Proposition 53K1308

Proposition de résolution concernant la situation en Libye.

General information ¶

Author

N-VA Bert Maertens

Submission date

March 18, 2011

Official page

Visit

Subjects

Libya UN Security Council foreign policy civil war resolution of parliament multinational force human rights forces abroad

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 21, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Dear members of the Government, Dear colleagues, on Friday, March 18, a discussion on the situation in Libya was held in the Joint Committee on Foreign Relations and Land Defense, in the presence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defense.

To conclude that exchange of views, a joint draft resolution was submitted by almost all present groups. This proposal was drawn up from a shared and deep concern about the growing violence and the serious and systematic violations of human rights by the Libyan government against its own people.

The draft resolution means that Parliament expresses its support for the participation of the Belgian government in a military operation in Libya in accordance with the mandate of the UN Security Council.

In the draft resolution, the Parliament endorses the three conditions that the government sets for international military action. First, there must be a legitimate question from Libya. Second, the Arab League must also participate. Third, the operation fits within a United Nations mandate.

In addition to the first draft resolution that I recently outlined, there was also a second, identical draft resolution, submitted by Members of Parliament of the Flemish Interest. The first proposal was chosen as the basis for the discussions. This proposal was explained in the joint committee by the chief applicant, Mr Stefaan Vercamer.

Dirk Van der Maelen and Karin Temmerman submitted two amendments. An amendment explicitly incorporates the reference to resolution 1973 in the text and an amendment stipulates that Parliament should be involved in any future modification of the Belgian contribution. Mr Van der Maelen withdrew both amendments almost immediately, as a third amendment was submitted that could sufficiently cover the burden of his first two amendments.

The amendment, which was again jointly submitted by almost all the parties present, states that the Chamber requests the Government to ensure the involvement of the Parliament continuously and to re-examine it if new circumstances would change the nature of the Belgian engagement.

Colleagues, who lived concern and lives very strongly with all groups. The involvement of the Parliament and the consultation with the government on the operation in Libya must be concretely completed and elaborated. In this regard, I also look at the Chairman of the Chamber, who, in my opinion, has an important role to play and can take an initiative in this regard.

At the end of the brief report, I would like to point out that the draft resolution that we are discussing again today at the plenary session, including the third amendment in question, was unanimously adopted.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues from the government, ladies and gentlemen, last week the United Nations took a historic decision. With the adoption of Resolution 1973 by the UN Security Council, the Security Council has reaffirmed the responsibility of the international community to protect the Libyan civilian population from the attacks they are subjected to.

On Saturday, after the Paris summit, in which our country was also present, a military action was launched to ensure that this violence was stopped.

Democracy is a universal value. It is in his name that the Libyan people want to take their destiny in their hands. It is also in his name and in strict respect for the goals set by the United Nations that we must help this people to gain their freedom. On Saturday, the implementation of the Security Council resolution was collectively decided by representatives at the highest level of European states, the United States, Canada and Arab states, in the presence of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Secretary-General of the Arab League and the President of the European Council.

Colleagues, on the basis of the unanimous support of all political groups in this Parliament and in implementation of the decisions of the government, I confirmed last Saturday at the Paris summit the will of Belgium, of our country, to contribute to the deployment of all necessary resources, including military resources, to enforce the resolution of the Security Council.

I recalled the objectives we pursue, namely the achievement of an immediate ceasefire, the complete cessation of all violence and of attacks on civilians, the observance by Libya of international law.

To ⁇ these objectives, the establishment and maintenance of a so-called no-fly zone is essential. This means the destruction of all of Libya’s air defense. This phase is currently underway. It is also within this framework and within the framework of law applicable in conflicts that our military, our compatriots, will be deployed.

Dear colleagues, our determination must remain flawless. We have made a serious but just decision, dictated by the universal consciousness. Today we are placed before our responsibilities and our country will take them with dignity. They are not without risk, but it is now that the Libyan people need our support. It is through the vote of your resolution that our country will be at the height of this issue which is not without risk.

Our determination must remain unwavering. We have made a serious but correct decision, inspired by the universal consciousness. Today we are facing our responsibilities.

Our country will take these responsibilities with dignity. They are not without risk, but the Libyan people need our support now. It is through the approval of your resolution that our country assumes this risky responsibility.

It is obvious that the government remains fully available to the Parliament. The institutional situation justifies a permanent contact between the government and the Parliament.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, colleagues from the government, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the commitment and courage of our military personnel, who are now called upon to participate in this risky operation on the basis of the resolution that you will approve later. The nation is very grateful to them.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues of the Government, ladies, gentlemen, gentlemen, I congratulate, finally, the involvement and courage of our military who are called to participate in this action not without risk. The whole nation is grateful to them.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, colleagues, on Saturday, Operation Odyssey Dawn was launched. At the time when the diplomatic beau monde gathered in Paris for a final summit, French Mirage aircraft inflamed all the statements of Gaddafi believers around the city of Benghazi. You, Prime Minister, along with your colleague Minister of Foreign Affairs, were also present at the consultation in the Élysée at that time. Not long after, the British, Americans and Canadians in action also fired aircraft and cruise missiles at troop concentrations in and around Benghazi and Tripoli.

Per ⁇ the rules of engagement for our military have already been established, and our country will also participate in the operations with F-16 aircraft and a mine hunter.

Colleagues, our group, the N-VA group, is pleased that the international community intervenes and calls for Gaddafi to stop. For this purpose, the government last Friday obtained a parliamentary mandate on behalf of all political groups, including from our party.

Have we named the right decision? and yes. This military intervention was and is the only logical step to end the bloodshed of innocent civilians and insurgents. All the previous steps taken, as well as the previous 1970 resolution, were unable to stop Gaddafi. Some are now asking questions about the role that foreign countries played in the past, when we kept Gaddafi in the seat. Others are concerned about how it should go now, and what needs to be done after that military intervention. These questions are right. However, neither the process of Libya’s past nor the process of Libya’s future undermine the necessity and correctness of intervening now.

We do not make reservations on the decision and the actions resulting from it, but – I want to say this again here, just as in the committee last Friday – we approve this under the condition of an amendment that the committee has also approved on our initiative, which stipulates that this is, to the next order, a government in ongoing affairs, which without the Parliament can not make significant decisions.

The rapporteur has already quoted the amendment, but I would like to repeat it: “It cannot do this without the government not only informing, but also ensuring Parliament’s involvement.”

I hope that the unity will remain within the international coalition, but also here, in this hemisphere. Last Friday, each group gave their support to the coalition. Colleagues, I do not hope that after one day of war, this parliamentary front is already on the dive. Our soldiers will carry out their tasks with great commitment and conviction. I also signed this resolution. I feel personally and politically involved in the fate of our soldiers. At the moment they fly in their cockpit over Libya, we must remain unanimous here, even if it can take a long time.

Colleagues, our group is also fully aware of the impact of this decision. It will not be a walk in the park. The statement of colleague Theo Francken in the committee, “We go to war,” is not an enthusiastic cry for waging war, but it is, however, the blameless and correct assessment of what we have decided. Everyone should be aware of it. We will inevitably face images of violence, images of destruction. Gaddafi will use every opportunity to plunge innocent civilians into the battle. It will not be a short battle, it will be a long battle. Mr. Minister, you have rightly stated that the no-fly zone is not a sign in the air that states “Forbidden to Fly”. Again, however, all this does not affect the correctness of the initial decision now made.

We may have to wonder whether this operation and the participation of Belgium in it will also have an impact on the internal security of our country. We must not simply ignore the threats and retaliatory actions announced by Gaddafi. I am also looking forward to what the Minister has to say about this.

Colleagues, I am somewhat concerned about the – to say disrespectfully – cutting and sticking work of the coalition of the willing. Until now, we do not know exactly who has the political and operational leadership in the hands. It is and remains a complex diplomatic balance exercise. At first it was thought that NATO would relinquish the no-fly zone and the arms embargo. However, for political reasons – the German and Turkish abstinence – and because of the perception – a Western orchestrated attack is of course not the best way – an ad hoc coalition has been chosen, with France clearly playing a leading role. I consider it crucial that Turkey remains involved and can be persuaded as a key partner in this operation.

Despite the support of the Arab League, which was confirmed this afternoon, we see that no country in the region, except Qatar, is willing to support the action militarily.

Mr Minister, there are two countries that support the coalition politically: Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. We talked about the situation in Bahrain last week. Don’t you fear that the support of those two countries acts a bit like a lightning beacon to cover their presence in Bahrain? I hope we remain critical, even though all cameras are now focused on Tripoli and no longer on Manamah.

Then there is the question: Quid Gaddafi? What do we do with it? He has to go, that is clearly stated. Resolution 1970 referred Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. This is a clear signal that the international community condemns this tyrant. We also know that he will not surrender so easily. I think he will not surrender. Colleagues, this military intervention should enable Gaddafi to be sought, arrested, brought to The Hague and tried.

Finally, Mr. Minister, we can only conclude that this military ad-hoc action, however justified and necessary, is a step backward for the common foreign and security policy of the European Union.

