Proposition 53K2203

Proposition de résolution relative à l'avenir de l'armée belge dans un cadre européen.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Philippe Blanchart, Anthony Dufrane, Julie Fernandez Fernandez, Christophe Lacroix, Patrick Moriau

Submission date

May 21, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European defence policy NATO armed forces resolution of parliament parliamentary scrutiny

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

May 2, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, after consultation with co-rapporteur Luk Van Biesen, I can inform you that we refer to the written report.

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that my group leader cannot hold this discourse, but well, I also did the discussion in the committee.

I do not have to make my speech long. This is a principle issue. I have been sitting in this Parliament for 14 years and I have experienced that the law on racism was amended seven times and that the Constitution was amended once, with the sole intention of hitting the then Flemish Bloc, against whom a procedure was then initiated before the court. The Flemish Bloc was eventually condemned after many five and six on the basis of this law that was amended seven times and the Constitution that was amended once. In many countries, politicians would feel substituting shame if they were to examine what the racism law actually meant.

Since that law is purely against our party, we want to see that law abolished. Many people are beaten to the ears with complaints about racism. The anti-discrimination law was later adopted. It had just a little less intention to hit our party, if I can speak from experience, but this law has not always proved workable.

Let it be clear, the law on racism came in response to the fact that a right-wing identity party arose in Belgium, and ⁇ in Flanders. Procedures have been conducted in many countries, but nowhere has it been so bad as in this State.

As a politician, I can keep it short. I made my statement. One thing I haven’t mentioned yet: freedom of expression. It is sacred, I think. It is an absolute right, it is a fundamental freedom, but in this country it is difficult to honor and recognize that.

As I said, there have been procedures in neighboring countries as well. There are processes in France. Even in Germany, where, given the past, it may be a little more understandable, because there arise certain parties that adhere to an ideology that has been accused of us but that we have never adhered to, absolutely not. If our people who are elected here are people who want to do politics in a very honourable and very diligent way.

I would also like to remind you that we have never dealt with the European Court of Human Rights. That is ⁇ not our best friend, when one sees what laws it strikes through the throat of certain countries to put certain fundamental rights and freedoms on the slope.

The first speaker is normal seen by Mr. Francken. I am always the order of importance of the parties, respectful of democracy.

Will the competent minister be present?

We have never faced the European Court of Justice as such.

The European Court of Human Rights also says that shocking and provocative can be. Actually, I am here today. It may be shocking or provocative for you that I come here to advocate the abolition of the law on racism, but that is my good right, a right that most of you here do not recognize.

It is truly regrettable that the freedom of expression, by which I was elected, by which people were elected in that cake point of this hemisphere, is very often, many times, stumbled. We have not neglected to abuse this House, this Parliament, for this purpose. The Parliament itself, this speech body, was abused to attack freedom of expression, even if it is shocking or provocative.

Let that be said. I would like to add this too. I have said it in the committee and I will do it here too. Racism as a concept of saying that another human being is inferior to anyone who inhabits this planet is indeed laughable. This is immoral and unethical.

We as Flemish nationalists can say that it is contrary to human dignity or to our pure nationalist vision to proclaim racism, to say that one person on this planet is inferior to the other.

Whether it’s the Kayapo Indians, the Inuit, tribes in Africa or nations in Southeast Asia or on European territory, all these people are part of a people. We respect these peoples and the right of self-determination of those peoples.

In other words, a people is like a mother. I will say to my people that they are the best in the world, just as I say to my own mother that she is the best in the whole world. Anyone who belongs to the Inuit can do so, a Kurd can do so, a Turk can do so, a Berber can do so, everyone can do so. That is the equality of peoples. This also applies to the equality of people. It is also that which is not recognized in this Parliament.

Especially in Flanders, if I can address my Flemish colleagues for a moment, the complex that is often left here to say “your own people first”, it is actually shameful. Go around the world. Ask people all over the world, “Which people are you most proud of?” They say that it is their own people. Is this chauvinism? may be. One can even condemn it from a certain ideology, but in any case one can be proud to belong to a people.

Of all the peoples of this planet, indeed, a very large number are discriminated, but no nation is discriminated by its own, what is called, elite as here in Flanders.

I do not know. I have no information about this.

That is why I want Flemish colleagues and politicians and Flemish journalists to speak today and say that we as Flemish Belangers are proud of our people. We are ⁇ the most proud of our own people. We are not ashamed to be proud of our own people, because we believe that our people are the best of the whole world. And we think we can say this, just like any other people on this planet. That is why we are condemned. That is why we demand the abolition of that politically correct law, the so-called anti-racism law, which does nothing but restrict freedom of opinion.

I can start here today as I did in the committee and talk about the principle of legality, constitutionalism and the like. I will not do this. I will not rub those technical and legal elements under your nose. There are lawyers who are smarter than me and have written papers about it. They can explain this much better than me.

However, I would like to highlight one point, namely the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for Combating Racism. Allow me to speak in my personal name. I have never made a complaint about discrimination or racism. Some in my party do this. I respect this, but I myself will never do it. The result of it is clear. When such a complaint is launched by someone of the Flemish Interest, it is usually not honored. However, the center is there like the chickens to deal with Flemish Belangers when a judgment was made again.

I will give a concrete example. Flemish MP Frans Wymeersch was convicted by the court of first instance in Dendermonde for so-called racism in a publication of the Flemish Interest. The center was there like the chickens to persecute French Wymeersch and to set up a bourgeois party. In the first instance, a conviction followed and the center received satisfaction. This was published with a lot of poeha on the website of the center.

Meanwhile, tomorrow we are exactly three months away from the judgment in appeal, but until last week the conviction was still on the website of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for the Fight against Racism. Any correctness – legal, political or ideological – or just politeness towards the person of Frans Wymeersch has not been spent on the center, because the outdated sentence is still on the site. However, if someone is released from racism – especially if it is a Flemish Interested – then the center suddenly silences in all languages and then you are even too lazy to adjust the website.

That was the statement I wanted to make today. Anyone who votes against the rejection of this bill can go to sleep with a peace of mind because it leaves behind the strut bird policy of the politically correct establishment. I wonder who has the courage today.

Mr. Speaker, I saw the Minister in the walkways and he said he would definitely be present. I hope he can still be present.

Dear colleagues, this is, of course, an important document.

