Proposition 53K0716

Proposition de résolution concernant la situation du camp d'Achraf en Irak.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn
PS | SP Philippe Blanchart, Patrick Moriau, Christiane Vienne

Submission date

Nov. 26, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Iraq resolution of parliament law of war human rights refugee

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

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 ¶

March 1, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Committee on Foreign Relations discussed two draft resolutions on the situation in the Ashraf camp – namely the proposal of Mr. Moriau and Mr. Blanchart, and the proposal of Mrs. Demol and colleagues – during its meetings of 25 and 28 February 2012.

During the meeting of 28 February, the committee decided on the proposal no. 716 of Mr. Moriau and Mr. Blanchart, and more specifically amendment no. 15 of Mr. de Donnea, which replaces this proposal, to be taken as the basic text.

Mr Moriau explained his proposal. Camp Ashraf was established in the course of the 1980s to host members of the Iranian People's Moodhahedin (PMOI.) This group was directed against the Iranian regime. It now houses around 3,400 people, including women and children.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the initiative of the United States, PMOI members who stayed in Ashraf have deposited their weapons and received the status of protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This protection, however, ceased in 2009 when the Iraqi government regained responsibility for most internal affairs.

Since then, human rights violations have been numerous. Many human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have made numerous statements addressing the inhumane conditions in which the inhabitants of camp Ashraf are present.

In recent months, however, the dossier has evolved in a favorable way. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Mission in Iraq have played an important role in this. The Iraqi government decided to dismantle the camp by the end of 2011 and remove all PMOI members from the territory. Recently, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki extended the deadline for the evacuation of the camp until the end of April 2012. For the first time, the residents of camp Ashraf have agreed to leave the camp.

On 25 December 2011, a Memorandum of Understanding was concluded between the Iraqi Government and the United Nations. This memorandum sets out the rules for the transfer of residents of camp Ashraf to a transit point, camp Liberty, giving the High Commissioner for Refugees the opportunity to check their status and facilitate their repatriation or resettlement.

Mr. Speaker, this file was explained in the committee by the applicant, Mr. Schoofs. Following the general explanation, the N-VA Group asked a number of general questions. Since then, the bill has already been voted out on Article 1. Until then my report.

As regards our group, I can only say that I regret that there has not been a thorough debate. You may agree or disagree with the views contained in the proposal. I think the issue that has been addressed deserves a debate.

Coincidence or not, but this afternoon in Hoboken a robbery on a jewellery took place, in which it shot and hit one of the robbers. It is an up-to-date issue that lives in society and that deserves a solution within Justice. This does not necessarily have to be the solution proposed. What is clear is that this topic deserves a debate. For this reason, our group will vote against the rejection.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, at this point, the Flemish Interest regrets that the bill proposing to amend the legal regulation on storm weather and to introduce the general exclusion grounds emergency excess weather in the committee was dismissed without too much debate, as already said by colleague De Wit. I would also like to thank her for her intervention and for her acceptance of the reporting position.

Only the N-VA had the courage and effort to work somewhat constructively, but even our simple request to seek advice from the State Council and to invite a panel of experts was, unfortunately, too much for the other factions. The N-VA had substantial difficulties with the fact that we provide for a scholarship exclusion basis and that it protects not only the physical integrity of persons, but also that of goods. This, of course, should be the subject of debate for us. We do not have the truth. Let that be clear.

I would like to point out that in our neighboring countries, the Netherlands and Germany, similar legal arrangements have already been introduced which aim to exempt citizens from criminal prosecution if they want to protect not only themselves or a fellow, but also their property and precious property. Especially Green showed itself from its narrower side by referring to Far West states that would then arise. Both in the Netherlands and in Germany, the introduction of a legal regulation on emergency excess weather – for all clarity – has not led to extreme or meaningless violence.

In those countries, it is simply socially and legally accepted that a citizen who is attacked may defend himself from fear or confusion or from a serious disturbance of the state of mind. It must therefore really be about an immediate response to an effective threat, excluding proactive violence or retaliation afterwards. In the jurisprudence, by the way, a certain evolution is already noticeable in the direction of what the bill aims at. This is also evident from the fact that an elderly man who killed a young robber in Borgerhout a few months ago is not prosecuted.