The dream of one of your predecessors to have a single European army today is further away than ever.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies, Ladies, Ladies Ministers, Dear Colleagues, last Friday, the parliamentarians of the Foreign Relations and Defence Commissions unanimously stood behind your government to support the operations that our army could carry out in Libya. It was still necessary to protect the Libyan people from the murderous and vengeful madness of Gaddafi who wants to assassinate any democratic aspiration in Libya.

This weekend, France, Great Britain and the United States launched the operation "Aube of the Odyssey" which consisted, according to the information made public, in air strikes. It is, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1973, to end the unacceptable crimes of the Gaddafi regime.

It is not exaggerated to believe that the first strikes really helped to avoid a blood bath in Benghazi in particular. I would like to clarify with force that my group has supported, supports and will firmly support any operation that remains strictly within the conditions set by the government last week.

For my group, this peacekeeping mission to protect the populations must meet three conditions that I recall: a mandate from the United Nations, support from the organisations in the region, and finally, a request from the Libyan people.

Furthermore, it is fundamental for us to remain strictly within the framework of Resolution 1973. It is important to remain in this framework because, otherwise, opponents of this intervention will have a good game of shouting again to new Western Crusades. They will have a great game of seeing the humanitarian objective being wiped out behind a cynical energy interest. We are not there. Nevertheless, I must confess that I was extremely uncomfortable this weekend, even though I remain convinced of the effectiveness of this Saturday’s air strikes. The statements are going to war with the blood of others, the absence of NATO as such in the forefront of the command of military operations, the doubts expressed by the Arab League have caused me to fear that this operation does not escape its primary objectives, does not exceed the scope of the UN mandate. To put it otherwise, that from a mission of protection of severely threatened populations, one comes to an occupation operation, that from a protection zone for insurgents, one goes to an offensive operation.

These are not the terms of the 1973 resolution reaffirmed and recalled today even by the French Ministry of Defense. My group considers that these are not the terms of the agreement and I am relieved to hear the Prime Minister this afternoon be very clear in this regard. For my group, it must be clear that we are acting within the framework of the UN and NATO and not within a coalition that would turn away from these badges.

At the meeting of the Foreign Relations and Defense Committees last Friday, our group clearly insisted that the means used in the implementation of Resolution 1973 should be coordinated within the international community and proportionate to lead to the stabilization of the country, the region, and even the world. These proportionate means will have to minimize the risks for the local population, as it is always the weakest who pay, as well as for our military, which is currently 230.

Current affairs compel, the government of our country must continue to count on the unanimous support of the House. It is therefore essential that the involvement of the Parliament continues. We must be informed of the evolution of the situation and above all of the precise rules of engagement of our military if they intervene. I also remind you that any changes to the operational component of the UN mandate, such as the sending of troops to the ground, will necessarily have to pass through a consultation with the Parliament.

The statement you just presented before our assembly brings me some reassurance, Mr. Prime Minister. We are pleased to hear that Belgium will advocate for bringing operations back into the NATO line as soon as possible and that in the meantime, it is the rules of NATO engagement that we will apply.

We are witnessing, my dear colleagues, a Spring of Peoples in the Arab world, like Europe in 1848. This hope of democracy, of a new paradigm between tyranny and jihadism. This hope of a whole youth, largely the majority in the region, we must shoulder without replacing ourselves with the will of the peoples. Our country is honored by engaging in the defense of democratic values to which a large part of the world aspires but let us try not to forget that beyond military intervention, there will be enormous work to be done on the economic, humanitarian, social and cultural levels! I dare hope that, for these workshops, we will also regain the unanimity we have today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, etc. The decision is serious and fair. It is also a decent decision because we cannot remain indifferent, impassible to a bloody repression, to the oppression of the Libyan people. We cannot see it from our countries without reacting.

So there was a quest for dignity, it is achieved. In this regard, I would like to welcome the initiative that France and Britain have taken by mobilizing countries; this seemed to me necessary and sensible. On Friday, we all supported the government in its decision to follow the UN resolution and the positioning of the Arab League countries. This is not a decision of Western countries intervening in Libya; it is about defending the intervention of the universal consciousness.

Of course, our support must be flawless. We need determination. Everyone must measure the seriousness of the decision they make by supporting the government and the United Nations. This determination must be inscribed in the duration because we know that we will not be able to renounce the support of a people plagued by terrible oppression. There must be consistency in our positioning as well as a search for effectiveness in proportionality. The means we implement within the framework of the coalition must be proportionate to the objectives we pursue.

It is about making sure that Gaddafi cannot repress his people impunely. It is about making sure that it is put out of a state of harm. In order to do this, military operations will have to be carried out. Of course, this will not be done on a video game console. There will be bombing; there has already been. There is a risk of making victims. We must take full responsibility for this.

I was pleased with the unanimity that came out. I raised the risk of some ambiguity in the way the government decision was sometimes commented on.

Now that operations have actually begun on the ground and that our forces will soon be engaged, it is necessary to maintain this unanimity, this determination in relation to an operation that, of course, like Mr. The Prime Minister said in his speech that there are risks. By supporting the government and the United Nations, we must jointly assume the existence of these risks and their consequences.

Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, be assured of the support of the Reform Movement for the courageous decision that you have made in concert with the United Nations.

Of course, we will be ⁇ careful to ensure that this operation is carried out in a goal of efficiency, proportionality, but also of public good and universal consciousness.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, colleagues, over the past few days and weeks we have debated the situation in Libya several times. Many questions have been asked, and often ideas have been exchanged. Sometimes there were harsh words to be heard in the address of the government, in particular that we stayed too much on the side and were too hesitant.

Ultimately, a decision to intervene militarily is not easy. They are not taken simply. It is always the last option when there is no other way out. Parliament and government agreed on three conditions to cooperate in international action against Gaddafi’s violence against its own citizens, citizens who stand for more freedom, more democracy and more respect for human rights. These three conditions, a legitimate demand from Libya, the participation of the Arab League and the mandate of the United Nations, are of crucial importance for our group. On Friday, we in the committee confirmed three conditions in a resolution and expressed our support for participation in an international action in accordance with the mandate of the United Nations. It was requested that further follow-up would take place in consultation with Parliament.

As the Prime Minister noted, this action is risky. It is a tough decision but inspired by a great concern about the growing violence against Libyan citizens. Such a decision is not only difficult, it makes it even more difficult when it is accompanied by actions in the field where own people, own soldiers, are involved. It requires a lot of courage. At the same time, we are very concerned and feel very involved. We hope for a good ending and wish our soldiers and their families a lot of courage.

Following the events in Libya, there has been a lot of reference to the so-called responsibility to protect. This term has apparently been used in the committee and in the Parliament. We ⁇ do not stand against it negatively, but it is still interesting to emphasize that it is a concept and ⁇ not an internationally accepted legal principle. In that sense, we must be careful not to use responsibility to protect as a fashion word. We must not neglect its concrete significance. It contains three important dimensions. First, to respond effectively in situations where genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity are currently or are about to happen; second, to prevent such situations from getting worse; third, to rebuild societies destroyed by such disasters so that it does not happen again.

So we must not be mistaken. It goes far beyond a unilateral diplomatic initiative, a temporary arms embargo, or a limited military intervention.

It is a long-term commitment of the international community with robust resources, in whatever field, whether military, diplomatic or economic. Today, therefore, we must ask ourselves not only whether we want to contribute to the cessation of violence, but also what efforts we want to make in the long term, both in Libya and in the wider region.

The three conditions remain crucial for us and both in Libya and in the region, there must be a sufficiently large support for the operations to protect the Libyan civilian population. In any case, we must do everything we can to prevent the Gaddafi regime from having the opportunity to portray these actions as a new crusade against the Arab world. We therefore welcome the fact that the Arab League has once again fully supported this intervention.

The question of the finality of this operation remains crucial. We ask the Belgian government to follow up closely on all discussions on the final goal and to keep Parliament informed as closely as possible.

In addition, our soldiers who will soon be deployed must be given a clear mandate that leaves nothing to chance, a solid mandate with clear rules of engagement, and they must have all the necessary materials and support.

Mr. Speaker, in this context, we also urge that the Joint Committee of the Chamber and the Senate for the follow-up of foreign missions meet as soon as possible, so that the ministers can inform the members of Parliament.

The CD&V faction is not made up of cattle. For our group, the principle remains that military intervention is only the last tool in situations of serious human rights violations. However, our group recognizes that military action is sometimes the only remaining option and at the same time we recognize that drawing this card involves enormous risks and that the rotating book often contains unexpected twists. Caution and nuance are therefore our key words in this discussion.

Finally, we would also like to point out the role of Europe, the role that the EU has to play in this situation. The European Union must take responsibility and must now think about the day after the military actions. North Africa and the Middle East are regions bordering Europe. Its inhabitants are our immediate neighbors. The Mediterranean region has traditionally been a region characterized by intense interactions between the various neighbouring countries. It is therefore first and foremost up to Europe to assume its responsibility and to listen to the call of the Arab people. It is first and foremost up to us to guide these countries towards more democracy and socio-economic changes. Europe must therefore, in the coming weeks, months and years, show the young people, the citizens who now demonstrate in the streets and who stand for democracy and freedom, that we support them but not their old and corrupt leaders.