Not so much the draft resolution is important, because a resolution is very relative, ⁇ a year before the elections. What will be yet to be implemented? After all, it is a sort of utopian text with which we indicate, in the very long term, the direction that our Defense, our military force, must take.

Because the draft resolution contains such a long-term perspective, the majority parties make a certain statement. In the long term, we need to integrate into a European army. This is of course not new. The dream of a European army has been around for decades. Until recently, however, very few steps have been taken.

The majority says that we need to build a European army because the current financial investments in defence are no longer feasible, that our capacity has exceeded and we must therefore work together. It uses the magic words smart defence and pooling and sharing.

For our group, smart defence does not mean the same as cheap defence. There is a big difference between the boutades “we will work together” and “we will not invest anymore”. The only thing I can say is that in defence in recent years only has been saved. You have saved and you keep saving. That is my biggest criticism of the present proposal for a resolution, in which, in my opinion, the majority is ⁇ bipartisan.

They see the need for a European army, because we must be able to act independently of America, be able to set our European course and draw a European line in NATO, our transatlantic alliance, which our group believes in. I refer to the statement of Mr. Lacroix of the PS that the EU should even take the lead in developing a separate strategy in NATO. This view was shared by all French speakers, especially Paris imposing the dictatorship. The French still believe in the greatness of the past, still think that they are a nuclear power and that France is still a military superpower, quod non.

Also Mr Dallemagne of CDH has at some point raised the question whether we would like the EU in the future to be able to decide only to take military action and therefore have the capacity for this. Mr Dallemagne is unfortunately not present: I would have liked to have some more explanation. He was quite ambiguous in the committee. I would like to know what CDH really wants with Defence. What is the future of defense? If one wants to be able to develop its own operations independently of NATO and have its own military capacity, well, then I would like to go into that. We have our own NATO and our own European course. If one says to develop its own European policy and a defence force for Europe, then I tell you: that is a total illusion.

One cannot, on the one hand, save years and days on Defense, and on the other hand, work independently of America and try to lead operations on its own. At the moment, we cannot carry out any international intervention without the Americans. That is the reality.

Is the N-VA now pro-American? No, we are realistic. They no longer invest in defense. This year alone, four months away, 183 million euros were already saved on Defense, which does not exceed any other department in terms of savings. This is not new, but it has been the same in previous years. It is the same every year. I know that the Defence Debate is only on the margins of the social debate in Flanders and Belgium, while that elsewhere is clearly at the center. In our case this is more diffuse, on the side of the social debate. Every year when we talk about the future of our army in the committee for the Defense of the Land, it is said that it is done with the savings; that l'on déjà donné.

I hope the minister will come soon. Now that Minister De Crem has become Deputy Prime Minister, I had hoped that it was done with donating. But what happened? The man was vice prime minister for two weeks and the first thing that was done was once again to freeze 100 million euros for Defence and again to save in the budget control of March.

I deeply regret this proposal for a resolution.

Mr Francken, Mr Kindermans asks the word for a personal fact.

This is not so personal, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Francken, you are, of course, verbally very strong, but you analyze the facts from your vision. You were also present a few weeks ago when we visited the NATO headquarters together. I was ⁇ fascinated by the great congratulations that Belgium received for the performance of our army. It has been made very clear that, despite the fact that we have reduced our budgets, our military is ⁇ highly valued in the international context.

We mentioned our performance in Libya, which was especially appreciated despite our financial contribution. It was added that we are improving the scores of the French and English. I also refer to our cooperation in Mali, our action in Afghanistan, which has already begun under the former Minister of Defense, and what we have done in Lebanon. We cannot say that our performance has suffered under the financial savings.

It is easy to argue that Defense should not save. Your group’s colleagues working on other policy topics will also find that there is no need to save on those policy topics. I think it is an achievement to participate in the savings. It is a point of merit of the Minister of Defence that he has kept the commitments set out in the budget. This cannot be said of every minister. At the same time, he does the things that are asked of him. It also perfectly meets the obligations related to international performances and efforts. This is a plus rather than a minus.

Mr Kindermann, thank you very much. You also know that we are drawing to the same sea on the subject. We have talked about defence many times. However, I must say two things.

First, I was present at the conversation with the Americans and also understood that at this time there is a round in progress with all NATO partners, in which one point is on the agenda for the Americans. One point, Mr. Kindermans, and that you have undoubtedly also well understood, in particular that at last more money must come on the table from the European NATO partners and that the Americans have really had it all with the fact that it is always them who have to keep the budget stable or even increase and that other European partners have to cut the budget.

After all, we are the first to invoke the NATO alliance and Article 5, but we are the last to knock on the budget table and say that it has been enough and that we can no longer fulfill our international obligations if we continue to do so. You know it as well as I.

Of course, this is a resolution. You may not have signed the resolution, but you will undoubtedly approve it. The resolution states that we are going for a European army and for a European course, which must be independent of NATO. As a fellow member of the NATO parliament, I can tell you that is an illusion at the moment and a big dream for maybe thirty years from now. It does not coincide that, on the one hand, we Europeans want to take our own course, regardless of what NATO does and regardless of the Americans, and on the other hand we want to always put defence first when it comes to budgetary delivery.

It is either the one or the other. Either one goes for a European army and invests again in the Belgian defence, one does pooling and sharing and smart defence and not cheap defence, and one goes for a European, independent course, or one does what one is doing now, namely mass savings. Yesterday, Belga ⁇ that the French military would again severely cut in the budget. Then, however, one cannot say that one does not need the Americans; that is pure political science fiction.

The resolution itself is a beautiful dream, but in reality it is at the negotiating table during budget talks that it must happen. Other colleagues, of course, will also not want to save on their departments, but if you follow all the reports of the budget talks, you will see that the N-VA is the only party that has consistently said that the savings on Land Defence should stop. We do not say that hundreds of millions more should be spent on defence, but we should always stop collecting money from defence.

We are completely at the bottom line. Minister De Crem said three years ago “on a déjà donné”. In the meantime, hundreds of millions of euros have been removed from the budget. There was not enough “Donnie.” That’s what disturbs me in this speech, it’s one or the other. Our group cannot support this resolution. If this is approved, one must also be consistent at the negotiating table.

