a large nation, as one manages any other small territory. It is obvious! We had the opportunity to discuss this in the Committee on Foreign Relations. We must also be able to acknowledge – and colleagues have done so with me in committee – that things are often developing positively and that China has made progress, undoubtedly in the fight against hunger.

The Chinese are no longer starving. This positive aspect should be emphasized.

Nevertheless, the critical points remain many and I will address them with you in the form of questions. If you can answer these questions by the affirmative, then it is useless to vote on the resolution proposal this afternoon.

Is the press free in China? Unfortunately no.

Is it possible to consult the internet freely? The answer is no. Very important filtering systems are being put in place by the Chinese authorities to restrict this freedom of consultation, freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Is freedom of association and demonstration guaranteed? The answer is clearly no. It is enough to convince yourself to read the numerous criminal provisions, in particular on inciting subversion.

Are the trials fair? The answer is unfortunately no.

Are torture and death penalty abolished? The answer is unfortunately no: 1,900 death sentences in 2007, which is a sad Olympic record.

These issues should be put on the political agenda. This is also the meaning of our resolution proposal. This was the case through a visit of a European delegation on the spot, led by Mr. by Barroso. This was also the case during the visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to China, although it must be acknowledged, the circumstances in which this visit was carried out probably did not allow sufficient emphasis on the issue of human rights in China, since the Minister of Foreign Affairs visited there just after the tragic events of the earthquake.

We must, of course, emphasize our sadness and solidarity with the victims of the earthquake, and also show our solidarity with the efforts made by the Chinese authorities to help the victims.

However, gender should not be confused. Our proposal for a resolution addresses the human rights issue and the Tibetan issue. As the rapporteur pointed out, we delayed somewhat the discussions in committees during these events. I know that mr. Flahaut submitted an amendment on this issue, but we had already addressed this issue in the Foreign Relations Committee. by Mr. De Donnea had pledged to work a text on this issue and I think he will do so. We advocate for the maintenance of the text in the state, while recalling, of course, our solidarity on the occasion of these events. There is no need to specifically mix the genres in the text that we submit today to your attention.

In the draft resolution, we call for pressure on the Chinese government to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We demand that national and international press freedom be guaranteed. We ask the Belgian government to express, whenever it can, its criticism of the executions in China and to report regularly to the Belgian Parliament, which reserves the right to take new initiatives.

Next, we want to maintain the diplomatic pressure, but also – it is important to emphasize – the dialogue with the Chinese authorities after the Olympic Games.

I will end with a question regarding the possible boycott of the ceremony of the Olympic Games.

What is the position of the MR group on this issue? We have repeated this many times through the text of the resolution proposal: the most useful level to take a position on this issue is undoubtedly the European level. Politically, Europe will be able to react more strongly and intervene through a common position.

We know today that it will be difficult, or even impossible, but we do not despair and we advocate, through the text of the proposed resolution, that it be so: that Europe speak with one voice about this possible boycott of the official ceremony. If this is not the case, it will be necessary to take a position in a timely manner. Personally, I am not convinced that a boycott at the Belgian level alone will allow to exert the necessary and even useful pressure in relation to the progress of human rights in China. We will ⁇ have to discuss this in this meeting.

I thank you for your attention and for the constructive work of all members of this Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address again to Mr. Baeselen.

Mr. Baeselen, I must unfortunately disappoint you. I know that you, as the initiator, like others, would have very much liked to have voted that we, as the only Parliament, would adopt a resolution. We once questioned, and it turns out that four parliaments have already done so for us, namely the parliaments of the Czech Republic, Austria, Portugal and Denmark. The survey also shows that many parliaments will vote on identical resolutions in the coming weeks.

You decided your presentation with a European story and an inscription in it, and yet also the nonsense we had to establish in this regard. Per ⁇ there can be some dynamics. However, we note, in addition to our initiative, that many other parliaments in Europe are doing the same. This seems to be a positive evolution.

Thanks for this information.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I thank the reporter, and I also express my gratitude for the appropriate manner in which Mrs. Muylle and I have addressed this topic. Indeed, this topic was put on the agenda of April, but the fact that we held several meetings and working groups, I think, with the contribution of everyone, has improved the present resolution. That is obvious.

I think we should always honor those who deserve honor: the Baeselen amendment was taken as the basis for the current text.

Before I wish to express my position and that of my group on the resolution itself, I would like to take a few moments from the House to recall that China has suffered hard in recent weeks and days. I look at the earthquake of a little month ago, on 12 May, in Sichuan, with officially about seventy thousand dead and a death toll that may still rise to one hundred thousand, with almost five million civilians being driven out of their homes there and with people suffering under severe conditions and threats. I find it only normal, even though I understand Mr Flahaut’s amendments, that we remain silent for a moment. It is obvious that a number of parliaments, including the European Parliament with a recent motion, have paid attention to this.

It is also important, apparently for the first time, that in this dramatic matter China has, to a certain extent, opened the doors of its closure to a number of reporters, though, Mr. Van den Eynde, with restrictions which are striking in comparison with what has happened in Burma in recent times.

It is also necessary to say things as they are. Yesterday, June 11, however, for the first time official negotiators from Taiwan went to Mainland China. Those who visit China regularly or follow it a little, know how peculiar can be the position of an island that for some is part of China and for others follows a certain course apart from the capital, and where millions of mainland workers work for Taiwanese companies.

It is the first time, I think, that there have been meetings at the summit of both governments. This is indeed modest. We must be careful. Until recently, we have seen that the reporting related to the areas where the earthquake occurred is still, to a certain extent – for example, I can understand that, when it brings out the reaction of parents of crashed children – is dampened by the regime.

It is obvious that we cannot see one without the other. The most important thing we’re talking about today is how a small country like ours, a 294th portion of China’s surface with a 130th portion of the population, can still exert influence. We have seen, after the committee meetings we have held, to the responses of Mrs. the Ambassador of China in Belgium, that it is important. An appropriate chain response from other parliaments will of course give weight to our Parliament’s position on human rights in China.

It is clear that Tibet has emerged in dramatic circumstances and that the European Parliament resolution of 10 April was based mainly on those dramatic elements, right in my view.

We must also not forget that many other minorities in China today appear to not be able to ⁇ their rights either.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw the attention of our former President, Mr. De Croo, to the fact that I especially remembered the visit of Mrs. Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China that she had as a message: we do good business together and do not interfere with the rest.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you have become a great supporter of the Karel De Gucht doctrine, the “sovereinism”. He said this at one of the committee meetings. He has made it clear that in the world there is a tendency of a number of countries not asking for interference if things go well. Probably things between China, Belgium and Europe are not going bad.

However, this cannot exclude that we have the right to react. Why do we have the right to respond? When the Olympic Games were entrusted to Beijing, a kind of arrangement was made in which the Chinese authorities accepted – otherwise those games might never have been granted to them – to take a tolerant attitude and not only during the Olympic Games. In addition, there was also a considerable improvement on the occasion of these Olympic Games. Nearly contractual – this is one of my first arguments – it is seen that China has declared to make a compensation for obtaining the Games. Of course, this compensation must also be honored.

At a certain point, one may wonder how far one can go in the view that human rights should be regarded unnuanced as an indispensable element for relations that our country would have with another country. According to Amnesty International, there are approximately 155 countries that are cited in varying degrees as violating human rights in some way. Some do this very seriously while others do it in a modest way. However, one cannot be a little pregnant: if one violates human rights, we have the right to react. At the same time, it must be said, to those who have visited China for several years in a row, that some of the most basic human rights – to be fed, to be protected and to exercise, to a certain extent, the right to health – in that country, thanks to the economic recovery and ⁇ also thanks to the combination of a liberal way of doing the economy, have seen an improvement that can be emphasized.

How far should we go, would we take this opportunity to see our pressure for a better fate for the Chinese become reality? One can, of course, move to a boycott of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. In the committee, Minister De Gucht, following his statements after his trip to China, made it clear that heads of state, whether a king or a president of a republic, are invited to attend that opening ceremony. He would recommend the Belgian government to have the Crown Prince represent our country.

I will remain there for a few moments. I know that the head of state has an obligation to comply with Belgian laws. He swears this in his oath. This also applies to the Crown Prince. If a country like China makes an invitation to the head of state of another country, then this may have been tested and then one should check whether certain attitudes, which internally may count on great success, can not work counterproductively and put less ground on the dive. The deck we are trying to build.

It is also evident, Mr. Van den Eynde, that there are economic ties between Belgium and China, very important even. I remember very well that when I was minister of PTT long ago – that was the name at the time – we started laying the first stone of Bell Shanghai. That was more than 22 years ago. Bell Shanghai is now likely to be called Alcatel Bell Shanghai. That was one of the four or five first companies we established there. I’m not talking about Inbev, about Janssen Pharmaceutica and others. If I look at the commercial ties between that country and our country, I must say that there is about a turnover of 14 billion euros per year. That does not forgive anything: that explains that we also have the opportunity to have contacts through numerous delegations, by many persons from among us who are present there, to make our position valid there too in areas other than those of pure commercial relations.

What do we have for us at the moment, Mr. President? We have a tough resolution of the European Parliament of 10 April. There is another second resolution of the European Parliament related to the dramatic conditions following the earthquake and the consequences in China. We also have a resolution from our colleagues in the Senate, who are probably now debating about it and which appears to be somewhat similar to that of our House.