We do this not only through the release of funds, but also through visible humanitarian actions on the ground. This can range from repatriating people to helping with reconstruction, food supply and so on.

In any case, we must be careful that, in parallel with the military actions that are currently underway, we immediately initiate a very intense diplomatic and political process. This should allow us to engage in dialogue with all possible reliable interlocutors in Libya, who want to work with Europe to ⁇ a more democratic transition and a Libya that respects its own people and human rights.

The current situation in Libya may also have to encourage this Parliament to some self-reflection and to some degree of modesty, dear colleagues. Our country has supplied weapons to the regime. Our country, along with other European countries, has economic ties with Libya. There have been various political and diplomatic contacts. Some have been on an official visit to Libya. Too often, our comments and our criticism of human rights were ignored.

Our group supports the government in its participation in international action in accordance with the mandate of the Security Council and this within a clear framework and with maximum guarantees for the safety of the people we deploy.

Finally, we ask the Government to continue to discuss this international commitment with Parliament, ⁇ in the event of changes in the nature of the commitment or in the event of unexpected turns.

Mr. Speaker, in this sense it would be good that the Joint Committee of the Chamber and the Senate for the follow-up of foreign missions should meet as soon as possible to guarantee that involvement.

We wish our soldiers and their families a lot of courage for the coming days and weeks.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, as a first point in my presentation, I would like to emphasize that I am very satisfied with the new procedure that follows the participation of Belgium in a foreign operation.

On the very day of the decision in the government we have been able to discuss it in the committee and three days after that decision we are discussing it already in the plenary session.

With that practice, we join with what exists in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Great Britain. My first wish is that we could make this a consistent practice and, why not, change our Belgian Constitution in that direction as soon as possible.

There is a proposal for the revision of the Constitution from my hand on the table and I invite all colleagues to look at it for a moment to bring us to the level of the Netherlands, Germany, France and Great Britain in that area.

Secondly, I come to the intervention itself. On Friday, some colleagues were in a somewhat euphoric vote. I said then that they should be careful because it is a risky operation with many dangers. I must confess that I did not know that we would face the risks so quickly.

I see three at the moment. The first risk is that we will lose international support. I call on the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his colleagues to do everything they can to avoid this. The SPA supports the decision and wants to intervene in Libya and that the citizens who stand for their rights there receive protection, but we must be careful that by our own action – not the Belgian action, but the action of a part of the international community – we do not lose the broad international support.

I have heard that the African Union is in doubt and that there will be a meeting on 25 or 26 March where the Arab League and the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, will also meet and discuss it.

It would be bad if we lost their support.

Secondly, the most important is the Arab support, which has been swinging in the last few days. However, we are conducting a very sensitive operation in one of the most unstable regions, especially North Africa and the Middle East. There is never much trust in the West, ⁇ not among the groups that try to get rid of their dictator.

Colleagues, it may be said, and then one of my colleagues invited me to make some self-reflection. The West has held the dictators in question for thirty to forty years. The people want to get rid of their dictators. We want to make a military intervention, to take away one of the leaders involved, whom we have not pressed back on our chest more than five years ago. There are some doubts about our good intentions.

For the rest, there is a mine field of tensions in the conscious region. There are tensions between Sunni and Shiite, between regional powers such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and between Israel and Palestine. We are, therefore, at times on super-sensitive terrain carrying out a very sensitive operation. If we undermine the international legitimacy of the intervention and lose the support of the African Union or the Arab League, we are in the nest.

That is the first risk I see and for which I call on the government to do everything possible to maintain the international legitimacy of the operation.

A second risk lies in the resolution. The resolution is very elastic. The jargon says that it is a good resolution because it contains constructive ambiguity. Over the past few days we have heard different interpretations of the same resolution.

So my second warning to the government is that it must do everything to prevent that constructive ambiguity from turning into a destructive ambiguity. I ask the government to make sure to avoid unilateral, Western interpretations of the resolution.

It is a fact that, when there is a resolution, especially when it contains ambiguity, it can always be determined that some are trying to shift the boundaries. In the jargon, this is called mission creep. There are those who try to expand and shift the goal of the intervention.

Please do not do this. I do not have the privilege to speak with the Arab Libya, but I do not rule out that the basis of the problem with the Arab League was that there was a no-fly zone interpreted narrowly, while we interpret it broadly, in the sense that it can also be used – and I agree with it – to shoot down Khadafi’s tanks that threaten Benghazi. So I would like to say to the members of the government who conduct the negotiations that they must ensure that it is clear what that resolution allows and what it does not allow. Do not hesitate to use one-sided interpretations, because then, after all, we could be confronted with the first problem.

There are problems with this resolution. The first question is whether or not ground troops are allowed. I have heard everything and nothing about it in the last three days. I have heard respectable lawyers such as Eric David of the ULB say that resolution does not allow ground troops. I have heard others say that this can be done. There is always some shadow about an operation. There are already special forces there that give instructions or give information to the aircraft when they bomb. They also do a good job, because they can also transmit, for example, that a particular target should not be shot because there are too many civilians in the vicinity. There are those who say that this is meant, that this should be. Others say that we need that ambiguity in order to set up a military hit-and-run operation if an airplane is shot down and start disrupting our pilots. That is said. Other colleagues say there must be real ground troops that, if necessary, co-fight on the side of the rebels against Gaddafi’s regime.

There is a range of interpretations.

First, according to sp.a, the resolution does not allow this latter.

Second, we confirm today, March 21, that the Libyan resistance does not ask for this. In fact, they absolutely deny it. They say they do not want it.

Third, we assert – I look at the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, for this is my interpretation of the signals coming from the United States – that the United States is also not a requesting party for that.

Those who want to do so, therefore, are asked whether we can do without the US. I note that the Minister of Defense said at one point – I don’t know if it was a slip of the tongue – that this is not the case for Belgium, that we will never send ground troops because it is not part of our commitments to the NATO Response Force. He did not rule out that others would do this.

Be careful with this first fact. If you ask my estimate today, I must tell you that I think the Arab world would react very badly to an invasion. By the way, William Hague, British Foreign Minister, denies this and on the American side it is also denied.

A second point that we should pay attention to is the regime change. Gaddafi is gone. I also note that our own Minister of Defense says that the resolutions 1970 and 1973 should be read together. According to the minister, Gaddafi must leave, and if necessary, we will follow him and we will bring him to The Hague. Others, such as Minister Vanackere, say this is not the case. He said this in the committee on Friday. Liam Fox, the British Defense Secretary, and Admiral Mullen of the United States say this is not the goal. Again, however, there is that ambiguity and that creates problems and anxiety. Please avoid this!

I come to the third area I am concerned about, namely the military intervention. I will be brief on this. The question is who has the command over the operations. Colleagues, I am not a military specialist, but anyone with a little bit of common sense will understand that one operation in one airspace is best conducted under one command. The operation is already difficult enough. Politics is very sensitive and I hope that a mistake will never be the result of a lack of proper planning and good information exchange. We must absolutely try to prevent any mistake being made in the military operation. We need to have one command.

Our soldiers are facing very difficult times. It is clear that Gaddafi will do everything possible to hide in cities with his equipment, beside public buildings such as, for example, hospitals. Disabling military resources in those places, fucking, will not be easy. This is the debate about the rules of engagement. We do not know them.

I call on the government to exercise the utmost caution in this area and to order our military to fire only if they are 200 percent sure. He is waiting for a mistake from us.

Colleagues, I close with the conclusion that the SPAA will approve this resolution and this operation, but for us this resolution gives us the permission to intervene militarily to protect the population and those civilians who want to get rid of Gaddafi’s dictatorial yoke from the bloody actions he wants to undertake against them, not less, but neither more.

For us, the word spoken in Parliament applies. I heard the Foreign Minister on Friday say that a regime change is not in the resolution. It is about stopping the bloodshed. Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, these are the words that count for my group. Based on those words and that commitment, we will follow you, but I would like to call on the Prime Minister and you to transmit that message as soon as possible internationally, as well as within your own government, to ensure that there are no more dissonant sounds.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I ⁇ your presentation very much. I think the concerns you raise are also the concerns of many political groups in this panel, but I would like to ask for one clarification. You say that regime change is not on our agenda, but that is of course stated in Resolution 1970, which was adopted before Resolution 1973.

I have not fully understood it and therefore my question to your group is whether your group is prepared to arrest, arrest or have Gaddafi arrested and to extradite to the International Criminal Court of The Hague. This is not quite clear to me. We are talking about a regime change. Will we do so by encouraging the rebels to do so, or by deploying ground forces themselves, which are special forces or larger movements of ground forces? I would like to know this, because I think that is in the task.

I do not understand my colleague’s reasoning.

Colleague, if you knew the position of sp.a in that regard – I refer, for example, to what colleague Bruno Tuybens has told in recent years – you would speak differently. We would rather have all those who step down on human rights, as Gaddafi did, already in The Hague yesterday than they are in The Hague tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, colleagues, should Parliament not try to go beyond the actuality of the day?