Personally, I find this ⁇ hypocritical, of all factions, but in particular of the PS, the faction of the main insiders. I do not look at CD&V, Mr. Kindermans, because I know that this will be the only faction, ⁇ together with the Open Vld and the MR, who will say behind the scenes that it has been enough in Defense. I heard Mr. Dallemagne in the committee say that we must be able to conduct our own operations, independent of the Americans, that we must be able to take our own course and be able to intervene internationally. On which planet does this man live? I cannot imagine that Ms. Milquet, as Deputy Prime Minister at the negotiating table, will defend Mr. De Crem’s budget. I really cannot imagine that. I like to hear it if the opposite is true. Mr. Dallemagne is not present. In the committee, he could not answer this when I asked him.

It is very clear to us that a European defence is not for tomorrow. A European defence is a dream, but at the moment it is highly unlikely that it will succeed. There was also a member of NATO from the United Kingdom. You have heard him too. They do not see any added value at the moment. They say that they are cooperating within NATO, that this is going well, and that we can be happy with the US support if we start operations like in Libya, but that it is not appropriate in the final to set a European course on defence. The representative of the United Kingdom.

For the N-VA, these already too frequent savings waves, where Land Defense always comes first out of the bus, must stop immediately. It has been enough, “on a déjà donné” as previously stated by the Minister of National Defense.

If we want to effectively give Defence a future, the financial base must remain secured. Otherwise, it remains impossible to plan for the long term. That is a first point.

Second, we should no longer be deaf to the questions of our American allies within NATO partnership. It would be ⁇ irresponsible if we stopped, if we stopped listening to our American partner.

Currently, 1% of GDP goes to investment in Land Defense. The NATO standard is 2%. I know that many NATO countries do not get that, but Belgium is the third lowest country in terms of investment. We always reap the fruits, for example the beautiful new NATO headquarters in Brussels, which hopefully will be completed in 2015. Also SHAPE in Casteau, a wonderful employment factor, which puts Belgium on the map internationally. Belgium, through the international function of Brussels, is the first to pick the manna of the NATO alliance, but once it comes to investing money, this government does not give home. It can no longer!

For us it is very clear, we must negotiate with the Americans and show our goodwill, not only in terms of operations but also in terms of investments.

Mr. Minister, I am glad you are here. I expect at least a statement from you. I know that negotiations are ongoing with the Americans on investment in defense. What is said there? What will come out of the bus? Have you made any commitments to NATO allies? You know better than I do that the ratio was fifty-fifty: 50% by Europe, 50% by the US. Now the ratio is 75 %-25 %. Americans cross the bridge over and over again. We invest in our soft social security, they invest in the hard security.

In the United States, the debate is now at the height of the cut in Congress. Last year and now, there have been amendments submitted by a number of leading Republicans and Democrats who want to withdraw their boys from Europe. They say it doesn’t make sense anymore because the Europeans don’t give home. Now they call to focus on the Pacific and to make alliances with China, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and so on, in short with the other major powers developing there.

In terms of security, the world stage is shifting from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. You cannot say that we have not warned you. It’s not about what I say, but what the US ambassador says. Anyone who knows something about defence has ever received it. What this man says are not just empty words. Sooner or later, the Americans will add the act to the word. That is our great fear. If we continue to invest too little, the Americans will, sooner or later, draw their conclusions, and then Western Europe will be ⁇ dismayed behind.

Mr. Minister, I have a very concrete question, and I hope you can say something about it. Are there commitments made in terms of investments, budget?

The 2014 budget is now on the table. It is not the big savings operation that was about to come, it will be about saving 2 billion euros. Especially on that side, however, one will first point to you and say that there is still space at Defence, that there can be delayed the payment of a helicopter for a year or that some investment there can be delayed. Whether you pay for the helicopter this year or next year, those millions will still have to be put on the table.

Both NATO and the European Union play an indispensable and specific role within the European security architecture. It is not the competition between these two organizations that should be encouraged, but the complementarity, also budgetary.

Fourth and last, we should not look at the cat from the tree and wait for a European defense. We need to continue with a smaller group of countries who want to move forward and with which we have already achieved results and with which we can ⁇ further results in the short term.

It is about a Benelux army, about an army of the Low Countries, because that is of course what it is about. The French speakers feel that there is a certain animo in Flanders in relation to that army of the Low Countries, in order to bring the armies together, but they do not want that. They do not want that for geopolitical reasons, for linguistic reasons. This is of course the matter. They want to open it up and cooperate with France. What is the cooperation with France at the moment? Here and there a flight training. More will not be. I do not want to talk about how this collaboration works. For the French, Belgium is peanuts.

If we cooperate with the Netherlands and with Luxembourg, we can effectively reach a good cooperation on an equal footing, as we do with the Navy. You went to Den Helder, where we have seen that cooperation on the field really yields good fruits.

The point is that we must move towards integration of those three armies and continue to invest in the army. Stop savings in defense. Evolve into an effective Benelux army. Only in this way can we guarantee a long-term future for our Defense, our military, our boys and our girls. This is what the N-VA wants to do. We will continue to put that on the table. Whatever resolutions are proposed, which – I repeat it again – at this time testify to an enormous naivety. It is pure political science fiction and our group will not approve of this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, on 2 May 2012, our group submitted this proposal for a resolution. Here we are a year later. What a journey! I am ⁇ pleased with the support of my colleagues in the committee on this text. I thank them. I hope that he will receive the same massive support today in the plenary session.

The current situation gives us the right to open this debate. If the European army does not yet exist as such, we feel the wind turning, opinions changing or reflexes taking: new French LPM, European anti-piracy force in the Horn of Africa, European training mission for the Mali forces and, last but not least, the convocation of a European Council in December 2013 dedicated to defence issues.

In fact, the numbers, the facts must push us to a deep reflection in the context of a changing world, which has changed, of U.S. military priorities that have evolved or of developments in the fields of battle, especially in the field of cybercrime. We must anticipate and therefore prepare for it, and not get stuck.

We can regret that with an accumulation of 1.6 million men and women under arms and a budget of more than 190 billion euros, the European Union continues to be an economic giant but a true diplomatic-military dwarf on a global scale, despite the excellent work done by our military.

This situation has only lasted too long. The debate on defence in both a European and transatlantic framework is therefore essential. This debate, the Socialist Group wanted to conduct it in a broad, documented and transparent way through parliamentary hearings that were important, both from the academic, military and trade union point of view.

These hearings, in their vast majority, insisted on one conclusion: the real need for more Europe in defence. It is also in this sense that the Minister of Defence pledged when he met, last September, with his French counterpart or during the Belgian Presidency of the European Union. Minister Flahaut had, in his time, also taken concrete initiatives in this area.

