Proposition 53K1002

Proposition de résolution relative au maintien du SHAPE à Casteau.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Juliette Boulet
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Jacqueline Galant
PS | SP Franco Seminara, Éric Thiébaut

Submission date

Jan. 11, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

NATO economic policy international organisation military base resolution of parliament employment policy

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

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 ¶

Feb. 24, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, you are invited to vote today on the proposal for a resolution on the maintenance of the SHAPE in Casteau in Hainaut. This resolution was widely supported in its vote in the Defence Committee. The French-speaking members who supported this proposal for a resolution have a common point of coming from the Mons-Borinage region. You do not need to be a doctor in economics to know that this region suffers economically and socially.

The SHAPE constitutes a huge socio-economic vector for this region already heavily affected by the leakage of companies. A departure from this structure would be a real catastrophe for the region. In addition to direct jobs (nearly 2,000) and indirect jobs, the base staff occupies a thousand homes, which will quickly find themselves deserted in case of departure.

It is justified to maintain the SHAPE at Casteau, when proceeding to a balance of interests. A move would have little impact on the functionality of the structure. On the other hand, this move would be a massive blow for a region already hard hit by unemployment and precariousness.

During the vote on the draft resolution, Minister De Crem specified that, even without this proposal, he would do everything to maintain the structure. We thank the Minister, but we want to strengthen this action with a clear mandate from Parliament on the subject.

As far as I am concerned, I further specify that as the main author of the draft resolution, I continue to support the Minister’s NATO policy. I take note of the fact that the effective cooperation of Belgium with NATO will have a significant impact on the issue of a possible relocation. I am therefore grateful to the colleagues for their favorable vote on this proposal for a resolution.

But on the sidelines of my speech, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss the project of the Secretary of State for Social Integration, Philippe Courard, to install a centre for 250 asylum seekers and about thirty unaccompanied foreign minors in the former Maisières hotel located in Casteau, just in front of the SHAPE.

As you know, NATO’s European Chief Executive Officer has expressed security concerns about the situation. The SHAPE had expressed its desire to work with the relevant Belgian authorities for a comprehensive approach to this host center project.

For my part, it seems to me quite logical and justified, before such a reception center is made operational, that a risk assessment be carried out, in a coordinated manner, with the Belgian agencies dealing with security issues, in order to be able to assess the increase of the potential threat to the neighborhood, its community that gathers several thousand people from the twenty-eight NATO countries as well as partner countries.

I do not know where this analysis is, nor whether the opening of the center is still planned in spring. I will not fail to question the Secretary of State on this subject, but I wanted to take advantage of my intervention as part of this resolution that we vote today to recall the concerns of SHAPE with regard to this project of opening a new reception center.

I clarify that I fully agree with this concern and that, in my opinion, this is not the place to set up a centre for asylum seekers.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I have already expressed myself several times in the Defence Committee on the importance of ⁇ ining the SHAPE in Casteau, in the Mons region, especially for economic and social reasons. In fact, it is on average 10,000 people, civilian and military confused, that gravitate around and more than 3,000 direct and indirect jobs.

We know that NATO is currently engaged in a comprehensive reform reducing headquarters and specialized agencies as well as reducing staff. Deadlines are fast approaching and a formal decision should be made in June 2011 by NATO Defense Ministers regarding the locations of the next commandos.

Furthermore, the results of an internal study on the costs arising from different options for relocation, modernization or construction of a new site will have to be known by the end of July 2011. The Minister of Defense, who is not present here, has already affirmed his willingness to defend the maintenance of the site within NATO decision-making bodies. The resolution proposal presented today should therefore allow the government to confirm this commitment.

As long as the deadlines are set, many questions will still arise. I will continue to question, together with my colleague Franco Seminara, on behalf of the Socialist Group, the ministers responsible for monitoring the situation.

In addition, I will advocate that, from today, consultations with federal and local entities can be held. Thank you in advance for your support and listening.

Mr. Speaker, like my Henuyer colleagues, I obviously support this resolution calling for the maintenance of SHAPE on the territory of Montoboran.

It was indeed with great concern that we had learned of these rumors of the relocation of the SHAPE to Mons. In addition, it appeared that an evaluation was underway, as my colleague Thiébaut said.

This evaluation should be made in July. We will definitely come back at that time.

Still, many workers are present on the SHAPE site, which generates a number of direct and indirect jobs in a region heavily affected by a high unemployment rate and which has experienced numerous business closures. Anyone who has looked at this region will have seen how serious socio-economic difficulties it has experienced in recent years.

by Ecolo-Groen believes that NATO and the revision of its strategic concept raise important questions of orientation and democratic legitimacy – this has been recalled throughout this year – this does not mean that international infrastructures must lose their reason to be on our territory and, in particular, Mons. We advocate the maintenance of the SHAPE site at its current location in the name of employment, investments and financial returns it generates directly and indirectly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do not agree at all with my colleague, Mrs. Galant, on a future reception center. Personally, I have no doubt that the SHAPE will find a ground of understanding with its future new neighbors. My group therefore supports the decisions of Minister Courard in this matter.

There is something unclear to me. Of course, our group also supported the resolution, but I am surprised to see that Ecolo is suddenly the great defender of NATO. The group of Ecolo-Green! He is suddenly 100% behind the SHAPE project, which is actually a coordination project of European defence, intra-Europe. Has Ecolo’s position on NATO changed? I would like to hear that.

Finally, I absolutely do not see the link or relevance between the SHAPE and this resolution and the asylum center, which might come near the SHAPE. In this sense, I think there is a strange turn to the debate.