On March 20, protests were shot in Syria, resulting in dead and wounded. Yemen’s ambassador to the United Nations has resigned due to the violence against protesters in his country. Saudi Arabia sends tanks to Bahrain to suppress the democratic popular uprising there. The newspapers say that on March 19, there were calls in Côte d’Ivoire to neutralize the protesters. There were mortar attacks. France wants the Security Council to raise sanctions against Ivory Coast.

Colleagues, the outrage over the repression of Gaddafi is right. But let us not be selectively angry. Let us also be angry at the unrest in other countries. Even when it comes to dictatorships that happen to be geostrategic allies of the West, we must dare to think about diplomatic sanctions and economic sanctions and about the meaning or nonsense of arms exports to dictatorships.

Saudi Arabia may be an ally, it is also one of the worst dictatorships in the world. I believe that we, as Members of Parliament, should eliminate the selective blindness. We need to have a thorough debate about our foreign relations.

The use of force is never self-evident and should never be self-evident. We must act with the utmost caution. However, when human rights are being violated on a very large scale, we as the international community must not stand aside. We must intervene when it is necessary to prevent worse suffering among the civilian population.

The democratic popular uprising in Libya was countered by Gaddafi. Human Rights Watch spoke on March 14 about peaceful protests resulting in deadly violence, disappearances and executions. BBC journalists saw torture on Libyan prisoners and the Red Cross said a few weeks ago that we must prepare for the worst, a catastrophe.

The Red Cross observed dead and wounded in hospitals in Libya, which could no longer withstand the influx. Gaddafi has deployed tanks, artillery and aircraft against peaceful protesters. Human Rights Watch reports hundreds of deaths. Italy spoke of a thousand deaths. The Libyan Human Rights Council said 6,000 people were killed. According to the UN Refugee Organization, there were 180,000 refugees in the initial phase of the conflict.

The responsibility to protect, the duty to protect against suffering when it occurs, is a beautiful UN principle. In this case, I am pleased that the principle was applied on paper. Why Why ? The operation in Libya has been mandated by the United Nations. The Arab League agreed and the Libyan opposition also supported an intervention by the international community. That means there was support for a military intervention, because it was the last option, which remained.

Many people say the international community has acted too slowly. We were too passive, too cautious. But in fact, Minister Vanackere, the diplomatic mill is slow, as you know as Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it is a valuable process, because it means that the intervention of the international community is legally fully legitimized and can also count on a support in the region to the democratic folk movement that is ongoing in Libya.

Prime Minister, Ecolo-Green We support the military intervention in Libya because we want to give the popular uprising all the opportunities there and because we want to end the suffering of the civilian population. We have a duty to protect and we must fulfill it.

However, we do not give you a blank check. We want this operation to be handled wisely, civilian casualties to be avoided as much as possible, and that the operation can continue to rely on the support of the Arab countries and the opposition in Libya. However, the signals of recent days seem to suggest a number of problems in this area. I would like to discuss this issue later in your answers. For us, a number of conditions must be met in order to be successful.

One of those conditions is the final goal. In the committee last Friday I heard Minister Vanackere say that a regime change is not in question. But over the weekend I heard Hillary Clinton say that a regime change is indeed discussed in the resolution that was passed in the United Nations. Minister Pieter De Crem said the same thing, namely that a regime change is now in question. I was a little disturbed by the offensive language of some in the committee last Friday, but also in the government.

We must be careful. We must reasonably debate and act reasonably.

Members of the government, the objectives are not clear. What if Gaddafi drops his arms and wants a political agreement with the insurgents, but those insurgents still want to pull to Tripoli? What would be the military attitude of the international community? What will be the political stance of the UN in such a scenario?

Of course, Gaddafi must be brought before the International Criminal Court, but the international operation is for us primarily a supportive operation. In Libya there are democratic uprisings. It was a popular movement that came from below, but was threatened by a wave of repression launched by Gaddafi.

That is why we must intervene with the international community, to give opportunities to the democratic popular uprising and to protect the civilian population.

Let us not make the mistake of replacing the internal dynamics that are taking place in Libya. Let us not make the mistake of transmitting a Western model of democracy and intervention, without taking into account the opinion of the Arab countries. Let us not fall into such logic.

I note that the Libyan opposition welcomes the intervention, but expressly opposes the deployment of ground troops. Let us respect that, colleagues.

Mr Van der Maelen, there is indeed uncertainty about the scope of the resolution adopted in the Security Council. Even if it is stated in the resolution, it does not obligate us to implement all provisions, all their eventualities. Let us be wise and reasonably analyze the situation and consider what steps are needed.

Let us not be naive, my colleagues. Oil interests in Libya are huge. The economic interests are huge. We must be careful that in Libya we do not end up in a process of economic colonization. Let us respect the sovereignty of the Libyan people and let us not put ourselves in their place. Let us not impose affairs with the West, but let us be prudent and cautious, for the use of force remains a very delicate matter.

What disturbs me are ⁇ the first breaks in the coalition. The first signs of concern, resistance, in the Arab countries appeared a few days ago. This has been restored in the meantime, but it can all go quickly.

The fact that a number of Arab countries were concerned about the developments in Libya shows that we have not handled our communication with them as it should. The support is important and the support must remain. We must therefore be careful of this support with the Arab countries.

After all, a political solution in Libya will have to be reached in any case with the Arab countries, it will have to be reached in any case with the opposition, with the democratic popular movement in Libya.

So let us listen carefully to what these actors say and let us not put ourselves in their place.

Who is leading this operation?

This is another sign that we have not started optimally. President Sarkozy called a number of countries together. There are divisions within NATO. Turkey is worried. This is not a good sign, Mr. Prime Minister. I rely on you and our country to ensure that the diplomatic support in it is guarded and that we ensure that all countries of the coalition continue to agree to the way this intervention is going.

I started with an accusation against the selectivity and hypocrisy of the international community, and I would like to end with it. We need to look at the unemployment conditions in the wider region. We must think about the opportunity of arms exports to dictators who oppress their people, because the final destination of these weapons is often unclear. Our foreign policy can use a stronger moral dimension. Let us, politicians, not only today glimpse, fulminate and express our indignation over the unrest in Libya, but let us conduct a structural debate about the unrest that also occurs in other countries. We have been baking sweet sandwiches with dictators like Gaddafi for years. The leaders of our countries have been sitting in his tent for years and now we are all outraged. That outrage is justified, but it should lead us to a debate about a stronger moral dimension for our foreign policy. This is what the Libyan dossier teaches us.

This parliamentary debate is a good thing. Your government is a government of ongoing affairs. Parliament’s involvement in this must be absolute. I would like to request that the special committee for the follow-up of foreign operations meet this week. The situation in Libya is evolving very quickly. I ask you to read the rules of engagement and the possible exceptions made by Belgium as a national state. I would like the Parliament to decide on the further progress, on the further development and on the steps we should take in Libya together with the international community. I ask you to take care of your communication, Mr. Prime Minister, not only with the Parliament but also with the public opinion. Belgian soldiers are involved in this operation. They have the right to clarity. The public opinion also has the right to be clear about the deployment of our Belgian military.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in politics, and ⁇ in international politics, there is no such thing as eternal allies or never falling enemies. What still exists are interests, beliefs and principles, for example about human rights, universal human rights of which it is our damn duty to uphold them.

This is what we are talking about today in Libya. About people and their rights, about the protection of innocent Libyan citizens, about the struggle against a head of state who does not discourage to send tanks, airplanes and helicopters on his own people. About men, women and children, of whom Gaddafi last week told Thursday that he would take them out of their neighborhoods, streets and houses to execute them. About people, even today in Misurata, where, according to independent sources, Gaddafi’s troops are carrying out absolute destruction and slaughter; about a city he completely destroys.

Why Why ? Because they are tired of the dictates of Gaddafi and his family, because they want a better life, because they want what we take for granted here every day. They want democracy.

The international community cannot allow this to happen. We must learn lessons, including from the past. We cannot allow the so-called Arab Spring to transform itself before our eyes into an Arab Srebrenica.

Therefore, on behalf of my group, I welcome the UN resolution of last week on Thursday night. He didn’t come too early, on the contrary. It was high time to intervene, as the international community threatened to lose momentum. Not only would this have been harmful to the citizens of Libya, but also the credibility of the international community would be undermined.

The United Nations did what they had to do. After the previous resolution 1970, the transfer of Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court, there is now also resolution 1973. At the heart of this resolution are the words responsibility to protect, the responsibility to protect citizens, if necessary, against their own leaders.

This resolution is a very important legal remedy. There were also no vetoes, which at least, as the Prime Minister said, is very special. Countries such as China and Russia, which for many reasons have difficulty with responsibility to protect, have abstained.

Important at this time was – also that was already said – also for our country and in the expansion to the entire West, the support of the Arab League. If the United Nations and the Arab countries are on the same line in condemning the unrest in Libya, it reduces the chances of Western recovery, reduces the chances of a crusade rhetoric, reduces the chances of a Western invasion. Then, on the contrary, those thoughts that should be central are central, namely human rights and the protection of innocent citizens.

Colleagues, resolutions on paper are one thing, transforming and enforcing them is another thing. Adding the act to the word is essential in this case. There was and is no time to lose. After the adoption of the resolution, it has gone quickly and that is a good thing. On Thursday night the resolution was adopted, on Friday both the government and our committee met in Parliament and we unanimously committed to cooperating in the implementation of this resolution. This weekend, the first effects were visible on the ground. In the coming hours and days our armed forces will cooperate.

