Projet de loi contenant le deuxième ajustement du budget général des dépenses de l'année budgétaire 2008 - Section 14 "SPF Affaires étrangères, Commerce extérieur et Coopération au Développement".
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- CD&V the Van Rompuy government
- Submission date
- March 13, 2009
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- budget national budget
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR
- Voted to reject
- FN VB
- Abstained from voting
- LDD
Party dissidents ¶
- Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to adopt.
- Dirk Vijnck (LDD) voted to adopt.
Contact form ¶
Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.
Discussion ¶
April 23, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
President Patrick Dewael ⚙
We will refer to the written report of Mr. by Baeselen.
Francis Van den Eynde VB ⚙
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Development Cooperation, I greet you with great courtesy, because you have the habit of refusing to hand my colleagues and myself abroad, but even in the Parliament I still want to greet you because Flamingen is a kind person.
Mr. Speaker, having said this, I am pleased that you have taken back your place. You have less charm than the first vice-president, that’s not what I’m talking about. However, my explanation also has to do with the way one works in this Chamber. Therefore, I would rather have the president in office here rather than a deputy, nothing more.
This is a part of the foreign affairs budget. It is about development cooperation, but the agenda also talks about foreign affairs. It must be of heart to me that it is difficult to work in this area in this Parliament.
On 12 March, about six weeks ago, I submitted an interpellation request concerning the participation of this country in the conference held in Geneva under the name Durban II. That interpellation was scheduled twice in the Foreign Affairs Committee, but could not take place then. In the meantime, there have been all sorts of meetings, discussions, information and so on.
In any case, the problem is that that conference began on 20 April, while parliamentarians who had already wanted to ask questions in advance about participating in that conference were not even given a chance to speak about it.
So I would like to take advantage of the opportunity that is now available to me, namely that there is a part of the Foreign Affairs budget on the agenda, to say a few words about it for a moment, it will not be long.
First, Durban II in Geneva is in fact a continuation of Durban I. That was a conference that took place in the real Durban in South Africa in 2001.
This conference is called a conference against racism. I repeat: a so-called “conference against racism.” However, the conclusions of that conference read that in the Middle East only Israel is responsible for everything and that for the rest the Western world is responsible for almost all the misery that one can find in the world.
Worse, that conference, which was put on the threshold by the United Nations, was flanked by a parallel conference of NGOs, also at the expense of the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, if that conference had taken place in our country, a lot of people sitting here, including you, would have demanded the immediate ban of such a conference. At that conference of NGOs, people of Jewish nationality were not only rejected in many committees, anti-Semitism was also virulently present. They sold in public the “Protocols of the Wise of Zion,” that fantasy work from the beginning of the last century, in which the Jews were accused of almost all evil in the world. They also sold “Mein Kampf” in public. Colleagues, you should imagine that: “Mein Kampf” at an anti-racist conference!
Mr. Speaker, I repeat this. If that conference had been held in our country, many people, including you – I am convinced of this – would have demanded the ban of that conference. That did not happen there. The non-governmental conference even ended in a sort of march through Durban, to the Jewish community center, while those protesters scanded all sorts of anti-Semitic slogans. Such a demonstration has a name, a smell and a color. There is one word to define that. This is a pogrom, or at least the beginning of a pogrom.
That was apparently not bad enough, because in 2009 a number of things will be performed again, this time in Geneva. Many countries that were still present in Durban had learned their lessons and had already announced in advance that they would not go. I will name a few of them: France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Australia, Canada, the United States.
The one who persisted to insist on leaving anyway was the small Belgium. The one who was not scared by anything in that area was again that little Belgium.
The texts that are approved at such a conference are prepared in advance so that the conference is reduced to a kind of show where one reads texts with which everyone then agrees.
The original text was in this case prepared by a committee – you must listen carefully, colleagues, it is about anti-racism, about free opinion and democracy – which was chaired by Libya. The Vice-Presidents were Iran, Cuba and Pakistan. It is equally possible to create an international organization for the protection of young children under the presidency of Mr. Dutroux. That is just the same. If one starts talking about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and so on, and let the texts be prepared by Iran, Cuba and all those other countries, then that goes too far. I would, by the way, suggest that Sudan, North Korea and Zimbabwe will also be added in the future. We can also add a number of other countries. Why not ?
That also scared no one. I must admit, in the end, the text drawn up by Iran and Cuba, as always, was adjusted. A lot has been created, but some things have remained. The tendency is that religious and/or fascist dictatorships want to teach the West about democracy, slavery and intolerance.
I will give an example. Paragraph 10 of the final text states that the conference is deeply concerned about the negative stereotype of religions and, I quote, “Islamophobia, anti-Arabism, Christianophobia and also anti-Semitism.”
I would like to add that at the same time the same text fully approved the text of Durban I, in other words, that the blame for all the problems in the Middle East is still thrown into the shoes of Israel.
I repeat that paragraph 10 says “concerned about anti-Semitism,” but above all “Christianophobia,” and much more “Islamophobia.”
If we want to apply that text, I must say that some of the Members of Parliament present here at the moment should be charged with the Centre for Combating Racism for their statements, a few weeks ago, in the debate about the statements of the Pope, for that was clearly Christianophobia. If you want, I’ll add a few quotes. It was so!
Colleagues, I voted against that resolution at the time, but I dare to say here on behalf of my party that no hair on our head would think of accusing those people for it. Free opinion is sacred, at least for us in the West, for us in Europe, for everyone.
I would like to tell my French-speaking colleagues of MR and the PS, if the text presented here and which is approved is also applied by Belgians, in Geneva, that it should then be done with singing “A bas la Calotte”, because otherwise they will get problems.
Well, I repeat that I think that one has the right to criticize Christianity. But I also believe that one has the right to criticize Islam.
Islamophobia, what does that mean? Fear of Islam. I also claim that as a right. I will tell you, yes, I claim for myself the right to be Islamophobic, and it happens that I am afraid of Islam. I am consistent with what I say here. I challenge you, in the name of democracy, to prohibit me from doing so.
But, these are the texts that are approved by your government. Then I must say: today we are not just present gender. We have been trying to save our face.
The key point was that the President of Iran held the opening speech.
He has gone out of the corner quite hard. Several delegations have gone out, including ours. It would still be lacking. We are not just present, today our Minister of Foreign Affairs is there. On what he said there, I hope I will be able to interpell him – so it is scheduled – on Tuesday. I agree, it is inappropriate that we have played this game. It is also inappropriate that we have not been able to protest against it in this Parliament so far. I apologize to my colleagues for actually taking away this piece of budget for Development Cooperation in order to finally be able to talk about foreign policy issues that would otherwise never have been addressed.