I would have liked to hear from Ecolo how they look against NATO. Are they in favor of NATO or are they against it?

Mr. Francken, if you listened to me and if you remember your intervention in the Defence Committee when we discussed it, we have never denied the fact that we were critical of the guidelines taken by NATO. If you have followed the debates for a year, you will understand our point of view. We have been very critical of the guidelines taken in the revision of the strategic concept. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to say and your group has also issued a lot of criticism, especially through the voice of Mr. Speaker. and Moriau.

We are critical but we are also in favor of the maintenance of international institutions, an evolution of European defence and NATO. This is not new, Mr. Francken. You need to listen to your colleagues before criticizing them.

The main thing is that the shape remains, in my opinion. But it is another thing...

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as we have already said during the discussion in the committee responsible, we have no problem with the draft resolution of the colleagues of the MR, on the contrary. The CD&V group advocates a credible European defense based on two pillars: NATO and the European Union. We believe these are complementary and can strengthen each other in the long run.

We therefore support Mr. Colleague Galant for this proposal to keep NATO headquarters SHAPE in Casteau open and we also realize the important social and economic impact its presence has on the region and local employment. It is important for Belgium to remain a respected ally within NATO. We are convinced that the Government of Current Affairs and its Minister of Land Defense have done everything possible to strengthen our credibility within the alliance, both in terms of the preservation of the SHAPE in Bergen and the construction of the new NATO headquarters in Evere.

As stated, we support colleague Galant in this proposal, but we will not fall into the rather regionalist reflex that characterizes some of her MR colleagues in recent months. After all, if we were to take over the philosophy of some MR colleagues in the Committee for the Defense of the Land, we would here now accuse the gross and shameful imbalance concerning NATO-related investments in our country. These investments seem to be limited to Brussels and Wallonia with SHAPE in Bergen and NATO headquarters in Brussels. We will therefore not address the jobs that both branches create in our capital and south of the language border.

As mentioned, our group considers the presence of NATO in our country to be extremely important and we support the proposal. We were surprised to meet several other signatories to this resolution. I spoke more specifically of the signatures of two groups which, during the last joint debate on NATO in Parliament on 14 December 2010, were very critical of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the future of this organization.

The resolution calls for all efforts, I quote: “to ensure the preservation of SHAPE on Belgian territory and to advocate with the other governments of NATO member states the modernization of the existing site.”

For us, that is a logical statement, but it seems to contradict what a member of the Green!-Ecolo group – not to mention him: Wouter De Vriendt – recently said during the NATO debate in December. I quote him: “NATO is a remnant from the period of the Cold War. It is now in full crisis. It is therefore urgently necessary to discuss the right of NATO to exist and its functioning.”In fact, according to colleague De Vriendt, a new security structure is needed, in which NATO plays a less dominant role than is currently the case.

A member of another faction of our assembly, namely Mr. Moriau, argued that NATO cannot always respond to the new threats, especially when they are not exclusively military.

We do not necessarily disagree with this, but should one not draw its conclusions when one poses such a statement? If, according to some, NATO is unable to provide a valid response to certain threats, should we continue to invest in NATO infrastructure and in NATO presence on Belgian territory? Some groups succeed in making an interesting spread.

We sincerely hope that today’s more nuanced attitude will also be present in the upcoming debates on NATO operations in which our country participates or will participate in the future.

Colleague Kindermans, I appreciate your reference to my presentation in the committee, but I do not understand the problem.

We are in favour of NATO reform because we do not believe in the current strategy, which we consider to be too unilaterally militaristic. However, that does not mean that we would be against the preservation of an international institution on our territory.

Mr. De Vriendt, however, I read in the quote that “we must urgently discuss the right to exist of NATO”. This does not mean that it needs to be modernized, but that we should even ask ourselves whether NATO should continue to exist, and today you come to vote on a new headquarters.

Indeed, we question the right to exist of NATO, as it exists today. However, there is a need for a security structure in our world. For us, NATO can be the perfect basis for this.

We are for the preservation of international institutions. I do not understand that you, on behalf of CD&V, make this a problem. Are you not for the preservation of NATO or international institutions on our territory? You should welcome the fact that other groups, other parties, are also for the preservation of international institutions. I think it is good, because in this way Belgium has a voice and authority and can influence international politics. I do not see the problem.

It is my task to make clear to the public opinion the spread and the paradox that Ecolo-Green! make here. Colleague Francken has already said it. Everyone is surprised how you blow warm and cold at the same time. On the one hand, you criticize NATO’s right to exist, and on the other hand, you engage with MR for socio-economic reasons, which we find very strange.

I feel that this debate will continue at other times. We are talking about a headquarters and not NATO’s overall strategy!

Mijnheer Kindermans, nogmaals een mooi voorbeeld van hoe CD&V N-VA achternaloopt. and Congratulations.

Mr. President, I thank you.

First and foremost, I will not be able to refrain from joining me to some of Mr. President’s comments. Kindermans to surprise me with discourses with variable geometry depending on whether the situation is local or more general. In any case, it is obvious that the maintenance of the SHAPE in Casteau matters from a local economic point of view. But it is also a challenge for Belgium due to the defence provided by NATO and European objectives.

We had a preliminary exchange. I would like to remind you that this proposal comes with the support of the government. Not only the Minister of Defense, but also the Prime Minister, clearly stated in November 2010 in Lisbon that Belgium held a lot of cards in hand to keep the SHAPE at Mons. The Government has committed to defending the interests of Belgium in this regard. That is why we must support the work of the government, on which I hope we can count to reaffirm this position with force.