Er is also, en ik wil er enkele paragrafen uit citeren, een soort verklaring van de Raad van Europa. You know that of the Council of Europe two languages used, of which French is one. As the host country of the Summer Olympic Games, China has an exceptional opportunity to show to Europe and the world that it is determined to improve the country’s situation in the fields of democracy, human rights and the rule of law which are, let us remind, the fundamental values of the Council of Europe. The [...]

Our Member States should be persistent and consistent in their action towards China in order to ⁇ concrete improvements in this country in the areas of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, including freedom of expression.”

I think that the declaration of the European Parliament, the resolution of the Council of Europe, the Belgian Senate and the House of Representatives are going in the direction we aim. That means at the same time caution with regard to the boycott of the Olympic Games for which athletes have been preparing for years. This may be counterproductive to the goal we aim for. However, the resolution confirms that possibility to some extent.

There was also a goodwill to include some of our amendments in the resolution. One of these amendments refers to the role of Belgium. After all, we provide the Chairman of the IOC which allows a certain degree of diplomacy to be exercised. Respect for human rights should not be a temporary focus until the Beijing Olympic Games and should not be discussed afterwards. Remember that in a few years the world exhibition will take place in Shanghai. The efforts for Chinese human rights and Chinese minorities should not be neglected.

Our group has made a lot of positive contributions. Also Ms. Vautmans, who today apologizes for her absence. Our group has sought to promote a balanced attitude. I explained in the committee what the pros and cons were in general of such an attitude. We find that this resolution, with its considerations, dismisses what largely lives in this Chamber and what largely lives in the country and in the public opinion.

It is obvious that one cannot do the opposite of what one says one does. We have contacts in several countries with multiple regimes. On the scale of human rights we will use the appropriate weight. We think that for China, for its international impact, for the responsibility it has to take, for the enormous weight it develops, the time has come for democracy. Whenever we can, this Chamber is a suitable forum for that, we must insist on what is essential. We have also worked on this in the last decades. That is the defense of feasible human rights, the essence of which is freedom and the rule of law. I am convinced that this resolution embodies that. Therefore, our group will approve them.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, finally, finally, the Belgian Parliament will today take a position on the Olympic Games in China, the human rights violations and the repression in Tibet.

To illustrate the situation in China at the moment, less than two months before the start of the Olympic Games, I would like to tell you what, according to the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch, happened in the city of Xijang on June 4, 2008. On June 4, 2008, a few days ago, a commemorative ceremony was organized in the aforementioned city for the protests and repression on Tiananmen Square in 1989. That was nineteen years ago. During the commemorative ceremony, more than 200 police officers broke in and arrested all participants. This is the opening of the Chinese government less than two months before the start of the Olympic Games.

Today, according to Human Rights Watch, following their protest on Tiananmen Square nineteen years ago, there are still 130 people in Chinese prisons. Colleagues, if the Chinese government is serious about human rights, let it release the aforementioned prisoners ahead of the Olympic Games.

The position of Ecolo-Green! is known. In November 2007, our group already submitted a proposal for a resolution on human rights violations in China and the Olympic Games. At that time there was no mention of the repression in Tibet in March 2008, which the entire world community has been able to establish. At the time, however, we were convinced that the Olympic Games in China could not continue as if nothing was happening.

The International Olympic Committee and the international community, including Belgium, should not miss the opportunity to send a critical signal now. We want to use the Olympic Games as a lever to dramatically improve the human rights situation in China.

China is not a democracy. China is a country where human rights are violated in a serious, systematic and organized manner. Opponents and critics of the regime are arrested, imprisoned, often tortured and executed. This is usually done without a fair trial. Trade unions other than the government trade union are prohibited. The working conditions are abominable. Members of the religious Falun Gong are hunted wildly and there is a strict censorship of the press. Free media in China is non-existent.

In the run-up to the Olympic Games, in the run-up to that mass event, massive people were expropriated for the construction of the Olympic infrastructure. Half a million people were evicted from their homes in Beijing to allow the construction of the infrastructure. According to a report from this year’s Play Fair organization, a lot of sports clothing and merchandising for the Olympic Games were made by children.

In March, Tibetan protests took place. The Chinese repression of the protesters was harsh. According to Tibetan sources and human rights organizations, up to 100 people were killed. Dozens of Tibetans were convicted without trial. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the special rapporteurs who wanted to investigate the situation on the ground were denied access. Lawyers who wanted to defend the Tibetans were put under pressure and some even lost their license, a license that needs to be renewed annually in China.

Colleagues, it is important that we do not engage in cultural relativism by saying that human rights is a typical Western affair. Human rights are universal. Should Olympic Games be organised in a country where human rights are systematically violated? That is the question whose answer, unfortunately, lies behind us. The question is no longer relevant, but it must be clear that it has been a great foolishness to organize the Olympic Games in that country. That foolishness can be written on the account of the officials of the International Olympic Committee.

What was the IOC’s first response to the findings of human rights violations in China? The show must go on. Hein Verbruggen, head of the evaluation committee, said at some point that he would only pay attention to the sports technical facilities and infrastructure to decide whether or not the Olympic Games could continue.

Politics and sport should be separated. There is a word for this, especially amoral. It is immoral to remain blind to what is happening outside the walls of the sports stadium. Everyone knows that the Olympic Games are about much more than just sports.

Principle 5 of the Olympic Charter states that any form of discrimination against a person on the basis of religion or politics is contrary to the Olympic movement. Principle 8 of the Olympic Charter states that the practice of a sport is a human right.

It is said that the Olympic Games can be the engine of change. This was the starting point of the silent diplomacy carried out, among others, by Jacques Rogge.

Colleagues, the diplomacy was so silent that no one heard it, not the public opinion, but not the Chinese authorities. The silent diplomacy of Jacques Rogge and others has gloriously failed. We must dare to admit it. There were not only the repression in Tibet in March of this year and the political processes that followed, there are also a number of recent reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, from April 2008, showing that the situation has not improved in the run-up to the Olympic Games.

According to Amnesty International, the situation has worsened. Peaceful activists were imprisoned, in something that can be called pre-Olympic cleaning, such as activist Hu Jia, who was imprisoned on March 18. Petition signatories must follow a reeducation through labour program. This is forced labor. Just a few days ago, on June 6, Human Rights Watch made two statements to the UN Human Rights Council.

What did Human Rights Watch say a few days ago? “Journalists continue to be subject to all kinds of abuses, from death threats to arbitrary arrests, despite the new regulations that should give them greater freedom.” Remember, colleagues, the relative freedom of the press in China was an argument for us to still see somewhere a positive evolution. Human Rights Watch formally denies this.

A second quote reads as follows: “In the months preceding the Olympic Games, the Chinese government still violates international and national laws, by denying access to Beijing to those it considers unwanted.”Today we could read how Tom Van de Weghe, a VRT correspondent, was arrested for a time by the Chinese police, when he wanted to report on the earthquake and its consequences. That journalist of the VRT speaks publicly today about a repression, about a beat-hunt on pressmen.

Colleagues, very current developments show that there is no improvement in the human rights situation in the run-up to the Olympic Games. It is important to establish that. China had made a number of commitments and made a number of promises. They have only partially fulfilled them. A critical signal, colleagues, is definitely at issue. It is a shame to say that, but in fact the international community is awakened to the repression in Tibet. It was only in April that a resolution was adopted in the European Parliament and a signal was given. Also in April and May there were many heads of state who criticized the situation in China.

This Parliament was also awakened in March-April. We have all been able to start discussing a number of resolutions here. The resolution on human rights violations in China will be adopted today. Our Ecolo-Green group! has amended the majority resolution that is now ahead and attempt to make it sharper. Some of our amendments were adopted. There was room for discussion and debate in a constructive atmosphere. I would like to thank all the colleagues who have contributed to this.

The resolution condemns human rights violations, cites reports from human rights organizations and also calls on the government to urge China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If we approve this resolution soon, we will ask the Belgian government to criticize the Chinese government over the human rights violations in the country.

However, this does not mean that the above text is too weak for us. He is too weak for a number of reasons. We have pledged for a clear demand for the release of the arrested demonstrators, for a Belgian leading role in the whole debate, for a sharp condemnation of the Chinese repression in Tibet and for a high-level meeting between the Belgian government and the Dalai Lama. We wanted to preserve our amendment in which we, as Parliament, ask the government to invite the Dalai Lama to a meeting. It is in your banks. We also suggested referring to the rights of all those who were put out of their homes for the construction of the infrastructure and the violations of labour rights that accompanied it. These and other suggestions from the Ecolo-Green! group were not accepted by the majority.

What do we see in the Senate? The proposal for a resolution by Ecolo colleague Josy Dubié to send a strong critical signal on human rights violations in China was voted today. However, the text was under fire, colleagues, especially at Open Vld. In response to Paul Wille, the Open Vld has launched a series of amendments and comments on the text of that resolution. Well, that is capitulation to Chinese pressure. This is very unfortunate, colleagues. Mr. Tommelein, I hope that you, as the party leader in the Chamber, will not make the same mistake.

I have clearly communicated the position of Open Vld. I made nuances. I also remembered things that are important. We have not changed our position. Furthermore, we are on the basis of the best possible acceptance of the resolution.

Mr. De Croo, that does not take away that your faction in the Senate has tried to weaken the text sensitively. That is regrettable.

This is the room here.