I’ve heard criticism over the past days and over the weekend about the speed with which something goes off. Of course, caution is required. However, I am convinced that these actions have just come on time and that the decision that we unanimously took in Parliament is correct. Gaddafi’s army was about to enter Benghazi with tanks and that action was immediately stopped. Do not make illusions, the fall of Benghazi would have been a disaster for the people on the ground and for the international community.

On behalf of my group, I find it a very good thing that the government, in consultation with this Parliament, plays short on the ball, that it has done so during the consultation in Paris and that it will continue to do so in the coming hours and days. Actions to uphold the UN resolution are necessary and came just on time.

There is, of course, a but. A task like this is not a joke, the situation is ⁇ serious and the way to Libya may have been clear, the way out is not that today. Therefore, we must be very careful with what is coming. I ask the Government, as it has done so far, to take every step in consultation with this Parliament and with respect for the principles that we have repeated here several times. First, acting in international context and, secondly, with the support of the Arab League and the people on the ground. I will go into that for a moment.

It is important that the UN mandate is respected in international cooperation, but honestly, and there has been some discussion about it, whether the cat is white or gray, for us it is important that it catches mice. If we start now in an international coalition of the willing, then that is a good thing. However, it would be even better if this results in a NATO-flagged operation in the coming days, among other things because in this way you also get the support of Turkey. What is important for our group is that they adhere to the principles of the UN resolution.

That brings me to the second point, in particular the support of the Arab League and the people on the ground. Here is a huge opportunity. Here is an opportunity to bring two worlds together instead of dividing two worlds further. Mr. Prime Minister, on behalf of our group, I would like to give you this thought, namely, to ensure that this continues to be the case. This is a mission for you and your diplomats. Keep this coalition together and make sure we are not played apart.

This is a mission for Europe and it is also a historic opportunity. The danger is real. We have seen a stable of this in the last few days. Therefore, a lot of consultation will be needed. A lot will have to be talked about. The ball will have to be played shortly. There will be much less room for egos than has been so far.

This is also a propaganda war. We must all be aware of this. The images that travel around the world through Twitter, through the media and through all sorts of channels are elements of the game played here. As MPs, we need to have the courage in the coming days, weeks and months to be guided by our beliefs and by facts, in engagement with the Parliament.

I am closing. Today and in the last few days, there has been a need for courage. I also count on the courage of this Parliament to demonstrate the same courage in the coming weeks, months and years at the moment when the action is over, at the moment when there remains a country, citizens, a people who want to build on democracy and prosperity. We will also have to stand there. I hope this will happen with as much attention and commitment as it is today.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, I did not expect a rebellion in Benghazi, and for more than twenty-five years, I established that Gaddafi is a lunatic madman. His presence as a form of head of state is a disgrace to international law, which it has been for thirty years.

While the Socialist International is in the process of its suspension, I am glad that he is gone, if he is gone. I am glad that everyone now finds that with me too.

Nevertheless, I would like to remind you of a few small things.

First, we have had a discussion here over the last few weeks that will continue, especially about what a government can do in ongoing affairs. Can it make a budget? Can it submit a multiannual budget report to the European Union?

We are already facing the conclusion that a government in ongoing affairs can also go to war.

I would like to emphasize for you that the current matters are not the normal government competence, as Foreign Affairs reports to Parliament. It is much less than that. The powers in ongoing cases to carry out military operations merely imply that the government has no mandate to do so. Therefore, it must act with the greatest restraint. Sometimes a parliamentary debate does not solve the problem.

We are therefore very reluctant. There are the new facts that have taken place over the past weekend and since the previous Friday meeting, with terms like “troops on the ground”, “building a new society” and “the battle will last long.” All the above statements are words of Mr. De Crem.

Mr. Prime Minister, you declared this morning that we are bombing facilities and government buildings.

So we slowly but surely shift the image we had of Friday’s intervention. I tell you with so many words. Everyone also feels that this is the case. We are slowly shifting up, even with some abuse and a mixture of Resolution 1970, which, according to some, but not according to me, would mean that it is a regime change. We must bring Gaddafi to The Hague, which means regime change. Resolution 1970 is combined with Resolution 1973 and the words all necessary measures.

In this way you are sinking into a ground war or a war that I did not think we would undertake on Friday. We would only go to protect peaceful protesters or the civilian population. We slide slowly but surely, illustrating that a phrase like “all necessary measures to protect civilians” is too general to prevent abuse by politicians who have other goals.

No, we don’t want us to shift to an outlookless military situation, a war in which we are no longer engaged in protecting peaceful protesters, but in which we end up in a civil war in which we alternately will have to try to reduce the advantage that Gaddafi seems to have in all that war, always from the air, and “only from the air,” but for whose benefit? That is our second point.

We asked questions on Friday about the information, which is completely missing, with whom we are actually talking there and for whom we are actually trying to get to another regime with our military action there. Gaddafi’s regime is based on the Jamahiriya, a sort of people’s assembly of Bedouin tribal heads. The Arabs were able to expel the Romans because, at the beginning of our time count, they were so clever to leave all local entities in their own religions and to exploit that autonomy.

Gaddafi is someone who sat up there and was appointed annually or every two years to speak on behalf of everyone and also speak abroad, but for the rest it is an unlikely slide. Imagining things as if they were a democracy, with a public opinion, watching television and engaging with Facebook and Google is, of course, not correct. You know that. We are probably dealing with it, with all the doubts that exist about it, with something very unclear. This is another reason why we encourage great restraint.

Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, emphasized this in the weekend, saying that the image of the “Google heaven” and the “Facebook paradise” is a phenomenon. Among them lies the possibility that those regimes all switch to some form of Islamism, so that real democratic change ends in a situation like we have known those in Iran, namely with backward theocracies that roll us back a millennium, as Netanyahu said.

If one studies Benghazi a little, it turns out that this is a stronghold of Islamism in Libya, and even a very important stronghold of Islamism. These are the reports we get when we look at the international press. The cries that circulate there are religious cries. The political agendas circulating there are religious political agendas. Gaddafi is gone, yes, but what do we get in place? This is why the Flemish Interest wants to pay attention here today. We are not going to engage in a long-term war to help or keep a Libyan or Benghazi caliphate in the saddle.

I come to my conclusion. What has been our long-term strategy over the past weekend and what will it be in the future? I’m going to address the trouble and the trouble of the Arab League over the weekend. I’m talking about Russia, not insignificant. China joined in this morning. Turkey is in conflict with NATO. NATO is unlikely to take action because Turkey is interrupting. The United States is already withdrawing from the command and trying to roll it back to Paris or London. There was also a statement from South Africa. They are distancing themselves from the regime change strategy, as they call it. We are comforted that we have the company of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Arab Emirates to ensure democracy in the Arab state of Libya.

We are not in good company in this regard. We are not on the right side. There is also European division. The fact that Belgium, as always, has attached its carriage to Paris – a tradition that has existed since Verhofstadt – and that Belgium has again let itself take on the trail, does not reassure me. Sarkozy appears in this for electoral reasons. As the French people are crazy about him in the meantime, he is trying to increase his popularity for the regional elections this weekend. That should not have inspired us. We actually have nothing to do with that.

There has been no consideration of an anti-Western reversal in this case. We are now walking through the Middle East with our dirty feet, but we do not even know where we are going.

In short, Vlaams Belang is facing that trouble with a blanco cheque that is currently being unleashed. As convinced Europeans, we have much more sympathy for the German position. I guess how the Germans in the United Nations have argued their “no.”

“Decisions on the use of military force are always extremely difficult to take.” “We have carefully considered the options of using military force, its implications as well as its limitations. We see great risks. The likelihood of large-scale loss of life should not be underestimated. If steps proposed turn out to be ineffective, we see the danger of being drawn into a prolonged military conflict that would affect the wider region. We should not enter a military confrontation on the optimistic assumption that quick results with few casualties will be achieved. Germany, therefore, has decided not to support a military option. Furthermore, Germany will not contribute to such a military effort.”

We fully agree with this statement, we can fully support it.

Finally, colleagues, one of the biggest problems of the 21st century will be the illegal immigration from North Africa to Europe. We need to leave Libya as soon as possible. If we want to do something useful there, we must use the opportunity to serve our own interests there in the region. They are, first and foremost, to deter illegal immigration through a maritime blockade, like the one with which Gaddafi was engaged, but then much stronger. It was a false agreement with the West. He was a fraudster, an idiot. Let us, now that we are there, do it ourselves, and do it much better.

If there is one thing with which we can render a service to our own people, it is that we must use the disappearance of Gaddafi and this military operation to begin safeguarding our borders south of our own Mediterranean Sea and send a clear and clear signal that the liberation of the inhabitants of the North African countries is a reason to stay in their countries and that those countries flee for that reason, will not be accepted by Europe under any conditions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, Dear Colleagues, the CDH fully supports Resolution 1973 adopted by the Council of the United Nations, as it endorses the Government’s decision to support it, but also to participate in its effective implementation.