As previously stated, there is a similar case today. Therefore, the social debate is sufficiently manifest. The case can be discussed.

Colleagues, real legal certainty can only be achieved if the law is amended and if it provides sufficient accuracy. This is not the case at the moment. In fact, the civil debate on such serious interference in criminal law cannot be conducted solely on the basis of precedents in the case-law. It is the task of Parliament to intervene.

However, there are still major problems. On 25 January 2012, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expressed its concern over the conditions the Iraqi government intends to impose on the Liberty camp, and expressly requested the Iraqi authorities to avoid turning the camp into an open prison.

This draft resolution therefore aims to help the federal government, in consultation with the European institutions and the international community, to reach a sustainable solution for the inhabitants of the Ashraf camp, respecting the Geneva Convention.

It is intended to reconcile one part – the legitimate requirement of the Iraqi State to exercise its power over the entire Iraqi territory – and another part – the observance of international humanitarian principles and the human rights of the camp residents – within the framework of the Memorandum of 25 December 2011 and under the supervision of the United Nations.

This draft resolution also calls on the government, through the UN and the EU, to urge the Iraqi government to allow family visits, access to adequate medical care and lawyer visits and to safeguard the rights of residents, in accordance with international law, and to prevent deportation or forced displacement of camp residents.

Following Mr Moriau’s explanations, the committee immediately proceeded to discuss the main and the petitioning parts of the proposal, amendment no. 15 of Mr. De Donnea.

Ms. Brems submitted a number of sub-amendments to further emphasize the report published by Human Rights Watch on 5 May 2005 in both the main and the petitioning sections. These included testimony of unrest and undemocratic practices in the Ashraf camp under the Iraqi opposition group PMOI.

It urges the European Union to formally request the Iraqi government to give the High Commissioner for Refugees and other competent agencies of the United Nations the time and resources to process asylum applications of residents of the Ashraf camp case by case at a neutral location outside the Ashraf camp, without the presence of the PMOI leadership.

Mrs Brems also believes that the Belgian government should express its serious concern about the ⁇ practices of psychological and physical manipulation and serious human rights violations within the PMOI cult movement led by the Rajavi.

Several members pointed out the fact that the Human Rights Watch report covers the period 1991-2003 and that it was criticized by various institutions.

The sub-amendments were rejected. The committee, on the other hand, adopted sub-amendments by Mr Desseyn and Moriau and Mrs Demol and colleagues.

Recital J clarifies that the Human Rights Watch report covers the period from 1991 to February 2003.

Consideration R is supplemented and refers to the explicit request of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to the Iraqi authorities to prevent Liberty camp from becoming an open prison. The committee has serious questions about the recent initiatives of the Iraqi government, which aims to drastically restrict the freedom of movement of the camp residents.

In the requesting part, paragraph 4 is supplemented to require the government, through the UN and the EU, to require the Iraqi authorities that the movable property of the residents of the Ashraf camp may be taken away and that their property may not be confiscated.

Paragraph 5 is also supplemented by providing that the EU’s recognised representation, the International Red Cross and the High Commissioner for Refugees have access to the Ashraf camp without delay.

The text is further supplemented by paragraph 7 to advocate that the institutions should be given access to the Liberty camp without delay.

In paragraph 6, the reference to the camp leadership of camp Ashraf is deleted in order to avoid that the specific reference would be polarizing. After all, it is important that all stakeholders cooperate constructively and seek a solution.

Amendment 15 by Mr de Donnea and the entire draft resolution, as amended and including a number of technical corrections, were adopted by 15 votes against 1 vote.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, sooner or later this issue may still be discussed and then it will again have been the merit of the Flemish Interest that the taboo was broken and that such a problem can also be discussed.

Those who have the courage and decency to start this discussion now, we therefore call upon to vote against the rejection. I would like to thank again my fellow Flemish nationalists of N-VA.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my dear colleagues, the resolution we are about to vote on is about a subject whose foundations date back many years and which, I hope, could find a fair and peaceful solution in the coming weeks. The Council will adopt this resolution.