Mr. De Friend, you are part of a meeting. This is the room. Opinions are taken by our group. You know the position of our group. We support this resolution, you know that. It makes no sense to involve another assembly. In the future, you will also start with the Flemish Parliament, the Wallish Parliament and other parliaments. This is the room and here we are discussing.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm what the speaker on the tribune says and confirm that he is right. This is indeed here the Chamber and the Senate, that is another assembly, but I thought – ⁇ I am mistaken – that there is only one Open Field, or there are maybe three or four, depending on the relations that one has in China?

Colleagues, in the last few weeks we have seen that the entire discussion about the Olympic Games and a resolution has focused on a possible boycott of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. Let us be clear: a boycott of the Olympic Games itself would be a very bad thing, because it would first affect the athletes. However, a boycott of the opening ceremony by guests from as many countries as possible would be a strong critical signal.

Therefore, our surprise was great when we learned that our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Karel De Gucht, during his visit to China a few weeks ago suggested that Belgium would indeed be present at this opening ceremony. Colleagues, better than Ms. Muylle of CD&V, a majority party, I cannot actually say: Karel De Gucht has spoken in turn. We wanted to keep a boycott of the opening ceremony behind hands and we oppose Karel De Gucht who last week said he did not want to boycott the opening ceremony. Strategically, this is not a sensible thing. Why not ? This is because we are already giving up a pressure tool.

Fortunately, other leaders have not followed the example of Belgium. Other government leaders have called for a boycott of the opening ceremony, such as the British prime minister and the Canadian prime minister. It seems to us that our Minister of Foreign Affairs works with two sizes and two weights: a courageous stance towards the Congo, but afraid to blow China by the head.

I am confessing, my colleagues, that I must now blame myself for plagiarism. Mrs. Muylle of CD&V has, after all, formulated it so beautifully in an opinion piece. Mrs Muylle said in that opinion statement that she is very sorry, very sorry that Minister De Gucht has already made promises not to boycott the opening ceremony, rather than expecting a European position.

I can’t do anything but plagiarize. I really didn’t want to lose those beautiful words of Mrs. Muylle. That is why I put them in an amendment. It goes without saying that we are already ⁇ looking forward to the support of Mrs. Muylle and of the whole CD&V group, because I cannot imagine that Mrs. Muylle would also have spoken in her turn.

We look forward to this and hope that, thanks to the support of the CD&V Group, our amendment will be adopted.

It may be an opportunity, Mrs. Muylle, to be consistent and follow your statements in the press with clear support for our amendment, an amendment that opens up the boycott of the opening ceremony. We rely on it, the Tibetans rely on it, and the human rights organizations that have read your opinion piece rely on it.

In a subsequent amendment, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we ask, if one fails to reach a European position, to leave an unilateral Belgian boycott of the opening ceremony open. We want to make this decision dependent on the evolution of human rights in China. We propose that the decision be made after a parliamentary debate, prior to the start of the Olympic Games on 8 August.

Colleagues, I would like to note, however, that our amendments will increase the weight of Parliament. The weight of Parliament increases with our amendment, because we can make a voice heard through a debate and thus influence the government’s decision.

Let us not weaken ourselves as Parliament today. Let us force our place in the debate about human rights violations in China.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to help a misunderstanding from the world. It is said that the resolution will not mean much. China is not awake to what other countries think. Some even say that open criticism would be counterproductive. I want to contradict that, and some speakers before me have done the same. I think of Mr. Baeselen, for example.

I just tried to show that silent diplomacy has turned to failure and that there is no improvement in the human rights situation.

A few months ago, the Chinese ambassador visited the Chamber Committee on Foreign Relations and – Mr. De Croo already said it – she was clearly irritated by the many critical resolution proposals we were discussing.

On May 3, this year, the Wall Street Journal published an article about the An Yue Jiang. That is a Chinese ship, loaded with weapons, on its way to Zimbabwe, on its way to the Mugabe regime. Well, for several days, heavy international pressure was put on China to withdraw that ship, and it has succeeded. That means that international pressure, open criticism of the international community, makes sense.

We are doing meaningful work here. I hope we can finish this today in a good way.

China is doing everything possible to avoid vision loss. It is very important for the Chinese regime that the Olympic Games run quietly and that as many heads of government as possible participate in the opening ceremony of the Games. This is a priority for China. So, again, let us use it. Let us use those Olympic Games as a lever to force an improvement in the human rights situation. We have forgotten this for too long, my colleagues. We waited for the repression in Tibet.

Today, however, we have the opportunity to take a serious step forward. I would like to ask, colleagues, for the amendments of Ecolo-Green! to approve and explicitly dismiss a Belgian boycott of the opening ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, we finally have a resolution proposal and, if I understand correctly, there will be a second on the same topic in another assembly but drafted somewhat differently. Belgium will not only be original in all parliaments but it will also be original in its external presentation since there will be modulations according to the assemblies that will defend the amendments. This is bicameralism.

I will not return to everything that has been said. The work done was well done. by Mr. Baeselen took an initiative with Mrs Vautmans. This draft resolution was the subject of a consultation between the majority parties and we have tried to incorporate as much as possible the objections and proposals made by the democratic parties of the opposition. The work was done seriously. It should also be emphasized the quality of the work carried out by the group chaired by Mr. of Donna .

Today we arrive at a proposal for a compromise resolution, showing a balance and addressing the situation of a few weeks ago. One of the characteristics of our assemblies is, indeed, the slowness of their operation. I would not like to recall the slowness with which the draft resolution on Afghanistan is currently being examined. I would not like to recall further the anecdote concerning the resolution for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, deposited at an unmistakable time by Mr. Trump. Moriau and voted once the Syrians had left.

To avoid similar situations in the problem that concerns us today, it is useful not to waste time in submitting a new resolution to address the specific problem of the earthquake, its consequences and the necessary solidarity with China and its people affected by this disaster.

by Mr. Donna had the intention of preparing a text. Unfortunately, he is absent today and will be there a few more days. That is why, in a quite pragmatic way, to avoid wasting time and stick as much to the current, I propose an amendment that incorporates the question of the earthquake, the way the Chinese authorities responded to this disaster, the way the Belgian government implemented the B-Fast plan – after some insistence – the way to consider the next and show our solidarity in the reconstruction of this Chinese province, why not by identifying, in the reconstruction plan, two or three villages that we could help concretely.

This would not be an innovation; indeed, at the time of the Albanian crisis, we took our responsibilities by deciding to rebuild villages.

It is quite possible to consider this amendment today and vote on it in the plenary session. It is not necessary to send it back to the committee. Therefore, this would not delay the vote on the resolution. The aim is, in fact, to vote on this resolution and the aim of my amendment is to vote on an updated and complete text.

Mr. Flahaut, I was in your sense in the beginning of my speech.

However, since the European Parliament has submitted two resolutions, I feel that by voting your amendment, the balance of the resolution would be somewhat disturbed.

I respect your amendment. I even agree with you on the bottom. But I think it would be more useful to submit two separate resolutions rather than attach your amendment to that resolution.

Mr. Flahaut, as Mr. I also respect your amendment.

That said, this issue was discussed in the Foreign Relations Committee following the earthquake that occurred in China. The wish was issued to provide for two separate texts so as not to “disbalance” – I would say – the content of the text. I think it is better to work in this direction.

Mr. Flahaut, this issue was actually discussed in the committee during the consideration of the amendments. Unfortunately, he was absent as well. Moriau while you were, along with other colleagues, at the initiative of the resolution.

Considering the factors mentioned by Mr. De Vriendt as well as the statements of the VRT journalist, some corrections would probably be needed.

My speech is in the same line.

I think a resolution text should be broad and also a bit timeless. You draw up a number of things that are very valuable but that seem to me to disturb the balance of the text indeed. Moreover, you give a general positive assessment of the Chinese attitude toward the earthquake and its consequences. Today we effectively see that the repression of journalists who want to investigate the earthquake and the situation on the ground is increasing. A Belgian journalist who is arrested and detained is not something that light can be passed on. We can hardly support that positive assessment in your amendment.

Mr Flahaut, I have no problems with the content of your amendment, but we have discussed it in the committee. We did the same then, in analogy with the resolution on Burma. We also said that there are still many other links coming into the actuality. I think only of the relationship between China and Congo, between China and Iran, between China and Taiwan. There are so many things and I don’t think it’s a good idea to add them all now. There are separate initiatives and this would deviate from the core of the resolution. I do not think this is in place, but it gives you the freedom to take initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in the absence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other members of the government, one can effectively establish here a note of general policy on all the countries of the different continents. In this case, we are talking about China. It is the problem of the Olympic Games, to which a completely exceptional element is added: an earthquake, which has triggered the reaction of the Belgian government. We are therefore directly involved and, in a resolution, when certain things are positive, we must also be able to say it! It is not just about saying what is wrong!

The involvement of the Belgian government is indicated and it is requested that this government report to us on the work carried out on the ground in the framework of international solidarity. What is wrong with joining a problem of international solidarity and saying that we are ready to provide our support in plans for reconstruction of certain villages? We did it at other times. This does not disrupt the balance. It simply adds a new element.

Furthermore, Mr. De Croo, I would say that the amendment was submitted in an interest of effectiveness and by pure pragmatism. If we have to begin the same gymnastics, namely preparing a text that will be discussed for weeks before being put on the table, which will then return to committee to finally be discussed in a working group taking into account the agendas, by then China will have rebuilt five to six times the villages concerned. I am a pragmatist and I therefore propose to seize the opportunity of this resolution, on which there is an agreement at the basis, and ultimately to expand it in view of international solidarity.