Our resolution, which was adopted in a committee on 17 April, truly constitutes a platform bringing together the views of all majority parties and concluding these hearings by defining a vision of the future of the Belgian army. You call it a dream. I say a realistic and concrete vision in the evolution and change that it has already begun, but also by giving a clear, ambitious and unambiguous mandate to our government in anticipation of the European Council of December 2013!

This summit may not be a failed appointment, but we know it. To do this, as was the case for other European policies, such as the tax on financial transactions, drivers countries are needed to launch concrete initiatives. Only the macro scale can here address the challenges of today and especially of tomorrow.

We want Belgium to be one of those drivers, one of those founding countries. National Defence is an important part of our country’s international policy, but also of the European Union.

As it is an important sector of the state, the question of sovereignty is, however, essential and inherent in the question of any collectivization. But defence, like other sectors of public action, must evolve with time. So the best example in this matter, though very different, is that of the Eurozone. Before the unification of national currencies, the currency was a strong symbol of the power of a state.

Today, despite all the difficulties inherent in a large project such as this, and despite the crisis we are going through, no one would want to step back for a simple reason: the euro responds to a need in phase with its time – that of an undeniable and irreversible interconnection of the member countries – and especially the euro allows small states, such as Belgium, to be placed on an equal footing and associated in the making of major decisions, which was not the case before, let us admit.

Our vision, therefore, is not that of a merger or pure juxtaposition of the armies of the Member States of the European Union or of a few States. The example of a Benelux merger, advocated by some here, has also been widely criticized by several interlocutors.

We need to see bigger, broader, because the rules valid in the construction of European economic governance are also a reality when it comes to defence. We are evolving in an era marked by a globalized world where geopolitical or peacekeeping challenges go far beyond the simple framework of a member state.

A long-term vision is necessary before it is too late. Transform or disappear. We must therefore continue to establish a strengthened partnership and, above all, seeking synergies at a time when national armies are at a turning point in their history for both budgetary, historical or geopolitical reasons.

The European diplomacy and the military arm that accompanies it should not be seen as an abandonment of sovereignty, each Member State retaining its peculiarities, but as a complementarity, as a healthy synergy to do better and at European level what, in fact, our armies already do through various collaborations. It is about bringing consistency to them in accordance with what is already envisaged in the framework of the Lisbon Treaty.

But this European coherence must also enable European convergence in terms of military procurement, industrial policy in synergy with the civil sector, strategic development or training of our military.

This consistency must go through the rationalization of the decision-making structures, the common security and defence policy (CSDP), and the optimization of the European headquarters to group them, eventually, into a single central decision-making place for operations under the auspices of the European Union.

However, after these hearings, my group concluded that, despite the existence of the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the CSDP, this European reflex in military matters is, unfortunately, not yet, at the present time, a sufficiently present reality. This reality is still sometimes lacking both in the uniformization of the purchase of equipment and in the articulation of the decisions of the different stakeholders at a mission abroad, despite some successes on the ground. There is a way to do better, much better. And to do better, we need a real political will beyond the formal treaties that they exist. Even if this is a resolution, our will is clear to be concrete both at the Belgian and European level. I would therefore like to highlight several points of this resolution with you.

As regards the strategic plan, the first request emphasizes the need to include the European dimension in the next strategic plan, including pooling and sharing as a priority for the different departments of Defense, in particular with regard to the provision of capacity, the purchase of equipment and the conduct of our military operations abroad. My group expects, in fact, much, in accordance with the government agreement, of this strategic plan. How can we move forward without a strategic vision? This strategic plan is expected to allow for further development of the orientation of an integrated Belgian army within a start of a defence Europe, but also by conducting the debate on the definition, in close consultation with its partners, within the framework of the European Union and NATO, and after having debated in the Federal Parliament, of a limited number of priority niches of excellence. This definition of "niches of excellence" is also provided in the government agreement. For our group, before any simple decrease, it is about having, once again, a macro approach by developing capabilities, including by identifying gaps and doublings, and prioritizing future military capabilities.

With regard to NATO, for us, the voice and positions of the European Union must be strengthened within NATO, whose role has also changed and evolved, in particular in light of the changing international context. But good God, NATO, the US calls for more Europe of defense! They demand that we take more responsibility, that we take our destiny in our hands, and that we play a more important role where they are most absent, that is, in the Middle East and Africa. We can, in the long run, hope that this Europe of defence will be able to come in support of Americans in wider operations when they will need massive support rather than bilateral support.

However, do not make us say what we did not say! The place of our country in NATO is in no way challenged by our resolution calling for a stronger and more community-based Europe of defence. This link with NATO could also be ensured, in particular, by the European Defence Agency and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, as well as through an enhanced EU-NATO partnership. On the international level, Belgium will need to continue and strengthen its commitment to a defence Europe, in order to enable the emergence of a real European strategy emancipated from NATO’s single strategy.

European Defence Industry. Behind this text lies a genuine ambition to consolidate the industrial and technological base of European defence, which creates jobs and is rich in innovative know-how. It is around this industrial tool preserved and reinforced by the European network of SMEs in the defence sector that the Defence Europe will need to be reactivated with European partners who will, with synergies between civil and military research and development.

Furthermore, this arms cooperation must also continue to encourage the joint purchase of military equipment, and thus further promote a common basis for training of military personnel at European level, and the full compatibility of equipment, which is currently lacking, we admit.

This is especially important ahead of the European Council meeting in December 2013 and following the awareness of the European institutions of the urgent need to strengthen European cooperation in order to develop military capabilities and fill critical gaps.

It also focuses on the benefits such cooperation can have for employment, growth, innovation and industrial competitiveness in the European Union. First of all, we must not miss the European train and undermine this dynamic and all the potential positive effects for the Belgian and European industries. I think of course of the MUSIS project, the problem of the long-term replacement of major equipment or even the possible exceptions to be defended in the context of the debate on the negotiation mandate of the free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States.

Fourth, the human aspects – I slowly come to my conclusions. Finally, this Europe of defence will only be conceivable through a genuine community approach to managing human resources within the European armies with the full involvement of social partners. It is in this sense that request 5 of the resolution was drafted, calling for the creation of new initiatives promoting a better collaboration of all Belgian defence personnel with their European counterparts.