The 3,400 residents of the Achraf camp are, for the most part, members of the Organization of the Muslim Muslims of the People of Iran (OMPI), the main outside opposition movement to the regime in place in Iran. At the request of the UN Secretary-General, the Iraqi government has extended the deadline for the closure of the Achraf camp to the Liberty camp.

The first 400 transfers were carried out voluntarily, safely, orderly, peacefully, as part of a dignified humanitarian solution. This resettlement process must be continued without further delay. The Memorandum of Understanding signed on 25 December 2011 between the United Nations and the Iraqi government laid the foundations for a peaceful and lasting solution, respecting both Iraq’s sovereignty and its obligations under human rights and international humanitarian law.

The Iraqi government has prepared a temporary transit site to accommodate residents and enable UNHCR to undertake the process of identifying refugees, to take the necessary steps for them to obtain refugee status and to be able to leave Iraq. As Catherine Ashton recalled, the Iraqi government has the primary responsibility for the safety and well-being of the residents of the Ashraf camp. At the same time, the camp residents also have a responsibility to comply with the laws of the country. Any provocation or violence should be avoided and would be unacceptable.

Since 1 January, UNHCR has confirmed that the infrastructure and premises of the temporary transit site comply with the international humanitarian standards set out in the Memorandum of Understanding. It seems obvious to me that these good conditions must be verified in the medium and long term by neutral observers and that if deficiencies appear, they must be corrected.

The safety and well-being of residents must be guaranteed through free and direct access to medical services. MANUI, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, under the direction of its Special Representative, Mr. Martin Kobler, must keep the doors of Liberty camp open to journalists, lawyers and the families of residents. We urge the Iraqi authorities and residents of the Achraf camp to continue to cooperate in order to finish the process in the most relaxed atmosphere possible.

I hope that our Foreign Affairs Committee remains concerned with this issue until 30 April, the date of the definitive closure of the camp.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the resolution on the situation in a camp like Ashraf is finally on the vote. On 9 November last year, my group submitted a resolution, supported by Mr. Clarinval and Mr. Vercamer, following the ultimatum for the evacuation of camp Ashraf, before 31 December 2011, put forward by the Iraqi government. The living conditions in the camp and the treatment of the inhabitants were inhumane for a long time. We saw the appointment of fellow countrymen Jean De Ruyt as EU Special Envoy for Mrs Ashton as an additional asset to put pressure behind the files.

Our resolution focused on finding a humane and sustainable solution for all residents of camp Ashraf. Ashraf camp is the headquarters of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran. An inspection of all residents and a strict monitoring by the Committee on Human Rights, the UN Mission in Iraq and the High Commissioner for Refugees, should both guarantee the freedom of opinion, thought and movement, as well as determine and control the status of residents.

As we often see, the events ended up in a current acceleration. On 26 December, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the United Nations and Iraq, which receives full support from the European Union and the United States. A six-month delay for the evacuation of the camp was allowed.

On February 18, the first inhabitants voluntarily left camp Ashraf. They were transferred by the Iraqi authorities to the Liberty Transition Camp or Camp Guria as it is now called. The circumstances under which this happened and the way in which, leave something to be desired. To take this into account, we amended this resolution.

On Tuesday, there was a lot to be done on the point J. To strengthen my argument at that time and to prove what I claimed at the time, namely that the Human Rights Watch report was not really cochlear, I will now read the conclusions of an investigation initiated by the Friends of a Free Iran.

The conclusions are drawn up in English, but I assume that everyone has enough passive knowledge to understand this. With this quote, I would like to reinforce my words of Tuesday.

“After conducting exhaustive research and investigation, FOFI, based on all the evidence, reached the conclusion that the HRW report contained serious flaws, both in methodology and substance.”

“The organization has clearly violated the most fundamental principles of a fair and impartial investigation. It failed to grant the PMOI the right to respond to the allegations, ignored other available information including detailed answers to some of the allegations, did not seek the opinion of the coalition forces who had first-hand knowledge about life in Camp Ashraf, and chose not to visit the camp where most of the abuses were alleged to have taken place, despite being repeatedly invited by the PMOI to make such a trip.”

“FOFI,” due to vrienden van Iran, “concludes those in Camp Ashraf are there because they choose to be and are not imprisoned.”