You will tell me that it is not possible to mention, in this assembly, what is done in the other assembly. However, I can assure you that such amendments have been accepted in the other Chamber. We could therefore try to be a minimum of coherence – and I am not even talking about federated entities – by having resolutions close to each other according to the assemblies in which they are deposited. Therefore, I maintain the amendment and ask that we vote on this amendment today. We will count!

On 31 July 2001, Beijing was chosen by the Olympic Committee as the host country for the 2008 Olympic Games. That happened to the detriment of Istanbul, Paris, Osaka andToronto.

Since then, the international community in general and the Olympic movement in particular have been flattered by the Chinese authorities.

Indeed, in awarding the Olympic Games to China, the Chinese authorities themselves connected with human rights by asserting that the Olympic Games would also contribute to a general improvement of social conditions, including education, health care and human rights.

Meanwhile, together with the international community, we have been able to conclude in the past almost seven years that progress has indeed been made in some aspects, but that for the vast majority the opposite has become true.

A report by the International Olympic Committee formally outlined a number of conditions that China must see resolved before the start of the Olympic Games. The report included, among other things, press freedom and environmental protection.

Since then, some flexibility in terms of press freedom has been introduced, however, as long as it complies with Chinese law. A report by Human Rights Watch nuances this flexibility. When journalists want to report on sensitive Chinese topics, such as minority discrimination, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, social tensions and deplorable working conditions, they are often boycotted. They are threatened and detained, often by civilian agents. For Chinese assistants, translators and researchers associated with international news agencies, the situation is even worse. Their activities are closely monitored by state security. Dissidents are often imprisoned or placed under house arrest. Reporters Without Borders reports that the Chinese government has imprisoned more journalists than any country in the world. A few months ago estimate says the Chinese government has blocked more than 18,000 individual blogs and websites since April 2007.

Promising freedom of the press and inserting it into the law makes little sense if its observance cannot be enforced.

Today there was another incident. Tom Van de Weghe, VRT journalist, was arrested in Sichuan by Chinese police. He was deprived of his liberty for two hours. For a journalist, that is even worse.

Unfortunately, formal measures related to human rights were omitted in the conditions for the organization of the Olympic Games.

When we look at the history of China, we find that the actual discrimination against certain populations is very pronounced. The bloody repression of the uprising on Tiananmen Square is still fresh in memory. If Tiananmen had happened in our own country, we might all have been involved. It is therefore surprising that human rights were not included in the conditions for the organization of the Olympic Games.

Recent and less recent actions by the Chinese government often point toward a policy of censorship and repression. In addition, the country has a little envious reputation in terms of death penalty and torture.

Whether formal or informal conditions were imposed, whether or not the Chinese authorities used human rights themselves to get into the organization, the international community has been flattered by the Chinese authorities in Beijing. The Olympic movement itself has also been exposed. After all, the safeguarding of the dignity of every individual is the fundamental requirement of Olympism, is the very first of the more than 20 values of the Code of Ethics, which was approved by the IOC Executive Committee on 26 April 2007.

Article 2 of the Olympic Charter states that the Olympic Thought Credit is a philosophy of life that respects the universal ethical principles and emphasizes the preservation of human dignity and values such as friendship, solidarity and fair play. The IOC’s role and mission is to promote ethical principles in sport and to advocate for fair play and against violence.

In 2001, IOC President Jacques Rogge himself stated that the IOC was convinced that the Olympic Games would have a positive impact on China, in particular in terms of human rights. In 2004, he repeated that the IOC should continue to fight for values and respect for human rights.

If we only look at what human rights violations directly relate to the Olympic Games themselves, a hallucinating final picture remains glued to our net or drum fibers. The International Center for Housing Rights and Exposure ⁇ in December 2007 that more than 1.2 million people have already been removed from their homes due to infrastructure adjustments for the Olympic Games. The organization also estimates that every month 15,000 people are removed from Beijing, often from poor neighborhoods, in a brutal and arbitrary manner, without compensation.

Another striking example is that of the migrant workers in the construction sector. Human Rights Watch’s “One Year of My Blood” report denounces the deplorable condition of these workers. They work in dangerous conditions. Often they have to wait until the end of the year to be paid, if they are already being paid. They cannot respond because they have no contract, let alone because they have an official address in Beijing to safeguard their rights. The overwhelming majority are not eligible for an urban health fund scheme and cannot afford private health insurance.

Unlike other urban areas, millions of children of migrants have barely access to public education. An estimated 20 million children of migrants cannot live with their parents in the city, partly because they cannot attend education there.

The Chinese government has publicly acknowledged the hopeless situation of the migrant workers and is willing to take measures, but does not impose them in practice. It must enforce the existing labour law, as well as the new labour contract law, which came into force on 1 January 2008.

Minimum standards for the safety of workers are necessary, independent trade unions should be allowed, and so on.

The Chinese government has also admitted that in the last three years six workers have died at the Olympic sites themselves. This is probably the tip of the iceberg itself. Why can’t the activities on the Olympic sites be better controlled? What does the Chinese government do to ensure compliance with labor laws?

In a country of 1.3 billion people, it’s not obvious to control everything, but if state security manages to keep a close eye on those who are out of the regime, why is it so difficult to ensure that working conditions are respected?

Since the Charter of the Olympic Games explicitly states that the proclamation of certain values is of fundamental importance and determining the character of the Games, it is not unusual for various national and international bodies to wait for a signal against flagrant violations of human rights.

As long as the IOC does not give that signal, it implicitly acknowledges that it is flipped, that the Chinese authorities have led the committee around the garden. There is no evidence of improvement in the human rights situation.

When we briefly look into the human rights situation in China, many colleagues have already talked about Tibet. I will not do it myself. Recent events in Tibet may be the first reason for the draft resolution. However, we have always expressly called for attention to the wider problem of human rights violations. By the way, I am not based on the media reporting, but on reports that I have studied in detail over the past few months. These are reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, which are strongly methodologically supported and include both negative and positive developments, which are published only after thorough investigation and this for all countries.

Their conclusions are very similar. It is time to ring the alarm bell. Several publications have warned of a decline in human rights rather than a promised progress.

Minority discrimination remains a major problem in China. Tibetans, as well as the Uighurs, Mongols and North Koreans are the victims. They are all severely restricted in their freedom of religion, expression and association. They are also discriminated against in the labour market. More and more Han-Chinese are being sent to regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang, to shift the population balance in favor of the Chinese.

In June last year, authorities in Xinjiang seized passports of Uighur Muslims to prevent them from undertaking a pilgrimage to Mecca, which had not been approved by the State. Several tens of thousands of North Koreans have been hidden in China. Several hundreds of North Koreans are arrested and expelled every week, without any cases being submitted to the Refugee Commission. There would also be rewards for anyone who identifies North Koreans and so on. Other population groups, such as North Koreans in the Jilin province in northeastern China, whose children cannot go to school because their father or mother is not registered, were also hidden.

Structural discrimination against minorities is a particular focus on human rights in China and should be stronger condemned by the international community.

In addition, the Chinese government is systematically acting harder against lawyers and activists who advocate for the right to housing. Numerous human rights activists have long been arbitrarily and without charge detained, harassed, and so on. The government is also acting more and more harshly against journalists – as has been shown today – writers and internet users.

A large population group that requires and deserves special attention is the women. The economic and social backwardness of women and girls is reflected in the labour market, healthcare and education. Emerging state-owned enterprises are dismissing more women than men. Sixty percent of rural workers are women. Women are less likely to find employment in non-agricultural sectors. In the absence of a specific policy against HIV/AIDS, the number of infected women is significantly increasing.

The confession of faith is closely bound, if it takes place outside the prescribed channels. Thousands of members of the Protestant home churches and unofficial Catholic churches are detained. Many are abused and tortured during their detention. Members of the spiritual movement Falun Gong are being interned because of their beliefs. They are at great risk of being tortured or abused.

You know that, a system of administrative detention to detain people without charge or trial, has led to the detention of hundreds of thousands of people who are at risk of being tortured or abused. Torture and abuse are widespread. Widespread torture practices include beating, kicking, stroke, hanging on arms, chaining in painful positions, burning cigarettes expressing on the skin, denial of sleep and food, and so on.

Finally, the death penalty is still widely used. According to public reports available to Amnesty International, in 2006 at least 1010 people were executed and 2790 sentenced to death. In 2007, you just heard from colleague Baeselen, almost 2,000 people were executed. Executions are increasingly carried out through a lethal injection making it easier to remove organs from executed prisoners, a lucrative activity.

The human rights situation in China can be described as disastrous.

There are some light points. China can rely on the fact that the country’s economic openness has, among other things, provided greater prosperity for a significant portion of the Chinese population. However, it is essential that this population is no longer deprived of the exercise of human rights.

This is the most important signal we must give to the Chinese authorities: we have nothing against the country, we have nothing against the Chinese authorities, we have something for human rights, we have something for people and human rights. Human rights are indivisible and therefore all equally important, be it civil or political rights or socio-economic and cultural rights. Human rights are inalienable and thus cannot be earned for good behavior or diminished for bad behavior. Human rights are also universal, so they apply in all countries in all circumstances.