The vision of the PS is clear: we wish to develop a version adapted to the realities of the army of the existing Erasmus and Bologna programmes between the European civilian universities in order to promote collaboration, gateways, common skills and languages among young European military personnel, but also the establishment of a genuine common training base promoting exchanges and compatibilities, in particular in the context of operations under the auspices of the PSDC or NATO, such as in Mali or in the Horn of Africa for example.

During the last European Councils, Belgium has, on many occasions, demonstrated its formidable capacity to move Europe, to transform the policy of small steps into giant leaps towards our common future, which can only be European. We must take full advantage of the December 2013 summit and our command of the European Union Battlegroup during the second half of 2014 to make these giant leaps possible. It is only in this way that the European Union will become a major international actor and will be able, with the contribution of all Member States and NATO, to create a set of synergies for the benefit of European citizens, research and development and, above all, peace and solidarity within and outside our country and our continent.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lacroix, I thank you for your very clear and beautiful presentation. However, I have one question.

When I read the resolution and hear your presentation, I can only conclude, in a way of speaking, that your group and your ministers in the government are advocating a halt to defence savings.

Is it true that you are advocating for a defence savings stop?

We have another budget ahead, namely the 2014 budget. Then the board is empty. Then there is a new government and we will see what happens.

Are you in favour of saving on defence? Can you confirm that for the 2013 budget the amount of 2.5 billion euros to be sought will not be sought in Defence and therefore there will be a saving stop on Defence?

After all, it is one or the other: either the resolution is adopted today, you agree that we must go back for a European army and invest in Defence and you make it hard at the negotiating table, or you do not do it and then this resolution is a blow in the water and also testifies to hypocrisy.

First of all, I would like to point out that it is the role of the Minister to manage its budget.

Then I am perplexed. I always hear the N-VA talk about budgetary rigour, the need to make savings but in your proposals, you should not touch the sector of national defence.

The hypocritical speech, it is you who hold it! You demand more budgetary rigour; you criticize the expensive state but, in your opinion, the National Defense should not consent to efforts. However, the efforts are made in a global and measured manner, in solidarity between the departments.

A defence Europe means investing better, investing more intelligently; €190 billion is spent annually by the Member States. With a common vision, I am convinced that we will logically succeed in restructuring budgets, in targeting spending more, in spending better.

Today we have the opportunity to redefine, through these international financial and political challenges, the niches of excellence that will be the priorities of the strategic Union of tomorrow.

When you accuse us of hypocrisy, I think hypocrisy comes from you!

Mr. Lacroix, you say that everyone should be solidary. There is no single department of the federal government, you know the figures too, that in the last five and even eight years has given as much as Defense.

We are not saying that we need to spend extra money on defense. We are calling for a stop to savings on defense.

In 2014 there is a preparation. The question is whether the 2 billion euros still to be sought will come from Defence or not.

We ask that Defence keep the savings out of the 2014 format, because there is a proportion, you know the figures better than anyone, no department that has saved so much as Defence. That is what we ask.

I think mr. Lacroix has answered. We are not in a budget discussion, but in the discussion of a resolution.

I now give the floor to Mr. and Geerts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and especially the colleagues of the PS who have shown the openness to give the other groups the opportunity to submit amendments. This draft resolution is not written in Paris, but in the walkways because we have submitted many amendments. In the committee there was some criticism of this approach, but in my opinion the amendments have improved the original text and, in addition, they have provided a broader support.

The criticism of timing is partially correct. Following the Parliament hearings, we felt that they should serve something, and therefore we tried to put them into a text. Our party has always been an advocate for better cooperation within the framework of a common European defence policy. If Belgium wants to play a role in defence policy, we must work together. The question of whether this should be done with the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, the Norwegian countries or with France does not, in my opinion, play a role. The choice to be made is one of cooperation where possible.

I also think that the interventions in Libya and Mali have shown that this is not so obvious. The analysis of these operations will ⁇ indicate a number of shortcomings. I think we should not be too enthusiastic about those operations, but it is a fact that such operations are accompanied by falling and rising.

Everyone also points out that in times of economic crisis questions arise about whether or not to carry out savings as in other European countries. You mentioned France. In the Netherlands and Britain, the same exercises have been done as we have done in recent years.

I think these savings legitimize cooperation. We learned from the hearings that, however, there will be an increase in investment spending in the short term and that it is only in the longer term that savings can be achieved. For me, this was surprising, but I would like to submit to the opinion of the experts.

I also think that, as Mr. Lacroix has said, there is a need for more political, but also more technological alignment of the equipment, capacity and manpower. We will have to make choices. I think that Belgium should make that choice by specializing in niches of excellence. We need to further define where we want to develop these niches.

I think that pooling and sharing not only offers opportunities, but also involves obligations. We will have to discuss which operations we will participate in. This will not be obvious. After all, we are also not always hoping to immediately send troops to certain parts of the world.

I come to my decision. I think it is good that this resolution is already voted today and that elements are taken into account in the preparation of the defence summit.

The Minister has said in the committee that, in preparation for that European Defence Summit, he would again conduct a debate in the committee. I think this is good, because we must continue to play our full role in this.

One of the quotes from one of the professors that I remembered during the hearings is that one needs to collaborate. He concluded his speech with: “If you don’t pool it, you lose it.” Therefore, I think it is good that this resolution is adopted with the widest possible majority.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, first of all, I would like to thank the PS Group, and more ⁇ our colleague Anthony Dufrane, whose relay you took, Mr. Lacroix, for the submission of this proposal for a resolution, which arrives on time. And I am pleased that you have had the intelligence to open this to the amendments of your majority partners, so that it is even better than the original text, and above all more complete. We have here the result of a beautiful collective work of the majority on an important topic.

But, Mr. President, did he really deserve the screams of Mr. Francken, whom I heard from my office, as I re-read my speech, such caricatural statements concerning this proposal?

Mr. Francken, where did you read that this resolution proposal is intended to end our collaboration with NATO under the pretext that we are working on the emergence of a defence Europe? Of course, the parliamentarians who have been able to work towards the adoption of this proposal for a resolution do not show a bearish optimism with regard to the question of defence. The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union deserves a clear state of the place, without complacency. But we must remain the drivers and we can submit to our government a series of ambitious proposals ahead of the next December summit that will be devoted to this issue.

Increasing the effectiveness, visibility, impact of the CSDP, strengthening defence capacity development, and strengthening the European defence industry are three objectives that we must strive to ⁇ . And we must support in this sense our government, our Minister of Defense, who will carry this project – if it is adopted – within the framework of the next December summit.