Finally, FOFI believes there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the HRW report was politically motivated. Far beyond the mandate of a human rights organization and in tandem appeasement advocates, HRW lashed out at Iran’s main opposition, tacitly recommending that the group be taken off the terrorist lists.”

I think the following paragraph was written specifically for Mr. Dallemagne.

“It is completely inappropriate for a human rights NGO to become a party to a political dispute and lobby in defense of a particular policy under the pretext of human rights. FOFI has refrained from dealing with the political aspect of the issue. Nevertheless, as the HRW recommendation is a political one, FOFI disagrees with its recommendation. The PMOI must be removed from terrorist lists.”

Today, March 1, the resolution on the situation at Ashraf camp is finally on the vote. And finally !

This resolution could already be voted in January. Precious time has been wasted on matters that have nothing to do with a humane and sustainable solution for the inhabitants of camp Ashraf and all with chicken and egg discussions and the party-political colour of applicants and signatories. Political games at the expense of humanity: it must be fair!

In this dossier today, red for me is not the color of love, as Marco Borsato sings so beautifully, but of shame beyond.

Colleagues, today this resolution is finally available, thanks to N-VA. Because we wanted this matter to be treated as a priority, the discussion was initiated. Apart from the political games, I now hope that this resolution is a clear signal to the government to do everything possible to find a sustainable solution for the inhabitants of camp Ashraf and camp Liberty. These people finally deserve a human-worthy solution.

I will speak quickly.

The purpose of the resolution proposal that we will support is to contribute to a peaceful and lasting solution to the precarious situation of the population of the camp of Achraf. Thanks to the intervention of the international community, the Iraqi authorities agreed to postpone its closure, which was scheduled for the end of December. It is now scheduled for the beginning of April. A first transfer of a group of 400 people took place about ten days ago to the Liberty camp, also known as the New Iraq camp. According to my information, it went well. We must hope that the rest of the population of Achraf – since an agreement has been reached on this subject – can also be transferred to this new camp without difficulty and that UNHCR can proceed quickly – and this is also one of the objects of the resolution – to determine the legal status of these residents.

But I must admit that the real political question that arises is that the long-term maintenance of this population in Iraq is impossible. We must be able to acknowledge that the dispute that exists between the Organization of the Moudjahidines of the People of Iran and a very large part of the Iraqi population is too serious. In particular, it is due to the role played by this organization during the Saddam Hussein regime in the repression of the Kurds and in the repression of the Shiites. Some of the people in this camp will ⁇ return to Iran; others will have to be welcomed by third countries. Belgium has already agreed to host six of them. We will have to ask ourselves about the additional efforts that the European Union can provide in this regard.

I would like to conclude by reminding that it should also not be concealed that there is an authentic popular and democratic opposition in Iran. She was born in 2009. It is the Green Movement, which has been suppressed in blood. Let us not let ourselves be diverted by an organization that is, I’m sorry to remind you, paramilitary and that doesn’t enjoy – far from that! – of the same popularity among Iranians, inside and outside the country, as the Green Movement.

We should also remember that the legislative election that will take place tomorrow in Iran is largely chained. We will only witness a struggle between conservatives. So it is the Democrats of the Green Movement who deserve all our support and all our determination.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the intervention of my colleague De Permentier, I would like to express my joy of seeing this dossier result. Indeed, several years ago, since the departure of our former colleague Jean-Pierre Malmendier, I have been attentive to the cause of the prisoners of the camp of Achraf; in addition, I was co-signator of one of two proposals for a resolution on this subject.

Therefore, I welcome the work of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations who were able to lead to this compromise text.

As far as I am concerned, I am very pleased to see that the perception of one and the other has evolved favorably over time on this matter. There was a time when few of us paid attention to it. My colleague Moriau was the first to defend this cause.

I hope that, with this stone, we will contribute to the realization of a sustainable solution for the residents of the Achraf camp.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, like all those who have taken the floor, I can only rejoice. Thanks to the constructive work of the Committee on Foreign Relations, our assembly can debate this resolution that I had submitted in 2010.