Therefore, there are no excuses at the head of the authorities of the People’s Republic of China for not respecting human rights. The Chinese ambassador, Ms. Zhang, has asked in this Parliament to be gentle due to the evolution that the Chinese Republic is going through. Well, in my opinion, this does not impress. China needs to be addressed repeatedly on this subject, like any other country that steps the feet of human rights.

Before China was elected to the new UN Human Rights Council, it made a number of promises. China is a party to several international treaties, including the International Covenant on Socio-economic and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Conventions on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination and the Optional Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

China has ratified more treaties than the United States of America. However, there is a world of difference between approving and complying with the treaties. Does this mean that the Olympic Games should be boycotted? The answer is not at all. The athletes have been highly committed to the height of their careers and deserve, in addition, to be left with peace so that they can put their performance down in a serene climate. However, as the international community is flattered, the organization of the Beijing Olympic Games cannot be organized without a signal because of the community. Because of our full respect for the athletes, just staying away from official representatives of countries remains the only possible signal that our country, our Parliament, can give.

The sp.a. group is of the opinion that for these reasons our country should not be officially represented at the opening ceremony. In my proposed amendment – I think very responsibly and kindly – I leave the door open for a consensus position in the European Union. However, as long as there is no consensus, the presence of an official authority, whether it be the prince, the crown prince, another member of the royal family or an official representative of the government or the Parliament, seems to me inappropriate, given the human rights situation in China with its 1.3 billion inhabitants. This seems to me very clear. In other words, I support the call made by colleague Muylle and senator de Bethune in that sense.

My surprise was as great as that of both ladies and several others that our Minister of Foreign Affairs came up with the suggestion to have a member of the royal family represent our country at the opening ceremony. I therefore hope that the parties today do not carry out a war of positions and let go of the struggle between majority and opposition to approve the responsible amendment, the consensus proposal of amendment. Whoever deserves honour, it is a suggestion from colleague Muylle.

In addition, I ask for a small addition to the text concerning the conditions in which migrant workers should live. The amendment was not approved by the Committee on Foreign Relations. However, I think I have been able to fully explain why this is an important aspect. The working conditions of migrant workers have been the subject of an additional, special study by Human Rights Watch. These working conditions, in particular due to the construction of the Olympic infrastructure, still require our attention. Therefore, I would like to strongly call on you to support the amendment. It is an addition of three words. So I can’t imagine that this can be a big problem.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I can tell you that our group, provided that the two amendments are accepted, can support the proposed resolution. We hope for a wide-ranging acceptance. I would also like to express my thanks to all colleagues who contributed to the draft resolution for their commitment and vision.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, as part of this parliamentary discussion on these resolution proposals dedicated to the holding of the Beijing Olympic Games, the Tibetan question, in particular the definition of the European position and the Belgian position in this regard, I would like to point out that the MR had requested and obtained the emergency in the plenary session last April 10th, or more than two months ago. It is only today that we are discussing this question and this proposal. So, let me ask yourself how the Parliament works at this level. We discussed the draft resolution. Moriau, among whom Mr. Flahaut has echoed. I will ask you to be willing from now on to ensure that proposals obtaining the urgency receive a more diligent treatment.

Nevertheless, the legislative work, the analysis of the different proposals for resolutions could be organized in committees in a very broad debate, perfectly arbitrated, a frank debate, ⁇ too frank sometimes. I mean as proof the welcome we were able to reserve in the Committee on Foreign Relations to the Chinese ambassador in Brussels, who did not fail to make us notice that the vote on a text could not but lead to consequences. I do not know if it was a warning or an attempt to intimidate, but in any case, it is an unacceptable approach in the head of a foreign diplomat towards our Parliament. I would really ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make sure to recommend to our Chinese friends a minimum of restraint when they are welcomed by our institution.

The proposal I defend today is the one filed on behalf of the majority by Xavier Baeselen, Hilde Vautmans, the representatives of the various parties of the majority. Mrs. Muylle, you indicated that we were not the first, but we are still among those who pave the way in relation to these resolution proposals. So this is a good point for Belgium. This proposal seems to me to carry political, social and humanitarian values, with respect to which we are entitled to expect efforts from China as part of its own organization of the 2008 Summer Olympics.

What is this resolution proposal? Respect for press freedom, respect for civil and political, economic, social and cultural rights, freedom of expression, respect for political and religious minorities, support for human rights and democracy defenders in China, resumption of a constructive and concrete dialogue with Tibetan representatives.

We have not, I think, forgotten anything so that this resolution proposal embraces the set of values that would guarantee the man in China the greatest possible freedom and the exercise of his responsibility. In 2001, when the Olympic Committee awarded the Olympic Games in Beijing, China pledged to promote human rights in its territory. This was said by my colleagues. It must be admitted that this is not the case.

Let’s talk about the death penalty. The number of executions carried out in the People’s Republic of China would continue to increase every year in trials that are most often unfair, disregarding the most basic rights of defence and denying lawyers the exercise of their prerogatives.

The executions . Some reports report 7,500 executions in 2006.

Rehabilitation through work. More than 250,000 people who have not been able to take advantage of a judgment or the services of a lawyer are now detained in labor camps on the sole basis of orders from the Chinese police services.

and torture . The UN Special Rapporteur recently ⁇ that torture and violence remain a widespread system in the judicial system.

Repression of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Thousands of people continue to be detained and convicted each year for using their right to freedom of expression. Every year hundreds of journalists continue to be disturbed, detained or convicted for the exercise of their profession. Violations of the freedom of the press would, according to a number of reports, occur on a daily basis.

In addition, many Internet users were imprisoned. Internet access is now very limited. See again – this has been stressed by our Dutch-speaking colleagues – what happened no later than a few days ago to a Belgian journalist.

Repression of religious freedom. Thousands of faithful of clandestine Protestant and Catholic churches were arrested and placed in work-based rehabilitation programs.

It was said in 2001 that all this would evolve in the right direction, that China would evolve towards more democracy, more respect for human rights, but we are obliged, Mr. President, dear colleagues, to see that the opposite is happening in the People’s Republic of China.

Strengthening the repression of freedom of expression. Reporters Without Borders has denounced that many people advocating the exercise of freedom of expression - in the image of Mr. Hu Jia, winner of the Sakharov Prize awarded by the European Parliament, against whom a 3.5 year imprisonment sentence has just been pronounced in April 2008 – seeking to express themselves freely are sentenced to several years in prison as the Olympics approach.

Indeed, the Chinese regime seems to intensify the incarceration of dissidents as the Games approach, in order to make it probably impossible for any critical expressions in the international press at the head of these activists towards the regime.

Expanding the missions of the work-based rehabilitation system, as denounced by Amnesty International, in order to improve the image of the city of Beijing during the Olympic Games. Multiple active, passive behaviors, previously subject to simple police interpellations, will be punishable by a penalty of re-education by work, upon approaching the Olympic Games and during them. These behaviors involve illegal distribution of prospectus, unauthorized commercial activity, vagabonding and begging; these people will go to labor camps without judgment.

and expulsions. Some colleagues talked about it. As the Olympic Games approached, the Chinese authorities expelled hundreds of thousands of people from their homes located in or on the edge of the Olympic Games sites, with little or no financial compensation.

work of children. The work of children up to 12 years old has been exploited in the People’s Republic of China by factory suppliers to the Beijing Olympic Games. This use of child labor was denounced by the organization Play Fair in its 2008 report; so many facts that are naturally quite contrary to the principles of Olympism, of course, but also to the 1989 International Convention on the Rights of the Child recognized by the UN.

and Tibet . The Chinese regime’s repression of the Tibetan community has led, according to some reports, according to some articles, to the deaths of some 150 people in recent months. This is not quite in the direction of the dialogue hoped when the Chinese regime was heard in 2001 to commit itself in the direction of openness. On this Tibetan question, we will take care – Mr. Baeselen echoed this – when the Dalai Lama arrived in Brussels for his visit to the European Parliament, to receive him officially in the Foreign Relations Committee.

This is not a complaint, but a statement. Is this my own observation? and no. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and even the European Parliament, which recently submitted a resolution on the Tibetan issue.

While China is progressing economically, it is not progressing at all in respecting human rights, contrary to its 2001 commitment.

Mr. Flahaut, I agree with you: if we have to stand by the Chinese to help them overcome the drama of the recent earthquake, which saw the disappearance of tens of thousands of Chinese, we must, without ever contempt, without giving lessons, remain firm on what our values are.

Because the earthquake did not end torture, did not close labor camps, did not end the death penalty and human rights violations, it is not appropriate to include the text of the earthquake amendments in this motion for a resolution. On the other hand, I am willing to support it if it is incorporated into another text that, I hope, you will submit as soon as possible.

China has been granted the organization of the Olympic Games. The observation regarding respect for human rights is as I have drafted it and as a number of organizations have done.

Should we boycott these games? We must prevent our athletes, who, as Mr. Tuybens, have been preparing for years at this ultimate deadline, to go to Beijing? Should we steal their baskets? Should we hang them by their shirt to hold them? I do not believe. I think Belgium should participate in the Beijing Olympic Games. Rather, the question is whether or not she should participate in the opening ceremony and whether our political representatives should be present at this occasion.

Although some political representatives of European Union member countries, not larger than Belgium, sometimes less populated, have already made known that they would not visit Beijing at the opening ceremony, I believe, at this stage, that we still need to hope that a common European position can be determined.

The draft resolution asks, Mr. Government Representative, to formally put a point on the agenda of a next European Council of Ministers. It is not a question of whether the issue can be addressed, but rather – I repeat – of putting this point on the agenda in order to examine whether a common proposal can or can not be determined at the European level.