Why Why ? Because it has been long enough that, in this Chamber, we are continually calling on the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the international community to take its responsibilities. And that beyond merely verbal responses to critical situations, we can also act concretely.

Our support is total because we act in accordance with international law. It is fundamental! The United Nations Charter, in its Chapter VII, incorporated the obligation to protect. Today, if we are faced with UN Security Council Resolution 1973 it is because a tyrant carries out abuses against his people, unacceptable and unbearable abuses.

Beyond this obligation to protect, as some have already recalled, it is indispensable to obtain this support from regional organisations, in this case the Arab League in particular, and to ensure that it is ⁇ ined throughout the operation mandated by the United Nations. It is necessary at all costs to avoid falling into the crossroads, in Libya, of another reproduction of a war of civilization from the West against the East or the Muslim world. That is why ⁇ ining this support is crucial.

It was also necessary – and a call was made in this direction – that the Libyan people who are rise against their dictator be also demanding international intervention.

These elements are joined together and guarantee us the correctness of our decisions.

In order to maintain the support of the regional organization or the Libyan people, it is now important to adhere to the instructions of the UN resolution. We must implement it by limiting ourselves to what it prescribes! The current military operation aims to protect the Libyan population. This is essentially the object of international intervention, with the modalities to be implemented: "all necessary means" specifies the resolution, to ⁇ the objective of this obligation to protect.

For this purpose, it is imperative that we know, very precisely, the modalities of the involvement of our troops in the framework of this international operation. Precise and prudent rules must be established. What are the applicable rules? Are these NATO or other rules? What will be the command? Will it be a unified command or not? If so, what kind of command under the auspices of NATO? The accuracy of these commitment terms is essential for the credibility of operations.

This is also necessary for the House to continue parliamentary control of the engagement of our troops abroad. We must thank you, Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, for planning and ⁇ ining the holding of a debate in this hall. Indeed, we must also be given the means to be able to correctly assess the situation and to actually control the executive and how it engages our troops in this operation. We absolutely want things to be clear on this subject.

The international intervention also has the merit of giving bids to the developments we know in Tunisia and Egypt. They are capable of cutting grass under the feet of some who might dream of restoration from armed operations. They will think twice, given the commitment of the international community.

That being said, ladies, gentlemen, members of the government, the fact of having today the nose on the military operation itself and the way to engage it must not spare us the reflection on what must go hand in hand or which will necessarily follow this military operation. I want to talk about operations related to the humanitarian phase. We all know that the current situation will cause difficulties within the Libyan population, that there will be displacement of population within the territory, but also to foreign states, in particular the neighboring states such as Tunisia and Egypt. Along with military operations, this humanitarian phase must be thought out and, above all, concretized.

I come to another necessary reflection. The European Union needs to start to think about its future relations with all the countries around the Mediterranean. Given the developments in this area, which is at its geographical gateway, the European Union needs to rethink how it plans to help these populations. This legitimate evolution towards better and democratic regimes must, indeed, be supported in all ways.

Finally, before recalling my group’s support for the government and the resolution we voted in committee on Friday, I would like to have a thought for our military. Indeed, our responsibility here is heavy of meaning. It is not easy to take. By voting yes, we will soon authorize the deployment of our troops abroad. This kind of decision is never without risk. Our military know that in the course of their professional careers, they can be led to taking risks. But today, we willingly, deliberately, in order to respect our international commitments, we are going to charge them with a mission. We must let them know that we rely on them, knowing properly that they will take risks. We must tell them that we are with them and with their families.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, Venezuelan Oil Minister Juan Pablo Pérez once said that oil is the devil’s stool. The World Bank has ordered a study on the relationship between democracy and oil possession in the world. This was studied between 1996 and 2004 and it has come to the conclusion that democracy does not fit well in those countries. They found that oil-producing countries worldwide are among the 25% worst countries in terms of democracy. Wealth sleeps poorly in a bed of poverty and therefore protects itself with dictatorial means of power. Colleagues, if you hear that, then in addition to Libya there is still work at the store in the world.

Because of the defeat of the devil, the Libyans today live in hell. I support the 1973 resolution 100%. The reason for this is that we are a lot complicit in the fate of the victims today. Today we are speaking with great words about the fate of Libya and Gaddafi. Gaddafi was here a few years ago and was pressed to the heart by former Prime Minister Verhofstadt. We can still pick up the pictures. He was received with military honor and has even been on the coffee or tea – probably the tea – with the then chairman of the House, Mr. Herman De Croo. This complicity has been ongoing for years.

Remember what Gaddafi has done. Gaddafi once bombed a discotheque in Berlin. In 1988, Gaddafi drove an airplane from the air, the Lockerbie affair. All this happened at that time. The PS always uses big words. I also hear from the CDH colleagues that we must be careful. Who supplied weapons to Libya? I thought it was the Fabrique Nationale de Herstal. They supplied weapons and sold bullets. That was probably not just to lay down beside them, weapons and bullets serve to shoot people. We delivered them to Gaddafi. We have done even more. By the way, it is not just about us. Berlusconi was there five years ago and gave a $5 billion gift, not to buy weapons, but to ask to please stop the people so that there would not be too much migration to Europe. We have done even more.

We also accepted Libya in the Human Rights Council. Colleague Vanackere, I do not deny you, because it was prepared by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Karel De Gucht, to vote for Libya in the Human Rights Council.

That is why I say today that we must support the resolution and the intervention 100%. We have to dare to go a little further. We need to be careful, including with ground troops. From experience, we should know that being a little pregnant does not exist. A little war does not exist. Gaddafi has been under fire several times in the Western world. We have tried several times to liquidate him, twice even. The first time was in Tripoli in 1986; not following the Lockerbie affair, but after the attack at the discotheque in Berlin, Reagan tried to shoot him down. Hundreds of people were killed, including his own daughter.

I admire the coalition of the willing. For the first time in the world, we can say that the Chinese and the Russians agree, so the great powers agree. I think it is time to go to the bone. We know what happened in history. Twelve years after Desert Storm, with which Bush tried to eliminate Saddam Hussein, in the way proposed in the resolution, one had to return to completely eliminate him. I think we should go on to the bone in this matter. Not only the fruits of evil must be destroyed, but also the roots of evil.

That this happens, I can understand very well. I understand, as the Minister of Defense or as the government decides, that it is happening as it is now. It is a government of downward affairs, so everything has to be done with the consent of the Parliament.

I am 100% in favor of what the government is doing today. Nothing to do would witness guilty failure.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it is indeed important in the name of human rights to prevent Colonel Gaddafi from suffocating by force and violence any form of opposition to his regime and his dictatorship.

In recent weeks, too much blood has flowed in Libya and the international community had to react as it should against all states that do not respect human rights.

Also, given the important contribution of Belgium, I would like to encourage and thank all our military personnel who will participate in this war and who will risk their lives in the name of our country. However, many questions torment me right now.

Is the use of war the best option in this case? It is, of course, very difficult to answer such a question, but what is certain is that our states have preferred this path to any other diplomatic path. No emissary has really been sent to the ground to negotiate with Gaddafi a ceasefire or another less costly solution in terms of human lives than war. This situation obviously makes me ⁇ uncomfortable and I just heard that I am not the only one.

Indeed, are we concerned about the inevitable collateral victims of the strikes currently carried out by the international coalition? Are we concerned about the families of Western military personnel who will be sent to the altar of freedom? Not enough unfortunately. We can only hope that one thing today is that this war will not last forever and that Colonel Gaddafi will not be able to retaliate or foment terrorist actions in our countries, as he has already been able to do in the past.

Let’s admit, however, that this situation is quite peculiar, or even incomprehensible for a portion of our public opinion. Our country has been unable to form a government for nine months but when it comes to going to war, everyone agrees in two times, three moves! It is surreal!

How can we not also worry about the costs that will be incurred by our country’s participation in this war, costs that will have to be borne by the Belgian taxpayer while the political crisis has already cost more than 600 million euros?

I easily understand that the Belgian political world is uncomfortable, especially on the French-speaking side, and that it considers it its duty to act in order to give itself a good conscience after the Wallon government, putting financial interests above ethics and human rights, sold weapons to Gaddafi.

I hope that it is not yet these financial interests that, today, guide our steps. How can we not fear that the unconfessed purpose of this manoeuvre is ultimately a purely geo-strategic battle buried under the supposed good conscience of the West that would, in fact, put hands on the wealth of Libya or, more precisely, on its oil? Libya is the largest oil producer in Africa, with 3.5 percent of the world’s oil resources.

It is still more than troubling that countries like the United States, Britain or France decide to attack Libya and that these same countries do not move, when almost identical situations take place in other countries. If it is the defence of human rights that really guides our steps, then why not intervene in Côte d’Ivoire, North Korea, Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia or even more in Iran where the latest demonstrations of opposition to the regime in place have been scattered in blood and violence? There is no logic in the reactions of the international community. Why act in Libya? Why not act elsewhere? Should we wait until the end of the conflict and the time to count the dead to know the real issue of this war?

So what guarantee do we have that Gaddafi’s power will not make room for a more Islamist, more integrist power after our military action? Who will take care of the post-war? What fate will be reserved for the dictator? Unfortunately, all these questions remain unanswered.