The Parliament thus fulfils its role of control, of proposal, which I welcome. The government, thanks to this resolution, has a roadmap for the preparation, and I hope, the successful European summit at the end of the year. But we are not in the beat optimism. Europe is slow. She is older than us, Mr. Francken, and I hope she will still be there after us, but there is still a number of progress to be made.

And if our 2010 Presidency of the European Union was marked by interesting advances with regard to the Defence Europe – I think of mutualization and sharing under the auspices of the European Defence Agency – we must see, since then, a certain floating – it must be acknowledged! - at the level of operations, possibly with the exception of training missions for Mali and Somali troops in 2010 and 2013.

Several previous EU missions are questioned: the border surveillance mission between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, the europeanization of the security system in the Balkans, resulting from the political agreement between Serbia and Kosovo, both missions in the DRC. The 2012 missions are of a purely civil nature: the training of police and customs officers in Niger or the security of the Djouba airport in Sudan.

On the contrary, the Atalante operation to combat piracy off the Horn of Africa demonstrates that, when the analysis is common, Europe knows how to equip itself with the means to act and demonstrate its added value in defence. An integrated approach to the reconstruction of the Somali state remains to be developed.

The Lisbon Treaty of December 2009 is not fully implemented. Permanent Structured Cooperation and the solidarity clause are not defined by the participation criteria. It is in the Protocol on Permanent Structured Cooperation that we will find a tool with the flexibility and pragmatism necessary to give visibility and credibility to all new initiatives in the field.

In fact, since the Maastricht Treaty, defence initiatives have been carried out by pioneering groups, Mr. Minister, proof that even at 12, it was then impossible to move forward together on security issues. Therefore, soon 28 with the arrival of Croatia, it is necessary to create, within the Union, a hard core composed of countries wishing to advance faster and further: Franco-German initiatives, to which our country has associated (I think of the Eurocorps), the regular meetings of the Weimar Triangle gathering the Franco-German couple and Poland, now expanded to Italy and Spain since November 2012. All these variable geometry initiatives are key to developing projects and collaborations between countries.

by Mr. Francken talks to us about Benelux cooperation as if it were the army of the future. No to No! Of course we need to cooperate with the Benelux, with France or others, but we are talking here about the Europe of defence and you are talking to us about the Europe of the Benelux. Do you really think that, for the weight that Belgians and Europeans will have in the world in the future to carry their values and their defence, will we be able to progress with a Benelux army? A little serious! The machine fell back a second time when I heard this!

In order to reintegrate all these initiatives into the EU framework, permanent structured cooperation was established by the Lisbon Treaty. Belgium, the founding member of the Union, and which has claims in the field of European security, must be a member of this avant-garde and be a proposal force and a reliable partner there.

The current Treaties provide us with margins of progress that have not been used in recent years. There is no point in initiating institutional innovations that would not be effective. The development of a comprehensive crisis approach enhancing the coordination between military action and other aspects of external action, such as development aid or humanitarian action, is driven by the innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. More than three years after the implementation of the Treaty, it is only beginning to be considered within the Commission and the External Action Service.

There are certain questions on the budget. We are told that Member States are committed to gradually improving their military capabilities. One could actually think that this is contradicted by the British and French budget cuts. Will this reduction lead to the strategic decline of the European Union? These questions can be asked in Parliament and ministers will also be able to ask them in December 2013. It will be necessary to convince the Member States that Europe must stop disarming itself and that its fate also passes through a military tool, without which there will be no effective diplomacy and efficient defense of our values.

The tactical groups were declared operational with enthusiasm in 2007. This device enables the permanent disposal of a rapid reaction military force. It can be deployed within ten days of the political decision. But, unfortunately, we find that this beautiful idea is currently without effect. The eve of the tactical groupings is nonexistent or partial and these groups have never been projected before. This motivates potential contributors. Should we continue? What about the Eurocorps that can reach up to 60,000 men?

The question remains on the agenda, but without beginning to reflect. It will be discussed at the summit at the end of this year.

The question of parliamentary control of defence policy, too, will probably now be raised at the European level but also for national parliaments.

In terms of capacity, some projects such as the A400M or flight supply gaps were already mentioned in the conclusions drawn following the 1991 Gulf War. 20 years already! We have not yet found a solution.

The work developed within the framework of the AED covers several aspects to which Belgium is associated but the Agency’s budget is anemic. You know, Mr. Minister, that this prevents the launch of large federal projects marked by substantial economies of scale. This is also what we need to talk about. Currently, European countries share only one-fifth of their equipment purchases: €8 billion out of almost €50 billion annually. Even worse, they only realize an eighth of their joint development research efforts. The training of helicopter pilots, medical support, maritime surveillance, training teams for the strengthening of foreign armies must become European.

President Flahaut knows it. He thinks about it every day. I say he knows it because he was in action in this regard as well.

Since 2003, our country has not exhausted its efforts in favour of the creation of a permanent headquarters of the European Union in Brussels. Strengthening the capacity for planning and conducting Union operations is also essential. A report by Ms. Ashton from July 2011 confirms the interest of the European Union in having a permanent and autonomous structure for planning and conducting operations. Empirically, all Member States have been able to measure the interest for the European Union to have such permanent structures on the occasion of the launch of the various Union operations in recent years.

It is therefore necessary to leave the discussions made sterile by the British veto and the successive reports to move towards a decision through structured cooperation that allows the Union to move forward and the British to be faithful to their Ottoman credo. Yes, we must continue to work with NATO.

This decision would exceed the capacity of the European Union Operations Centre, which, in optimal configuration (70 people), only allows for operational planning and the conduct of military operations of the size of the tactical group (approximately 1500 people).

Dear colleagues, this half-tone balance sheet can also be explained by the economic crisis, but only in part: it has effects on the defence budgets of the EU Member States, therefore on their military capabilities. Poland is one of the few European countries to increase its defence budget.

Mr Francken, you are asking for budgetary guarantees. All European countries are forced to cut their defence budgets. You will not go around small and medium-sized companies in Flanders to announce them an increase in their taxes because National Defense needs it.

This is a reality that we must count on. Of course, we do not have to constantly cut the defence budget according to the needs. Budgetary constraints strike the defence budgets of all member states.

There is an opportunity for us to move towards increased cooperation. Many specialists, whom we have all read if we are in the Defence Committee or interested in it, think that we could palliate this drop in resources if a genuine European integrated defence came into being.