If, by chance, a common position at the European level could not emerge, Belgium would then have to unilaterally determine its position, without excluding, as indicated in the draft resolution, the possibility of a political boycott of the Olympic Games. It all depends on the evolution of the situation.

Dear colleagues, as we have expressed in this proposal for a resolution, Parliament is well prepared to hold the hand to determine what our position should be in this regard. If a majority in Belgium should vote in favour of a representation of our country on the occasion of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games – but this does not seem to me to be the way to privilege – I have heard and read that some wanted to suggest to the Council of Ministers to ask the King or Prince Philip to represent Belgium there.

It would be a mistake to expose the head of state or Prince Philip in a situation like this. If really a majority should decide to see us represented by a member of the royal family, I would wish in any case that it is not the King or Prince Philip but the one who could be free on 8 August.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as already mentioned in several interventions, it took several weeks or months before we reached that joint resolution. A proposal for a resolution was submitted by several groups, but not by our group. Not because we didn’t consider human rights in China important, but those who have followed us in the committee over the past years know that we have consistently asked our legitimate questions about China’s respect for human rights. Various questions and legislative initiatives from the previous legislature are proof of this. Nor have we ever let ourselves be seduced to a double discourse, even when from this house often higher interests prevailed.

We had some reservations about the link made in various resolutions to the Olympic Games, because for us the problem today goes far beyond the Olympic Games. A critical attitude on the human rights situation in China should remain after the Olympic Games this summer. We understand that the Olympic Games are an excellent opportunity to demonstrate respect for fundamental rights in China, but using athletes to do so – in some resolutions we believe also abuse – went too far for us. Now our concerns in the Working Group have been addressed and several things have been adjusted in the consensus text, so that we will also today adopt the resolution as it is on the table today, and this for various reasons.

Initially, the text very explicitly calls for China to ratify and implement important human rights conventions, which it is still a party to. Colleagues have repeatedly quoted reports that remain disturbing. Ethnic and religious minorities are widely tortured and abused. 90% of the death penalty is executed, that is 90% of the 7,500 death penalty which we consider so important to abolish across all Party borders; we adopted a text here last week in that sense. There was also a reference to the number of prisoners 19 years after Tienanmen. After the March protests in Tibet, more than 5,000 people are still missing. I can continue for a while, but this has been discussed by several colleagues today.

It is also true, colleague De Croo, that there are positive evolutions noticeable. It must be said that the Chinese approach to the earthquake in Sichuan and Chengdu has been done in an excellent way, especially when compared to Myanmar. Although, today I feel that it is always a step forward and a step backwards. It was cited by the colleagues that if we follow the actuality of today, we should again correctly ask ourselves questions. Hence, we are all convinced – I know this in the interventions of all of you – that the road is still very long.

A second point in the resolution that is important to us: Tibet. Positive developments are also visible here, but the diplomatic pressure must be kept high in order to enter into a constructive dialogue for a peaceful and sustainable solution with respect for China’s territorial integrity. A diplomacy that insists on a moderate action of the law enforcement services and an unrestricted exercise of the right to free expression. A diplomacy, colleagues, which also seeks a common EU position on human rights violations in China. We would therefore like to be part of this European story, also as regards the follow-up of the situation on the ground in the run-up to the Olympic Games.

This also applies to the opening ceremony, colleagues Tuybens and De Vriendt. Last week, together with colleague de Béthune, I wrote a free tribune in my own name. I still think today that the proposal that is being made comes too early. We really want to enter into the European story. We really want to see that the situation is being followed from Europe from very close, on the spot. Nevertheless, I must note that the pessimism of the last few weeks about a common European position somewhat diminishes. Four parliaments have already taken an initiative for us. We have had some contacts and it appears that more than 15 Member States will adopt a text in this sense in the coming weeks. I therefore hope that Europe will take its responsibility and will wait to see what the situation is on the ground.

Mrs. Muylle, it makes me very pleasure when you say that before any step, a boycott of the opening ceremony, we should look at whether or not to take a common European position. You cannot ignore that our own Minister of Foreign Affairs, Karel De Gucht, has already made an advance reduction. He has placed himself beyond that European logic by already making a proposal and announcing that Belgium will not only send someone to that opening ceremony, but then even Crown Prince Philip on sale.

We have helped you. We have submitted an amendment asking the federal government, given that regrettable decision of Minister De Gucht, to follow that European logic and wait for a common European position. Can I ask you if you will support our amendment? Can I ask you if your group will support our amendment?

Mr. De Friend, I would like to intervene briefly on this.

It is true that Minister De Gucht has already made a proposal in the committee and in the media on the subject. Today, however, I must conclude that he has not yet repeated this proposal in the Council of Ministers. If he does this, we will discuss it.

I continue to say that we are entering into a European story. I am convinced that this is the right path, which must be followed. You say, when there is no European story, that we will therefore again have to make an advance reduction here. I ⁇ do not follow you.

Mr. Speaker, with what I say now, I would like to fully support the intervention of Mr. De Vriendt.

Mrs. Muylle, it is not correct that here in Parliament we must go behind the facts in regards to the government. We do not have to follow the facts of the government, on the contrary. The Government can still make a decision on the eve of the possible departure to the opening ceremony.

What Parliament wants to do here – and what it should have done a while ago before the minister went to China – is a message delivered to the minister of our position. This is exactly what Parliament is doing. There are amendments, both from the Greens. as of our party, to ensure that the government considers giving the European Union the opportunity to speak jointly before we take a position. If there is no common position, the Belgian government could refrain from attending the opening ceremony.

That is the signal you want to give – you have given it in your opinion article in the newspaper – and we too. I think there is consensus in Parliament on this. Let us give this advice to the government. The government can then make a decision. That is the correct order of things.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tuybens and Mr. De Vriendt, I would like to extend into the sense of what Ms. Muylle said regarding the content of the text that we are going to vote today. What does he say? Do not put the chariot before the bulls. This document says that we should advocate for a common European position on the subject. Everything must be done to try to get it! I just said that, probably, we will not get what we demand from the government, namely bringing this point to the European political agenda. A European Council meeting will be held on Monday. This issue will probably be addressed here because the government is asked to do so.

If this common European position cannot be taken, then the situation will have to be evaluated. Now, if we vote on this proposal for a resolution, it means that we want Parliament to assess the situation. Let us be clear on this point too! As Ms. Muylle said, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not yet submitted this point to the Council of Ministers, which I know!

Mr. Speaker, in this debate I would like to listen to the colleagues of the left parties. I mean sp.a and ecolo-green! I hear those people – and I can follow them in their reasoning – advocating for absent, or at least not yet deciding to be present, at the opening of the Olympic Games, but I have never heard them say that we should remain absent there for the rest.

Where is the logic? Where do you want to go? We are not going to the opening, but we are going further. That does not make much sense.

I give the word to Mr. Tuybens and then we close this mini-discussion. At the end of the vote, we will know the outcome. Let us now continue Mrs. Muylle’s speech.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Van den Eynde, the logic is that we, unlike Vlaams Belang, apparently do not want to punish athletes for the human rights violations committed by the Chinese government. That is the logic!

Between the adoption of the resolution and today, colleagues, one important new element has emerged, namely the statement of Karel De Gucht that he really wants to send a Belgian delegation to China, in particular Crown Prince Philip. This is a new element.

Mrs. Muylle, you are asking the Council of Ministers to wait. What is a resolution? A resolution is actually the listing of a number of questions due to the Parliament to the government. So why wait? You wrote an opinion piece, you didn’t wait either. Let us follow that line consistently, let us ask that the government subscribes to the European logic and now does not make any premature proposals to send a Belgian delegation to the opening ceremony.

You have been able to make your point several times.

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the Olympic Games in China offer an excellent opportunity for the West to challenge the lack of respect for fundamental rights in China. Those are the words of Mrs. Muylle.

Mr. Speaker, I think my answer was given by Mr. Baeselen, who very well outlined the purpose of the resolution. I will stay with that too. I think this does not need any further comment.

With this, colleagues, I come to the end of my speech. Let us hope that the European story in which we are joining is the right initiative, together with the resolution approved in the European Parliament, to hopefully, following many other European Member States, give the right strong signal. We Christian Democrats are convinced that a kordate approach to human rights serves China.

Mr. President, dear colleagues, Mrs. Representative of the Chinese Embassy... Mr. Ducarme, last time you were asked if there were Chinese spies in the room, this time you can see that we are "live live" as they say.

In November 2007, my colleagues and I submitted a resolution on the situation in China and Tibet in the context of the Beijing Olympic Games.

We had been alerted by many NGOs and associations of the degradation of human rights. At the time of preparation for the Games and as the first cameras turned toward this country the size of a continent, the Chinese government tried to silence those who were disordered or at least wanted to exercise their fundamental rights: gathering, expressing themselves and claiming their rights.

We were shocked by this situation. That is why, from the end of last year, we alerted the public opinion and especially the government, joined in our struggle by athletes pre-selected for the Olympic Games, such as François Gourmet or Veerle Dejaegere. More recently, Kim Gevaert also made courageous statements in the same direction. I would like to thank them very much for their civic involvement in the promotion of democracy and human rights. They are even more worthy to represent us in this competition.