The Achraf camp was built in the 1980s to accommodate members of the Organization of the Muslim Muslims of the People of Iran (WIPO), leading to the fact that, today, more than 3,000 people occupy this camp located about sixty kilometers north of Baghdad. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, WIPO members residing in Achraf deposited their weapons and were granted the status of protected persons under the Geneva Conventions.

Remember that, for the High Commissioner for Refugees, the persons accommodated in the camp, who have submitted applications for refugee status, are officially asylum seekers under international law. However, this protection ended in 2009, when the Iraqi government became responsible for most of the country’s internal affairs: a Ponce Pilate strategy to American sauce, because since then, in often troubled conditions, many human rights violations have been ⁇ by many human rights organizations, including Amnesty International. Such a situation is simply unacceptable.

However, at the moment, the case seems to finally evolve in a positive way. On February 18, for the first time in thirty years, Iranian opponents agreed to leave the Achraf camp to be temporarily relocated to a former US base located near Baghdad airport.

This outcome from the crisis, like the transition period, must nevertheless imperatively guarantee both the prerogatives of the Iraqi authority, but also and above all the respect for human rights and humanitarian principles for residents of Achraf.

This double and essential concern was fully supported by the High Representative of the European Union, Catherine Ashton.

Thus, the joint effort of the European Union and the international community contributed to the agreement concluded on 25 December 2011 with the Iraqi government in favour of the UN plan to reach a solution for the residents of the Ashraf camp, all under the monitoring of the UN and the High Commissioner for Refugees.

Prime Minister Maliki, who told his Iranian counterpart that he would resolve the problem very quickly, under international pressure, decided to extend the deadline for the evacuation of the camp of Achraf until the end of April 2012.

The resolution, which was adopted by a very large majority in the committee and which is submitted to us today, has been updated by a general amendment to fully take into account the latest developments in the current situation.

However, many concerns persist. Thus, at the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Political Issues denounced the prison conditions that the Iraqi government intends to impose on Iranian opponents who are refugees on its soil. For example, the new territory of Liberty camp is reduced by 80 times compared to the area of the old camp with a freedom of movement that would be very limited. These concerns are an integral part of this text.

However, as I have already said in the committee, I also want to clarify some points. Our consensus text wanted to be balanced and humanitarian-centered! This text is absolutely not intended to deal with internal politics in the Achraf camp or to denigrate or highlight the WIPO. This movement has long been on the blacklist of terrorist organizations, has led to numerous lawsuits and has eventually been recognized that this designation was unfounded.

I repeat, the purpose of this proposal is purely humanitarian. There are 3,500 families living in horrible conditions. This is why our text also refers to a 2005 Human Rights Watch report denouncing certain deviations within the camp for the period we have specified from 1991 to 2003. I insist on this point because this report has since been controversial, as has the WIPO’s reference to the list of terrorist organizations.

Indeed, as several colleagues have pointed out, this report has been criticized by several international organisations, and in particular a mission of the European Parliament subsequently refuted its findings. This report covering the period 1991-2003 exists and continues to simply remind us – its reference is there – that respect for rights is indispensable for all stakeholders in such a complex case as this.

I insist again; it should not be that the Iraqi authorities misuse this reference in order to continue what should well be called “their abuses” towards the residents of Achraf.

Beyond this consideration, it is necessary, both in the current and future deployment of this camp, that our country, through its European diplomacy and in consultation with the UN, supports the efforts made within the international community to resolve in a sustainable way the situation in the camp of Achraf and its residents.

Our resolution calls for this solution to reconcile, on the one hand, the legitimate demand of the Iraqi state to be able to exercise its authority over its entire territory and, on the other hand, the respect of humanitarian principles and human rights by all parties within the framework of the Memorandum concluded on 25 December 2011 and under the monitoring of the United Nations.

But it will also be about ensuring that respect for these rights is a fact during the transitional phase, but also in terms of the conditions of accommodation of the Liberty camp as well as in the possibilities of family visits or access to care under international law. For, my dear colleagues, respect for human rights and international law must not know boundaries; it must be a principle for all and respected by all.

I thank you for your attention and especially for the support you will give – in any case, I hope – to this text which, I repeat it again, is humanitarian.