As far as I am concerned, I can only denounce the attitude of those who have received Colonel Gaddafi as a head of state worthy of that name, while it has been known, for years, that this man is a real furious fool and a terrorist! How could we, at one point, unlock the red carpet to such an individual during his visit to our country? We simply had financial and economic interests that pushed us to pact with the devil! There are a lot of questions and no answers are heard at the moment.

Finally, as far as I am concerned, I wonder whether our country, without a government for nine months, has the political and financial means to start a war. What happens if the operation fails? What will our government do in current affairs to counter a possible terrorist threat? The first priority should be to form a government as soon as possible instead of going to war! For these reasons and especially for the enormous doubt that floats over the real purpose of this military operation but also to show that my party rejects environmental hypocrisy, I decided not to support this resolution by abstaining. I would like to denounce the opacity of the situation, fearing that the real issues are not those mentioned to justify this intervention in Libya.

The protection of human rights is a noble goal, which can only be supported and encouraged. However, in the face of the many unanswered questions, I prefer to abstain. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that this action will be able to resolve the issue of human rights in Libya and make sure that the blood ceases to flow.

Please, I call on policy makers to be more cautious in the future about the nature of the regimes they support and against which they commit our country by pursuing simple financial or economic interests!

Defending human rights is an admirable goal, but what is even more admirable is to act from the beginning, without using war to repair the mistakes of the past.

Indeed, the involvement of the Parliament is crucial at this time. Some have referred to the fact that we have a government of ongoing affairs to find that involvement even more necessary. Well, I think that Parliament’s involvement is also important because of the gravity of the responsibility that must be taken today.

This is a decent decision, like Mr. Bacquelaine has qualified it, and which appeals to the universal consciousness. They deserve unity and serenity.

It is good that it was underlined here on this tribune that both the government and the Parliament actually consider the use of force as a ultima ratio, as what one seeks when the other possibilities seem to be exhausted.

It is good that we have talked about a sustainable commitment here; that the responsibility to protect has not only to do with the way we will implement Resolution 1973, but that it will also imply a sustainable commitment in the future, when it comes to standing on the side of the Libyan people.

There must be constancy.

Undoubtedly, this will be a sentence that has predictive value in moments when we need to look back on our decision today.

The subject of today’s discussion is Resolution 1973. I have listened carefully to those who – rightly – say that we must remain within the limits of Resolution 1973 when it comes to the use of our Belgian military resources. That doesn’t mean that our horizon narrows to just resolution 1973. Our solidarity, our commitment to the Libyan people, of course, continues, but with regard to today’s discussion, it must be clear to the government and Parliament that we remain within the margins of Resolution 1973.

Mr Van der Maelen is right when he asks questions about the possible elasticity of the words in resolution 1973 and when he warns of mission creep. However, we should not create too much ambiguity. On the question of whether Gaddafi should surrender power, the international community, the EU and Belgium have already given answers. In statements that we have approved together with the rest of our European colleagues, we have already clearly said: “Gaddafi has to relinquish power.” However, it is not the case that Resolution 1973 has the aim of moving toward a regime change. This story is not ⁇ complicated. We want to establish a democracy in Libya. We demonstrate this in various ways, through our commitment, through our statements, through our sanctions, through the decision to bring Gaddafi before the International Criminal Court, and so on.

However, when it comes to the engagement of our military capabilities, we remain very clearly within the limits of Resolution 1973, which is about stopping the bloodshed and ending the military conflict that Gaddafi affects his own people today.

Another issue was the ambiguity of the ground troops. No, there is no real ambiguity. The resolution expressly states “no occupation army”.

The international community says it does not want to repeat what happened in Iraq. No occupation army. Those who want to understand the reading of the resolution do not read that ground troops are excluded as such. Because something can be passed through a resolution, that does not mean that Belgium wants to do so. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense have clearly stated that it is not intended that the Belgians would participate in an action with ground forces. That is clear. We do not need any interpretation of the resolution in order to make it clear. I also understood from the discussions in the Parliament that we can count again on a broad solidarity and unanimity within our Parliament.

A key element has been mentioned by several speakers: to ensure broad support from the international community. Ms. Rutten called it a mission.

It is a task, Mrs. Rutten, which I take to heart. This morning, during the meeting with my colleagues from the European Union’s Foreign Affairs, I expressly put this forward, on behalf of the Belgians.

Not only with regard to the Arab world, which is ⁇ very important but also with regard to organizations such as the African Union. Some have mentioned this organization. South Africa, Nigeria and Gabon voted in favour of the resolution. We must therefore be confident: we must be able, as Ms. Rutten said, to bring worlds closer than to divide them.

In any case, be aware that the Belgian diplomacy continues its efforts to maintain this logic of great solidarity around the world for the missions that await us. For your information, although some of you are already ⁇ aware, Amr Moussa, the leader of the Arab League, has just nuanced some of his statements, speaking of misinterpretations of those who repeated them, and he has once again affirmed with the greatest clarity his solidarity with resolution 1973.

Regarding the guarantee of ⁇ ining global solidarity, it is clear that privileging what brings us a certain comfort, such as the instrument that is NATO, is not without consequences and that it is necessary to keep an eye on them. Belgium and its government advocate the use of a command given by NATO as the rules and instruments are well known but in any case, it must be ensured that the Arab countries continue to join the effort. This explains our nuanced and subtle approach.

I am very pleased with the statement that the diplomatic mill may have worked slowly, but that it was worth it. We can argue for a long time about the speed with which decisions were made. I did not ignore that if there had been no initiative from amongst others the French, Benghazi would ⁇ have come into a situation where the world would have been ashamed for not intervening. At the same time, the result of the diplomatic mill is positive if we succeed in thus acquiring the legitimacy of the United Nations and bringing about the unanimity of, for example, the Arab world and the European world.

Mr. Luykx is not entirely wrong when he points to difficulties in reaching consensus. Even in the post-Lisbon era, I remain convinced that we are able to take a unanimous position with the European Union. This morning, in the presence of all our colleagues, including our German colleague Westerwelle, we said that we welcome the initiative of the Paris Conference with the coalition of the willing and see it as a contribution to the solution. I think we are able to maintain that unity.

Finally, some have warned here that they will not give us a blank check. The government does not require a blanco cheque. On the other hand, we know that none of such operations is risk-free. It would be good for Parliament, every individual member of Parliament, who will soon be ready to approve the resolution, to be aware of the risks that we call on our people today. It cannot be without risk. Whoever claims the opposite asks for the impossible.

Let our unity and the durability of our commitment be our signs of respect for the military we will send to Libya.

Mr. Speaker, I will refer, like my colleague, to the speech I delivered in response to the remarks made at the meeting last Friday regarding the general military approach to the operation we started in Libya.

The rules of engagement have been discussed within the government. For obvious security reasons, first of all for our own military, I cannot provide you with more information.

You will understand that it is impossible for me to provide more information on the rules of betting in this public meeting of this Parliament. I hope that the Committee for the Follow-up of Foreign Operations will and can play its role behind closed doors. I can count on my full cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, during the coalition assignments that our F-16 detachment is carrying out, and it is currently working on a first assignment that has started just before 15 am 00 Belgian time, it will apply as national rules of deployment the NATO rules of deployment. These NATO rules are supplemented by a specific measure of commitment to enable the protection of the civilian population.

Second, for the NATO mission to enforce compliance with the arms embargo at sea and on land, for which we deploy the mine hunter Narcis, the NATO rules of deployment are applied. The arms embargo is already subject to a NATO command with a specific operational headquarters in Naples. The intention is to move as soon as possible to a NATO command for the enforcement of the no-fly zone. It now falls under the coalition coordination with a command of which the various national cells – including the Belgian with three officers led by Brigadier General Cosijn – are part and which is located in Ramstein, Germany. I emphasize once again for this Chamber that there has never been a problem of interpretation with the established command.

The government therefore decided at 14 a.m. to validate its participation in the operation by sending its F-16s to the Greek base of Araxos and also by sending the mine hunter BNS Narcis. Overall, 150 military personnel, most of which belong to the air component, will be based in Greece and 45 people will be placed on board or are already aboard the Narcis mine hunter.

I would also like to highlight the considerable efforts made by our military. Our thoughts are also for their families, their children and all those who are dear to them.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues of the government, ladies and gentlemen, I will be ⁇ brief, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence have already addressed the main concerns expressed and ask for clarification.

I would like to highlight, first of all, the full readiness of the government to continue the dialogue and to have a closely followed contact between parliament and government. The institutional situation adds arguments to this principled attitude.

I would like to highlight and clarify two other elements, to the extent necessary.

First, as regards the objectives of the action, Minister Vanackere stressed that there is legitimacy under resolution 1973. Its essential objective is to protect the Libyan population from the regime’s atrocities, as they are now taking place there.

What will be the role of Belgium? It will cooperate with other allies to ensure compliance with the so-called “flight ban.”

The Belgian effort within the framework of an international coalition helps to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya.