In fact, it is unbearable to look without acting, to let do. Not saying anything is actually being a complicit. We could not admit this situation. It was necessary to gather together and shout an alarm; a shout that took a long time to reach the ears of some since the agenda, the debate and the votes came very late in Parliament. Not only was the debate delayed, but there was increasing pressure from the Chinese embassy, which could be understood, but also from the Foreign Minister, to delay it as much as possible.

We would have wished that the Minister carried our message on the occasion of the inauguration of the monumental work of Strebelle. On the contrary, he was more frightening than ever in his speech. “May I express the hope that China will match this development with further progress in the fields of individual rights and cultural diversity?”

by Mr. The minister is conducting a "two-weight two-measures" type of diplomacy: contempt for the Congo and much worse for the damage caused, fear and submission to China, a partner and friend, he said in his speech.

However, in the Congo, the minister stated that one could say anything to his friends.

But in China, it must be said, it must be denounced! The situation has been deteriorating for months or even years. It worsened with the preparations for the next 8 August Olympics. Indeed, the authorities expelled, without almost any compensation, the inhabitants of the territory on which the Olympic facilities were to be built.

Many human rights activists were imprisoned for their statements. Some were even sent to rehabilitation camps without any reason. I think here of a young woman named Xhuna whose husband was murdered and who is currently behind bars. It is very difficult to obtain information about his health status.

There are also the conditions under which workers built the stadium of the JO, conditions far from complying with ILO conventions.

Journalists were very structured, controlled in their actions, or even prevented from reporting. Reporters Without Borders, among others, denounced the deplorable working conditions for press workers.

China has pledged to make efforts. As part of their application for the organization of these Games, the Chinese authorities had stated that the organization of the Games would be accompanied by an improvement in the human rights situation.

The report of the IOC evaluation committee also set a few conditions that Beijing must meet.

1 of 1. Journalists should be given the opportunity to move freely during the Games throughout the country.

2 of 2. Urgent efforts had to be made to establish environmentally and health-friendly Games.

3 of 3. Water and air quality in general and in Beijing in particular had to meet the standards of the World Health Organization.

I am not talking here yet about the political situation with Tibet, nor about the many protests that took place somewhat across Tibetan territory. The increased repression caused many victims, of which too little is spoken because the cameras were hard to reach until then. The repression of Tibetans is a reality! We try to stifle an ancestral culture and those who are still there to transmit it to us. We are trying to decredit the Dalai Lama by dividing the Tibetan population. His words are distorted in order to make him appear to be an extremist. What little consideration for someone who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and the Golden Medal of the US Congress in 2007! What a lack of respect for human beings who only demand respect for their cultural autonomy!

From then on, in the committee, when the majority proposal that served as the basis for our work arrived, we, Ecolo-Groen!, fervently defended some amendments that seemed to us to strengthen the majority resolution, such as, for example, the amendment requiring the government to officially receive the Dalai Lama. Mr. Ducarme, we know the symbolic scope that this can have! You have previously intervened by saying that Parliament would launch an official invitation but, like me, you know that an official invitation by the government would be a completely different symbol!

Another amendment also denounces cyber attacks. Mr. Ducarme, I regret having to attack you because you weren’t the only one this time! However, when it comes to putting on paper the case of cyber attacks known to have come from Chinese territory, suddenly, one does not even dare to pronounce the word "cyberattack". by Mr. Germany is not present but I know that he tried, one last time in the commission, to speak at least of "censorship" but you yourself have just self-censored. You didn’t talk about cyber attacks, but about “restrictions”!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Mrs. Boulet that I agree quite well with a part of her speech and she knows it. However, since we cannot extend to the question of the earthquake or Taiwan, we cannot extend, as part of this text, to Chinese computer espionage, cyber attacks, etc. I consider this to be a particular problem, as are the issues of the earthquake or Taiwan. Madame Boulet, I am, however, willing to partner with you to work specifically on this, but this text must not become a "for-all"!

I agree to work with you.

However, regarding cyber attacks, you know very well that they intervene under specific circumstances related to the Olympic Games. I read again this morning your speech in the plenary session: you intervened in this direction by speaking about the context of the Olympic Games. I therefore found it important that this be mentioned in this resolution. It would also be a very strong signal given the worsening circumstances; it is a question of the survival of the Tibetans within the framework of the Olympic Games.

It is also essential to officially invite the Dalai Lama, so encourage the government to send him an official invitation. I thought it was important that this was included.

That is why we are introducing amendments in this direction. I hope you will support them.

I would like to say simply that the Ecolo-Groen group! This has been well understood in the discussion on this proposal. It brought a real added value to the discussion.

I would like to tell you once again that, for its clarity, its readability, the understanding that we wanted to make him carry, this text should not, could not become a telephone bottle. I think it is better to split the questions. The situation is such in China, so difficult, requiring such significant progress, as everyone acknowledges, that many texts and resolutions proposals will have to come out on the issue. And I will follow you on these items if you re-submit new texts.

Thank you, Mr. Ducarme, for your positive comments. Indeed, since we were very at the forefront and that we had submitted this resolution in November 2007, I found it would be interesting to work on this text rather than on a text brought five or six months later.

That being said, I do not think that talking about cyberattack rather than restriction makes the text less understandable, on the contrary! Speaking of the possibility – which was discussed in the last amendment – for Belgium to unilaterally boycott the opening ceremony would also not make, in my opinion, the text incomprehensible.

The problem, Madame Boulet, of the cyber attack is wider than the internet control, which is now produced on internet access by the Chinese regime. The cyber attack induces espionage, as the Minister of Justice noted. Thus, it is suspected that some of the attacks targeting the computers of Belgian federal departments came from Chinese.

Limiting the issue of cyber attacks to the control of internet access is a mistake. The issue is more extensive and deserves the submission of a text.

I suggest that we work on this as soon as possible.

On August 8th, the Summer Olympic Games will begin in Beijing. It is in less than two months. However, it seems that the promise that was made is hardly fulfilled. It is therefore important that we can carry a united word, even if it could have been stronger. But I do not despair that the resolution initiated by my colleague Dubié in the Senate, and which is probably already voted, can complement our resolution and thus concrete a comprehensive message carrying the values we defend. As we often say, let our voice carry theirs!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the process of the situation in China has already been made here by many speakers. One could tell more than the other. I think it doesn’t make much sense to add something to that. In China, there are no human rights, there is no right to freedom of expression, there is no right to own religion. I think everyone knows this now, especially the people who attended the debate this afternoon.

I would like to add one thing. It is important for my group to emphasize that this country without human rights illegally occupies Tibet. It has already been said here that the Tibetans and the Dalai Lama are not for independence, but this is not what matters to my group. The right of self-determination of the Tibetan people. If the Tibetan people want to be independent, they have that right, according to the Flemish Interest. If, because of the threat of that great neighbor, who, by the way, has a strong military presence there, it dares to speak for autonomy alone, then I think that this is very unfortunate and that it is our duty to say to the Tibetans that they also have the right to strive for independence.

What I want to highlight this afternoon are certain findings I made during the long period during which this draft resolution was prepared. It has already been said here, but I would like to repeat it. In mid-April, the House decided to urgently submit a text of resolution on the situation in China. Today is June 12th. It took us two months to agree on a story that everyone, if I can believe the speakers this afternoon, for the most part already agree on.

In the meantime, quite strange things have happened. We have experienced all sorts of bizarre events. When colleague De Croo was speaking then, I remembered it. We visited the Chinese ambassador. Mrs. Ambassador, probably according to their traditions, not according to ours, came in fact to accuse us that we had taken an initiative and that we were writing texts. It is not our tradition that the government, let alone a foreign government, comes to tell us what we are supposed to do. I was painfully surprised by this. What surprised me much more was that people of the traditional parties apparently simply accepted this and did not react to it.

Worse, we were here busy working on the situation in China. We were processing all the elements and information about Tibet and about human rights in China, and in the meantime, our Minister of Foreign Affairs went unhappy on a journey to that country to give, also on behalf of the government, a gift worth more than 200 million former Belgian francs, in the window of the Olympic Games. Speaking of hypocrisy!

In fact, as we slowly approached the end of the debates, we came into a sort of distraction maneuver or a sort of deterrence, which, strangely enough, was the fruit of an at least at first sight unnatural collaboration of liberals and socialists. We were almost dealing with a liberal-marxist coalition in spe. I will be more precise. With the liberals I am not talking about the French-speaking liberals and with the socialists I am not talking about the Flemish socialists. Both the Flemish liberals and the French-speaking socialists brought forward all sorts of things: one had to be careful, one could not forget this and one could be sure not to lose sight of it.

I remember suddenly hearing a liberal senator, during a joint meeting of the Foreign Relations Committees of the two assemblies, following the liberal minister of Foreign Affairs, telling me that the regime of the Dalai Lama was not you, and that we were able to establish through the occupation of Tibet by China that the Tibetan people had advanced in this regard. Those Tibetans should in fact be glad that they were occupied.

That was the liberal position. The French-speaking socialist statement, which was also defended by Flemish liberals, was that the Chinese regime had shown that a formidable improvement was underway.

Improvement could be observed. When we then asked what exactly was meant with improvements, we were told that, following the terrible earthquake that had hit China, they had allowed us to come to help.

Then I broke my cloth. It is as if I would say, for example, to Mrs. De Schamphelaere that I pick her handbag and wallet, but that is not so bad, since I can baking fries well. This logic is followed.

What is this for a concession? We are in misery and you can come and help us.