Finally, I would like to add that the political games that have unfortunately been associated with the work of the Committee on Foreign Relations ⁇ do not belong to those that some denounce, as it has still been the case today. (The applause)

I listened to my colleagues with great interest. It was especially Ms. Brems who followed the work in the committee. I was there at the time of the clash between the amendments and other sub-amendments.

I still find it hard to understand my colleagues’ support for this proposal due to the Human Rights Watch report. If one recognizes the legitimacy of its content, then one considers it as such in the text – and that seems to me to be the case. But I also hear a lot of contradictory elements.

My group will abstain, given the confusion that prevails among WIPO representatives. The above-mentioned report mentions extremely worrying elements. In my opinion, they are not sufficiently taken into account in this resolution. The confusion is visible between colleagues who feel that the report should be mentioned there and those who claim that it appears there and that it is very good. I don’t know if this will be expressed in the votes, but it will be quite clear to us.

I do not see any confusion or contradiction. Indeed, we refer to all other analyses that have been provided, in particular by international organizations such as the High Authority.

I sincerely think it might have been better not to refer to it, but you know that such commission work is the result of consensus. All parties must be integrated. This amendment makes it very clear that the report relates to the period 1991-2003 and that it has been controversial. There is no possible confusion.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak, because my vote does not allow me to speak, but I would like to refer to the method we have used.

It was an outdated draft resolution, but it was fully updated, with an amendment. There was 90% consensus in the committee. In addition, we had a technical advice from Foreign Affairs. Mr Moriau is right: this proposal for a resolution is current, necessary and positive.

Mr. Speaker, I also think that there is no possible confusion about the subject of this resolution. It is clearly about trying to resolve a humanitarian situation.

Then there is a political context. You have heard that different political assessments coexist. This was not the subject of the resolution. Its aim is to avoid any blood bath, as could be the case in the coming weeks. This is the true object of our common work, despite our differences in interests and views on the political context, on the evolution of the situation and its causes.

Today, we must help international organizations trying to find a solution with the Iraqi government, with the WIPO, to avoid any tragic end and to ensure that this move to Camp Liberty is done correctly.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their answers.

I understand that, regarding this famous Human Rights Watch report and its investigation, some prefer not to be included in the text of the resolution. Yet this NGO, which has performed its work excellently, has highlighted the problems within WIPO and its representatives who have participated, among other things, in the repression of Kurds and Shiites.

I think this is essentially a humanitarian principle. I will remember the words of Mr. Moriau: This principle must be the same for all. I think it is important to observe the events in Iran and the potential tensions in this country. It will be for the commission to remain ready to take care of this matter, still too left aside, in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, it would indeed be a pity that the discussion is guided by one consideration of the essential. It is formulated from humanitarian concerns. We should not underestimate how the problem arose. People are expelled by certain regimes. It would be extremely tempting for us to also make a balance of certain regimes in Iraq and Iran. We have consciously chosen not to find a broad consensus around this majority.

We want these people to live there in the most humane conditions. If the relocation takes place, it must be done with great respect for human rights. These people must absolutely not be used as living shields and they must not be the subject of bilateral disputes or other internal tensions that can be situated in those countries.

Of course, there is a resistance movement that accompanies it, but we do not choose a party for this or that movement. We support all democratic tendencies and the people who have been the victims of their commitment to direct certain regimes in a more democratic direction. This must also be said for a moment.

Mr. President, I will say to Mrs. Boulet that there is no worse deaf than the one who does not want to hear! Of course, no one is questioning the Human Rights Watch report. The problem is that it relates to a period and that things have evolved since.

If I tell you to prefer that it does not appear in the text, it is that I would not want the Iraqi authorities, which for years have benefited from the complicity of paramilitary forces coming from Iran, to use this phrase of the Belgian parliament to continue their executions. This is simply a question of pragmatism.

As for humanitarian principles, it is clear, all parties must respect them. I also said this, but be careful, because we do not discuss a resolution in Iraq as we discuss it in the Belgian Parliament. We are seeking consensus, we are seeking consensus. We went to the end. We discussed a lot. I would like to remind you once again that this resolution is primarily humanitarian. It is not political. This is the subject of another debate.