This is the long-term goal. But the real lack is the lack of collective political will of the Member States; this is the recurring argument. Operations in Libya and then in Mali have revealed strong differences between EU members on the objectives and modalities of joint action.

Finally, one last factor is the hard-working establishment of the European External Action Service (EASO) and, I would dare, ... the lack of involvement of Catherine Ashton in defence issues. What do you think, Mr. Minister? I don’t know, but I wonder.

The best example is the Mali case. The announcement of the reform of the Mali army has precipitated the movement of the rebel forces towards Bamako, requiring French intervention and the support of our army. But the Union operation was initially scheduled by the service for September 2013, a timetable lacking political relevance and sense of urgency. I was, like you, probably, dear colleagues, quite struck by the difficulty of rapidly bringing together the European personnel needed for this mission.

Mr. Minister, the European summit in December should be an opportunity to set a direction for our European defence policy. It will not thus clarify the horizon at once, but by setting a direction, we will be able to get out of a certain bureaucratic burden and overcome a soft consensus that does not reflect the wishes of European citizens. As the polls show, Mr Francken, European citizens want Europe to show, through its action, its will and its ability to defend a number of values inscribed in its roots. The revival of European defence is expected by the citizens, but it also contributes – it is important – to growth and employment; it contributes to the deepening of European construction. Indeed, it implies that Europeans define their common interests, determine the areas in which they are at stake, where they can be threatened, in short, lay the very foundations of a common policy. From a geostrategic point of view, the diversity, the intensity, the unpredictability of threats command us to evolve together without lowering the guard. In the long run – it has been recorded since the Maastricht Treaty – the Europeans will move towards a common Defense in relation, Mr. Francken, with the great American partner NATO. A profound update of the 2003 Common Strategy is necessary in parallel with the drafting of a European White Paper. We need to redefine and re-evaluate the security challenges of Europe in a world that is changing, re-armed, and whose evolution the Americans have already anticipated. The United States is reorienting, as is known, its strategic priority towards the Asia-Pacific zone.

Europeans like us will have to manage the security of their continent more independently. Furthermore, re-balancing between the United States and Europe will enable the strengthening of the transatlantic link. You know, Mr Francken, our American partners are concerned about the risk of a lack of collective military relevance of Europeans.

Mr. Minister, I would like to address another important element. I also think, Mr. Lacroix, that we have worked well in this regard. The Defence Europe has an industrial component. European defence is also employment. To have, at European level, an industrial fabric composed of large groups such as robust, innovative and internationally competitive SMEs is something important. It is the European strategic autonomy. For some capabilities, the alternative is clear: we will have to share them or we will have to give up on them. Therefore, we need to think about industrial synergies that would allow us to be more competitive.

The failure of the merger between EADS and BAE demonstrates the fear of states losing control over the future of their defense industry. Fusions and acquisitions have mostly occurred at the national level – thus forming national champions far more than specialized transnational groups. We need to promote SMEs. From this perspective, the creation of the task force within the European Commission represents an important signal and should be useful to us in the future. The European Commission should offer us, for example, reflections on how to better use the funds of the Research & Development Programme for the financing of dual research. The use of Community funds for this sector depends on the outcome of the negotiations on the next financial outlook.

Here is our roadmap. Our resolution calls on our government to push industrial capacity initiatives in the idea of encouraging capacity sharing and mutualization and the preservation of the European defence base, but also the operational aspects, i.e. improving the operation operation.

It is difficult to imagine that the CSDP will become more comprehensive and more integrated as long as there is no political Europe. Mr. Minister, you will, our government will have the opportunity, at the December summit of this year, to make a beautiful demonstration. If this text is voted, I think we will equip you, as Minister of Defence, to carry this European ideal that we also project in the field of European defence for the future.

I thank you, dear colleagues, for the truly collective work that we have been able to produce as part of this resolution and I would like, like Mr. Lacroix has already indicated that it is supported by the largest number of parliamentarians today. I thank you.

Mr. Ducarme, you have mentioned me several times. There are even a number of things falling from the wall into your desk, if I have understood it right.

You say, “Where do you get it that we would advocate that the European army in formation should take its own course, beyond that of NATO? No one has said that. You tell nonsense. I don’t know where you get that some parties have said that a European course without NATO should be threatened.”

I quote from the report, which you also read, I assume: “Moreover, the EU must take the lead itself and develop a separate strategy outside of NATO.” This is what Mr. Lacroix, the chief speaker of the resolution, says: a own course outside of NATO.

I quote from the report: “We want the European Union in the future to only decide to take military action and have the capacity to do so.” Words of Mr Dallemagne of CDH.

I do not understand this. This was said in the committee. It is stated in your report.

Mr. Ducarme, here are two parties present, not the least, who say very clearly: we must be able to take our own European course, beyond what NATO wants. I do not understand this.

In addition, you also say that there must be savings because there is savings everywhere. I repeat once again that we are advocating a stop to savings in 2014 for Defence. You say there is savings everywhere. Mr Geerts has said that too. That is true, but nowhere is so little invested in defence.

These are the official statistics. For Belgium, 1.1 % of GDP was invested in Defence in 2011. These are the latest figures from NATO.

Er wordt overal bespaard, but as men dat verhoudingsgewijs bekijkt, zitten wij wel purchasan in de rij. In the Netherlands it is 1.3%, in France 1.9%, in Germany 1.4%. We are sitting on the bottom. We have an enormous many gifts. We have already given.

There must be savings everywhere. We say very clearly: a stop on Defence, it has been enough, 2014, give them some breathing space, no further savings on Defence.

I feel like you have had this discussion before, Mr. Ducarme!

For once, we are talking about defence in plenary! This should make you happy!

I have to keep silent more. That is the problem!

Mr. Francken, I saw Mr. Francken’s eyebrows. Lacroix when you ⁇ his words. You will find in this resolution proposal no element of rupture between the European Union and NATO! We are attached to transatlantic ties, of course.

But we have to consider two things: Europe has probably arrived at maturity to take a little flight in defence. The purpose of the European Union – and I will use terms that you will understand well – is not to take its independence from NATO. It is to be a little more autonomous! This is what we want with this project of European defence construction. We are responding to a European agenda on this subject.