One thought this and the other that.

Mrs. De Schamphelere, you are right. Nothing is safe in this city. Be careful and keep an eye on your handbag.

Thus we went from one hypocrisy to another and from one obstacle to another.

Admit, it is formidable again. Last week, the vast majority of our assembly, enthusiastically, with the body in the throat and the tears in the eyes, approved the proposal to introduce an international day against the death penalty. At the same time, we have the best relationships with and give gifts of more than 200 million Belgian francs to the People’s Republic of China which, as I said then, is the Olympic champion in executing death penalty.

Apparently no one has anything to say about it.

I have forgotten something. I always refer here to the Flemish liberals and the French-speaking socialists. Also with what is called in French la gauche caviar and I in Dutch chichi left - I mean with this sp.a and Ecolo-Groen! If only we could experience it somehow. There, with conviction, they advocate for staying away at the opening of the Olympic Games.

In other words, presence is not a problem. When this is noticed, Ecolo-Groen says! Respect for the athletes must be shown. We have not even pledged to boycott the Games, which we are in favour. I don’t even ask to boycott the Games. I ask you to be consistent and not only to stay away from the opening, but to stay away with the official delegation also during the Games itself. You don’t even dare to do that, so to speak, out of respect for the sport.

Don’t apologize to me, the word is not parliamentary, but that’s green zever.

It is to appeal in such a way that I have submitted an amendment on behalf of my group in which I recall all of the matters that we all — including you — accuse in relation to the current Chinese regime but which in the official text, which will be approved here later, dare not to be considered.

Your text does not protest against the imprisonment, torture and murder of ethnic, political, religious and social dissidents. There is no protest against the communications about the treatment of Tibetans in the Drapchig prison. On this last point, however, you were informed. I refer to the testimonies given by Tibetan nuns here in our Parliament.

There is also no protest against the repression in the Tiananmen Square nineteen years ago. Neither is there a protest against the way the Chinese authorities want to deal with the people who want to commemorate the aforementioned events.

There is no protest against the stand-alone executions. There is also no protest against animal trafficking, which is organized on the basis of the executions of prisoners.

Nevertheless, all of the aforementioned points are violations of the human rights for which you whisper and for which, if you were asked, you would immediately say that such conditions cannot.

However, when it comes to the economic giant China, one thinks of doing business with China – I want to beam some Green! Here afterwards on the attitude of some members of the liberal faction in the Senate – and another emphasizes a reminiscence, a kind of early-Marxist, late-Marxist or post-Marxist solidarity with a country that still calls itself a people’s republic – “whatever that may be,” Thatcher would have said happier.

Whatever you are, we will maintain our amendment on this subject. We hope that, in addition to the members of my group, there are still some, other people in the House who, like us, are convinced defenders of human rights and therefore will support our amendment.

If that is not the case, then we do not want to be blamed that we are looking for a flight hill in order not to express ourselves regarding the situation in China and then we will, though it is with reluctance – I say this honestly – but in the knowledge that we have done everything to improve the text, approve the current sluggish text.

Mr. Speaker, during the previous legislature, when the government postponed sine die the visit of the Dalai Lama, I was one of the few members of this assembly to oppose this decision by an oral question.

I would like to say that the cause of Tibet is dear to me. The right of peoples to dispose of themselves is for me an absolute principle.

I received the Dalai Lama as the chairman of the House. You are telling nonsense!

You have done very well, Mr. President of the House.

Tibet suffers from an evil that hangs on the nose of Belgium: the change of its population by an allogenous population. But the so-called duty of interference, dear to the socio-liberal moralisers, belongs either to hypocrisy or to the bellicist will.

The duty of interference only translates into jeremies when it does not result in humanitarian wars, each of which has been able to judge the outcomes in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and its corollary, collateral damage. Unlike globalists, we must respect the independence of all sovereign states, everywhere in the world, even when it is the most populous state.

The hypocrisy of the parties of the system represented in this auditorium scares me. China’s political regime, a mixture of Marxism, Leninism and wild capitalism, is the absolute denial of the human person.

None of my honorable colleagues seemed to have realized this before the recent events in Tibet. Those who today whisper about the absence of human rights in China are merely spokesmen for multinationals who have an interest in trading with Beijing.

They are the spokesmen of those responsible for thousands of displacements that accentuate unemployment and precariousness in Europe. They gurgle with moralizing discourses while knowing properly that human rights and freedoms end where the interests of the great capital begin. The only effective sanctions would be economic sanctions.

What can we say about Belgium, which allows itself to give lessons to China? A country where there is no daily opposition in the French-speaking part of the country; a country where members of a party, the only true opposition party, are blocked on national television; a Belgium that rejects any referendum of popular initiative and imposes treaties that, in some countries enjoying the right to referendum, are well misguided. No to No! I will abstain from this resolution. I know I will probably be the only one, but as Nietzsche said, “On the top of the mountain, you are always alone.” If it is a Tibetan mountain, it is so much better!

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief. A lot has been said, but I think little has been said about the essence. I have a bit of a bitter feeling because I have heard nothing else here than an incredibly negative story about China. That is not to say that I am defending the situation in Tibet, but it is a negative story at a time when the country is struggling with a very large natural disaster, at a time when the country is struggling with tens of thousands of deaths. At that moment, we are going to execute that country.

I am a little surprised by the socialist side of the matter. At the time when the country was socialist, communist, or called itself socialist, there have been mass murders, of which one cannot even say at a million how many people have been removed from the road. That’s not to say that I’m defending the situation in Tibet or that I’m defending China, it’s just a bit of common sense in this matter.

I like to talk about the Dalai Lama. Let me just say, the Dalai Lama was even refused an entry visa here in this country at the time by “Emperor Karel De Gucht”. That was not long ago, just a few years ago. I must tell you that I would not want a regime back as it was in Tibet before the Chinese were there, including with the Dalai Lama, namely a theocracy. Suppose that Cardinal Danneels would become the head of the country tomorrow, then Secretary of State Schouppe would very much like that, but that would not be in my expectation.

Let me get to the core of the matter. Why do I have a bitter feeling? There is a lot of hypocrisy here. I have already said that we use one of the biggest sports events in the world – which, by the way, preaches peace – to say things about a country that in the last decade has experienced a development that currently has created a middle class of about 300 million people, which previously did not exist.

One uses this moment because they are athletes and because one believes that they can manipulate those athletes, to draw attention to human rights. Human rights should be addressed at all times. The whole Belgian establishment has visited it: the King, the princes several times, and the politicians have plunged the country. Our entire business community – I see Herman De Croo knocking – has visited it dozens of times. Fortunately, the Chinese are participating in Fortis today, otherwise the share would probably be even worse.

I never heard anything then. Indeed, Mr. Van den Eynde, you are right, we started with that resolution on April 12 and we end today. You know why we end today. In the meantime, a monument was to be inaugurated in China. We gathered that monument with 5 million euros, gathered by the business community but also, colleagues, by the King Boudewijnstichting. The King Buddhist Wine Foundation, which represents the highest establishment of our country, has pledged to collect 1 million euros to give to China.

We have not heard a single critical word about it.

You should be better informed. The difference between the amount of the private sponsors and the final amount is financed by the Lotto. You need to check who signed the first royal decree for the first tranche to finance it.

You yourself ?

State Secretary Tuybens and Deputy Prime Minister Vande Lanotte.

Where is Mr. Tuybens? I call him accountable. Where is Mr. Tuybens? Hypocrisy at the top!

Thank you for your intervention, Mr De Croo. It’s been a long time since I thanked a liberal, or someone from the Open Vld liberals, that’s something else.

I only want to point out that when our Emperor Charles was in Beijing, I did not hear a single critical word. I have heard critical words about Kabila, but that is, of course, much easier than about the Chinese.

I will no longer occupy you. But can I ask something? It is about sport.

I pretend to say that I know a little about it. Political parties please. We have the resolution here now and we will also adopt the resolution. We’re not angry that it’s heavier: I think it’s a balanced resolution of the majority. But let’s stop and let the athletes rest. Let us really do it.

That we ask the IOC to take a position in the resolution is not left to me. In 2001, the boboes of the IOC, with a lot of politicians and crowned heads, think of Prince Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, think of Albert of Monaco, think of Princess Anne of Great Britain, assigned the matter to China. They did that based on the pressure of their sponsors, not because it was about sport. It’s about poen, it’s about Coca Cola, it’s about Kodak, it’s about McDonald’s. They have done that and they must take their responsibilities and speak about it. But please, leave the athletes in peace, leave the Belgian athletes in peace. They ask this too, with our opportunity holders on the head like a Tia Hellebaut.

There have already been meetings held under political pressure, with the minister from next door. The great sports light, Minister Bert Anciaux, had held a meeting with the athletes and had asked them to do something for China or Tibet. The athletes then said: let our heads rest. It was then said as the ultimate solution: we will do a gesture. Athletes have been asked to give up part of the miles they get because they travel around the world a lot for the good cause. What did they say? Let our heads rest. This is what I ask the political world. We vote on this resolution and for the rest: stop it right now. If you want to protest, then I have another terrible opportunity.

The government of this country has decided, including with financial support from the participating governments, to participate in the Shanghai Expo in 2010. We have already allocated 10 million euros for this. I have never heard anyone protest, quite the opposite. When it comes to sport, we are in the first row because then we can also get interested.

My last question is the following. We will approve this resolution, but please leave the sport and our athletes in peace.