With a view to a fully informed decision-making on your part, I add that it means nothing more than that the government I preside over and I represent here will never ask you to send Belgian ground troops to Libya. It also means nothing less. The enforcement of the no-fly zone, as indicated by colleagues in the government and Parliament, naturally means that defensive rifles and command lines that violate the no-fly zone can also be the target of action.

I would also like to remind you that the Gaddafi regime is naturally called to disappear. I am not referring here to the resolution 1970 that was adopted by the Security Council, but to the taking of political stance of the whole world. Due to its behavior, this regime has naturally lost all legitimacy to represent this country.

Is this literally stated in the 1970 resolution? No, the resolution states that those responsible for the matter should make efforts to investigate what could be the grounds for bringing guilty persons before the International Criminal Court.

Yes, the Gaddafi regime must disappear, but is this the goal of the action to which Belgium will be associated on the basis of the resolution of this parliament? and no. Clearly not. The objective of this action is not the disappearance of the Gaddafi regime; its objective is the protection of the people of Libya by means of a ban on flying over Libyan territory.

A second element has already been mentioned abundantly by the colleagues. I would like to emphasize that here we are not in a situation where a government in ongoing affairs asks you to confirm a certain political act that falls within the classical description of ongoing affairs, to give it monetary power by a decision. No, it is you, by adopting in honour and conscience a resolution, who will decide on a Belgian participation in a military action within the contours of resolution 1973.

I have told you that this participation is justified, but it is also risky. It was clear that the government, with the Minister of Defense, in the instructions to the military leadership, and who in turn in its dialogue and its cooperation with the command structures, will do everything to prevent damage to innocent people. We have taken good note of the care of all the factions here in the Chamber.

This action of course involves risks. Before you vote later, I assume that you have very well weighed all those risks.

Finally, like my colleagues Vanackere and De Crem, and like some speakers, I do not want to conclude without the words I have already said in my introduction.

Beyond the intervention and political speech, I would like to greet, from now on, the courage of the 195 compatriots who will execute what will, within a few minutes, be the will of this parliament.

I would like to pay tribute to the approximately 195 compatriots who will perform within hours what at that time will become the expression of the will of the House of Representatives. thank you . (Applause of Applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, I am grateful for the extensive answers and for the engagement that is guaranteed and given to the people today.

I have a few comments.

First, we have noticed that today Resolution 1973 is on the table. Some members have looked back on the past in their arguments, have expressed criticism of the past, have sought to outline the problem more broadly and have sought to give it a different, broader framework.

Of course, N-VA wants to engage in the debate on this subject. Today we only wanted to indicate that, independent of the past and the future, a decision must be made today. The decision that is being made now is the only and correct decision.

Second, Mr. Prime Minister and Minister Vanackere, you declare that it is a priori important for the current government in ongoing affairs to guarantee that involvement. That is correct, but I would also like to ask that not only the parliamentary hemisphere will remain unanimous in the future, but that the government also shows cohesion and unanimity in ongoing matters. After all, I have understood that there have already been some small cracks within the government in interpreting our intervention in Libya.

Finally and again about Gaddafi, it is clear to everyone, to the entire international community, that he must disappear.

My colleagues of the SP, of course, we should not be naive. He will not walk to the Hague on his own. As I have stated, it is now the military intervention that makes it possible to deport Gaddafi from Libya.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defense for the clarity of their remarks and for having specified, as we wish, the mandate given to our army.

Dear colleagues, the time is serious. We do not decide what we will decide in a few moments with pleasure and joy. Far from there! It is women, men, children who will suffer, because there will always be, as it is said today, collateral damage. The term “victims” is no longer used. We know that we are embarking on a dangerous adventure. We have seen this in the past. We have seen the somewhat daring extension of NATO article 5 for the bombing of Belgrade. Did you know Colin Powell’s perlimpinpin powder and the pseudo-weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? We can see what it gives!

Dear colleagues, let us pay attention to the fact that in this part of the world there is a gigantic aspiration for values that are ours. We must provide our help, but do not substitute for the will of the peoples! We are here to shoulder and not to do the household, as some would like to do, with the blood of others. The time is serious, I repeat.

On behalf of my group, I would also like to address a greeting to those who will leave and take risks, simply to show our dignity, based on our democratic values.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, of course, we have been attentive to the information you provided to us.

It is essential that parliament supports the government and that an act of such importance is the subject of the greatest possible unanimity. Indeed, one does not engage in an armed intervention without a certain pinch in the heart and without measuring the importance of the act made.

We know that it is necessary to support the international community and the United Nations in this operation. We are pleased that the Arab League remains associated with this initiative; this is extremely important for the follow-up of events.

We want to mark, by our support for this resolution and by our vote, the importance we attach to respect for universal values, in particular democracy. We must support the Libyan people in the face of the severity of the repression and oppression they are subject to.

We want this operation to be carried out with the maximum efficiency with the most integrated command possible.

Finally, I would like to say that Mr. The Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs must, together with the Prime Minister, keep Parliament informed of the follow-up of events so that we can fully assume the risks we take today.

Mr. Speaker, it was a useful and good exchange of ideas, which clarified a large number of matters. It has been correctly cited – I want to emphasize it again – that it becomes a risky enterprise. We really continue to insist that everything is done so that the risks can be minimized. It remains very important that no Belgian ground troops are sent.

At the same time – I add this call – we must take diplomatic and political initiatives, so that, in addition to military action, we can also contribute to the building of a new democratic society in Libya.

Furthermore, I would like to reiterate our call to install as soon as possible the Joint Committee of the Chamber and Senate and to make it operational for the further follow-up of the file.

First, I listened attentively to the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Our Belgian commitment will develop and continue to develop within the limits of Resolution 1973. I have noted this well. We are a member of a coalition. A problem arises if that coalition acts outside that resolution. Then we will address this problem in the Chamber.

Second, I noted the uncertainty that exists about the wording and scope of the resolution. I ask the government to keep us informed of the discussions and decisions of the expert committee appointed in the resolution. We must continue to follow the interpretation of that resolution. I ask you to keep us informed about this.

Third, to the new and young colleagues of the N-VA, I say that it is not the custom that groups in this kind of matters begin to debate with each other. The government has made a decision. Everyone makes their story for that government. It is a two-way movement from group to government to group.

We have the utmost confidence that those who now in Libya risk their lives against the regime of Gaddafi, like the Tunisians and the Egyptians, will be able to settle the account of Gaddafi himself in their country.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Ecolo-Green! I would like to thank the government for its responses. I have four points in my replica.

First, I understand that the government is very well aware of the fact that it is not self-evident to participate as a government of ongoing affairs in an international military operation. That is good, but I would like to ask that the rules of engagement be released to Parliament as soon as possible, in particular in the competent special committee for the follow-up of foreign operations. I think the way we conducted the debate today, with a Parliament decision on a resolution, is the right way. I would like to propose that, if we are moving towards a new completion of the operation in the near future, ⁇ the same method should be used, so that de facto the Parliament votes and decides on it.

Second, the UN resolution is the strict framework and should remain the strict framework. Ground troops are completely out of shame for us at this time, even because the Libyan opposition is resisting them. For me, that is the most important argument.

Third, I would like to warn you that the operation will fail if we lose the support of the Arab League and the opposition in Libya. We can give the advocates of the democratic transition the opportunity to succeed, but we, as the West, cannot place the Libyan people.

Fourth, I remain with my plea to link a stronger moral dimension to our foreign policy. Today we are angry at the situation in Libya, but I think we need to go into a structural debate about how we deal with dictators, both economically, financially and diplomatically.

Mr. Speaker, the Open Vld Group joins the respect for the men and women who, at our request, are currently fulfilling their duty on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I just said, except maybe that Pieter De Crem – I just get a press release that the first Belgian F-16s are flying over Libya – has yet managed to knock the Parliament with a few minutes.

I welcome the clarification and clarity of the Government’s responses. Therefore, it will be the resolution, the entire resolution and nothing but the resolution!

Furthermore, I note with satisfaction that the two ministers agree to say that the Joint Committee on overseas operations monitoring should meet as soon as possible. This is where we will know more precisely the particular, even confidential, arrangements for the engagement of our troops.

I would like to thank the Government for the gentle response.

I only hope that this Parliament will be equally unanimous in the event that, in the future, possibly, retaliatory measures and terrorist attacks occur.

I repeat what I just said. I am not a priori against sending ground groups. A little war does not exist. I think we should continue to do so until the end. With regard to someone like Gaddafi, who pays $2,000 a day to foreign mercenaries to shoot his own people, one must continue to the bone, until such a satrap has disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, I personally remain convinced that humanitarian interests are not the only interests pursued by those who support this operation.

I am also perplexed! I think we did not give the diplomacy a chance in this matter. The recourse to war is a very serious thing, a decision that cannot be taken lightly.

In the face of the enormous doubts about the real challenges of this intervention, I prefer to refrain from thinking that our primary concern should be to meet the expectations of our people by forming a government rather than by engaging our country in a war whose outcome, by its nature, is always uncertain.

I would like to thank all the speakers for the quality of their interventions as well as the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs for the quality of their responses. You will receive support that will be ⁇ ined in keeping with the transparency and information circulation commitments. We will ensure that additional technical information is available as soon as possible either before the Military Operations Monitoring Commission or before an ad hoc commission.