Proposition 52K1246

Proposition de résolution relative à la solidarité à apporter aux autorités et au peuple chinois, suite au tremblement de terre survenu dans le région du Sichuan, en Chine, dans le cadre des actions prises par le Gouvernement belge.

General information ¶

Author

PS | SP André Flahaut

Submission date

June 12, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

China earthquake aid to disaster victims resolution of parliament natural disaster

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

FN VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 26, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, since the written report is not yet visible, I urge you to present a very brief oral report on the resolution, which demonstrates solidarity with the authorities and the people of China following the earthquake in the Sichuan province.

You know that something was originally framed in the discussion of the previous resolution concerning China, Tibet, human rights and the 2008 Olympic Games. The Sichuan case was subsequently thrown into a separate resolution by Mr. Flahaut and other majority colleagues. The texts were referred to the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on 12 June 2008. On 24 June 2008, the resolution was discussed in the aforementioned committee.

The proposal for a resolution concerns the choice to separate the two matters. This decision was approved by the committee members.

Mr. Herman De Croo, who has been able to monitor China for more than forty years, reiterated that China is developing ⁇ rapidly, including in the economic sphere, and that this may also be a driving force for democracy.

The Ecolo-Green! group pointed out an element that was not yet prominent in the resolution, in particular the free press.

The CDH faction pointed out that it was the first time that China, in its response to the earthquake, adopted a radically different attitude.

The Vlaams Belang once again evoked the problem of censorship.

A number of amendments followed to refine or update the text on the basis of the above observations. The amendments can be found on your banks and come from the majority. They were approved in the committee. The Green Amendment! It was approved by three votes and seven abstentions.

The amended draft resolution was adopted in the committee with eight votes and two abstentions.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I do not dare ask you to be short.

I would not promise either.

Let me first and foremost surprise you. The reporter told us that this is a proposal for a resolution on solidarity with the Chinese people, in particular with the people affected by the natural disaster that has devastated them. That is something that I could not contest, because in point 1 of the available part of the resolution it is indeed, even underlined: “... the government asks the victims of the earthquake to show their solidarity”. That is very correct.

It is not my intention to correct the reporter here, but rather to surprise me that this point 1 of the available part is not answered anywhere in a consideration. In the considerations I read only that there was a disaster, an earthquake. Immediately move to consideration b on satisfaction with the attitude of the Chinese government. It is there that, in my humble opinion, the calf is bound in all this matter.

First and foremost, let me return to the history of this resolution, which had to be presented here, even in cases of extreme urgency. We had a debate about Tibet in this assembly a week ago. During this debate, there are left and right, but especially right, criticized the human rights situation in China. Some people who are close to the government, for example, people from liberal houses and people from the Socialist Party – not the Socialist Party, I want to deliberately keep them out of here – were of the opinion that we had been a little too hard for China.

I must honestly admit what happened. We had given a very light tick on the pollen of the Chinese, really a very light tick, but that was too hard, according to some, and we had to fix it as soon as possible.

So it was immediately announced here in our assembly already in the session that one would submit a draft resolution to announce that one was solidary – and that one does it then for a while – and above all that one was satisfied.

That is the essential. The essence of underhave text is that one is satisfied. One is satisfied with the fact that China has allowed us to help us after the disaster. What is the story? Imagine you fall from the stairs and someone helps you get up. That person should then say that he is very satisfied because he has been able to help you. That is the story.

Admit: That is absurd. One can make the comparison with Burma, where we were not allowed to help, but that is an exception. Being grateful for being able to help people is completely absurd.

One must go further and search for the underlying causes of one and the other. What are they? At first, it could be naïve. I have already said that since Burma was struggling when we offered help, we are already satisfied that we can lose our cents to the Chinese victims of the earthquake.

I do not believe in this naivety. I think, because of a number of very important business relationships, one has been very scared of the Chinese response to the very soft text that was approved here last time and of which it was known that the Chinese ambassador was not satisfied. They wanted to fix this as soon as possible and they came up with this proposal, which thanks China for having been able to help them.

The truth has its rights. In the entire text, there is nowhere to mention the so pressing problems facing the Chinese people: no human rights, no freedom of religion, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of political opinion and the oppression of the various peoples in China, with in particular the oppression of the Tibetans. Whoever deserves honour, it is green! which has succeeded in adding something to this amendment on freedom of the press, following the fact that a VRT journalist was detained in China a few hours a dozen days ago.

But, how good the intention of Green! It was, I must confess, far from enough. It is not because we have been able to help depann the people who were the victims of an earthquake, that we must forget what is really happening in that country, that is a dictatorship, that has a totalitarian Marxist regime and where the word freedom may be known, but ⁇ never experienced.

This is the first reason why we vote against. We would like to vote against it because we believe it is a hypocritical proposal for a resolution. We want to vote against it because the text is far from complete and because it is about human rights and we have heard the most crazy comparisons in that area in recent times.

After that, I heard a people’s representative of Ecolo-Green! Comparison between the situation in China and those in Vilvoorde. Imagine yourself! I would only like to tell that respectable colleague that his party, Green!, is part of the majority in Vilvoorde and therefore is equally responsible for the otherwise very just decision of the city of Vilvoorde as all the other parties that are part of the majority there.

First of all, it is Ecolo-Groen. There was some reluctance to support this resolution proposal, not that a problem arose on the substance but rather on the form. In fact, as we said last Thursday, it was developed in improvisation. At that time, I remembered the words of Mr. De Croo, according to which “too many resolutions killed parliamentary work.”

Although we don’t suffer from overwork today, it wasn’t entirely wrong, especially since the tens of thousands of victims in the Sichuan province deserved more time to look at their fate. Especially for the victims who are still waiting for rescue, I found it important to welcome the work already done by the Chinese authorities, given the reaction of the Burmese authorities to the disaster that affects them, to keep a critical look and to stay informed through the press, which apparently had the greatest difficulties in reporting the evolution of the situation.

This resolution, with the amendments we introduced and which were eventually incorporated into the resolution, is an encouragement and must remain. Indeed, China can do better, including allowing national and international journalists to report the course of events.

Thanks to the two amendments that we have been able to incorporate into the resolution, we will of course support it, given that it adds to the resolution that we voted fifteen days ago on human rights in Tibet and that our Prime Minister will relay to China.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to thank the rapporteur and my colleagues for the work they have done in the urgency. Indeed, as recalled, before the filing of the draft resolution, an amendment had been filed to the draft resolution that was initially filed. The amendment was eventually transformed into a draft resolution because it was intended to complement the original resolution. This proposal aims first and foremost to highlight the actions that have been carried out, by our government in collaboration with others, but also with non-governmental and international organizations, within the framework of indispensable solidarity. It also encourages the concrete continuation of solidarity actions by participating, for example, in the reconstruction of certain villages identified in the overall reconstruction plan.

As Ms. Boulet has just said, these two resolutions can be usefully found in the luggage of Prince Philippe and the Prime Minister, when they travel to Beijing.

Mr. Speaker, I have every reason to accept your request for unity.

On behalf of our group, I would only say that we have done well in converting Mr Flahaut’s amendment into a resolution. Why Why ? This resolution, in my view, reinforces the previous one. We did not want to mix the two things. We have given a clear signal with the previous resolution. I draw from this two phrases: in the considerations “dealing with press freedom in the aftermath of the humanitarian catastrophe” and in the resolution part 4 “to remain attentive to restrictions imposed on journalists and to sign any protest with the Chinese government”. This is linked to the previous resolution. It also has the character that we can demonstrate solidarity in humanitarian matters. I think we have acted correctly to improve this resolution, to approve it and to vote later.