And if, Mr. Francken, a number of things fall from my window support in my office, which is by no means attributable to the president or the logistics, it is the caricatures you make of this text that is, in relation to the question of building the European Union in defence and NATO, perfectly balanced! This issue has been discussed by a majority.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, I will begin by going into what Mr. Geerts stated during his presentation. In fact, he thanked the chief applicant, Mr Lacroix, for the openness he demonstrated in the preparation of the present resolution. There must have been only openness to the majority. The opposition has not been involved in the drafting of the present resolution.

This may sound obvious, but it is not for two reasons.

First, the discussion of the present resolution text has been divided into two committee meetings. So there was all the time and opportunity to work with the opposition with the text.

A second reason why such a approach is ⁇ regrettable is that European defence is such an important topic that it is in our interest to all of us to reach a common position in order to maximize the level of support. This has not happened here, which I regret.

Mr Lacroix, you usually give very valuable statements in the committee, which I listen to with great interest. Here, however, you disappointed me immensely, even because the Ecolo-Groen group had submitted two amendments to the original text. I quote from the report. I literally handed you by stating on page 5 of the report that I am prepared to discuss with the applicants an amendment to the text, after the moment in which it became clear in the committee that an amendment should be undertaken. There were comments, including from various majority factions.

I am not playing a majority opposition game. I would like to inform you that we are prepared to discuss on the basis of our amendments. If necessary, we will submit our amendments. We see that.

However, we have not at any time received an invitation from your group or any majority group to consult on this issue. Such an attitude is ⁇ regrettable.

Why is European Defence important? Why is the theme of the present resolution important? This is important because defence is an important issue in itself. Why is defence an important topic? That is because defense is one of the instruments of a foreign policy. A political party and a political group that considers foreign policy and an international vision of problems important must have a vision of Defence. Defence is one of the instruments for achieving a viable foreign policy.

I find that this resolution that reflects insufficient vessel, is too much encapsulated in a rather isolationist approach to Defence, as if Defence stands on its own, and in fact has little to do with foreign policy and vision development. We had an interesting exchange of ideas with the people of the KHID in the Chamber. We also often have exchanges of thoughts with people from the KMS. One of the things that emerge from this is always a vision development. It seems to be more difficult in the defence committee.

One of the reflexes that I want to communicate to you, and which is also insufficiently contained in this resolution text, is the enormously changed global context in which our country is located and in which also a European Defence, and even NATO and the United States are located. The world has changed. It is no coincidence that President Obama made a visit to our country and our institutions a little priority.

The priorities of the United States are changing. This was also stated by colleague Francken. They focus more and more on the South China Sea and on what is happening in Asia and especially in Southeast Asia, the Pacific. As a result, Europe will face the challenge of making more of its own beans and of making greater efforts without ever having to rely on the United States or other non-European allies.

There are also challenges that we must include in a vision of European defence and which are new or insufficiently contained. I think of climate change, the shortages of raw materials in the world, the Arab Spring, the privatization of security in a number of aspects and the relevant challenges to international law.

A resolution on European defence should respond to the challenges I have formulated here. This is not the case.

Our group is both in favour of a European defence policy and in favour of a European foreign policy. That speaks for itself. We have had many debates in the committee on pooling and sharing, fashion words that are thrown on the table, but with which so far too little has been done. At present, the story of defence cooperation is still primarily a story of bottom-up cooperation. One leaves a little to the aspirations of individual countries to cooperate with each other or not, when it comes to certain capabilities, such as pilot training together with France or naval cooperation with the Netherlands.

We need a top-down approach to European defence cooperation. We need government members and ministers who take a menu of the military capabilities available to the Member States and then get into the debate. They must ask themselves what we need in terms of European defense, what each country can offer, and which country then develops which capacities, as well as which country will reduce which capacities. It is the practice of reducing and reducing a number of capacities, which we find insufficient in this proposal for a resolution. One might say that we need to specialize, but that also means that one must be able to decompose certain capacities in a global European exercise. That exercise or reflex is not included in the proposal.

We have some experiences in the recent past which have shown that Europe has a severe deficit in foreign and defence policy. I call Libya, I call Mali and, somewhat further in time, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when there was clearly a divided stance. That requires me to say that before we can speak of a common defence policy, we must make much more efforts to reach a common European foreign policy. The weakness of the High Representative is illustrative, and a solution to it actually precedes the draft resolution. I miss the text asking the federal government to boost efforts to reach a European foreign policy.

There are also some strong points in the draft resolution. We agree on almost all points. For example, I mention the question of making the European dimension a priority in the next Strategic Defence Plan. For example, I mention the need to define niches of excellence. I also mention the debate on European battle groups, which, as the authors of the text rightly say, are primarily a theoretical exercise, but cannot be sufficiently translated into practice and are insufficiently operational.

On the other hand, I am surprised by consideration J. Belgium has always taken on a pioneering role in the pursuit of further European integration on the military level.

I do not see the proof of that advanced sol, on the contrary. In recent years I have seen a Minister of Defense who has subordinated himself to what is happening with regard to European military cooperation, but too little has taken initiatives and too little has aroused the debate with his European counterparts. The defence debate should be a public debate, but we have not heard you enough in the public sphere. The fact that this resolution proposal does not address this issue is a deficiency.

What I have said, of course, leads to two amendments, which we have submitted in the committee and which we re-submit here, in particular because I missed a part of the discussion in the committee. In the first amendment no. 40 I propose to replace and extend the existing Article point 2 on the need to define a limited number of niches of excellence, in which priority investments in people and material will be made, to the need to decompose capabilities that fall beyond the niches of excellence.

That’s the difficult exercise I talked about and the politics are silent about and the debate is not about. Nevertheless, that is a logical component of an exercise for greater European integration in the field of defence. We need a task division, which means that not every country needs to maintain every capacity within each component.

The second amendment, no. 41, is an addition, namely the requirement to the federal government to engage in the development of a holistic, preventive and multilateral European foreign policy, which reflects the core values of the European Union and, on the basis of the European Security Strategy, defines priorities and strategies to promote the external interests of the Union and to define the role of European defence therein. Building an efficient defense apparatus for the EU, colleagues, makes no sense if there is no consensus on the strategies to reach a stronger common foreign policy. That is actually the first step. A common defence policy is only the second step; one forgets the first step here, because where, at what time, and with what purpose will that defence instrument be deployed?

This can only be determined by a strong foreign policy at the European level. However, that does not exist. That reflection, that demand to the federal government is also completely missing in this resolution.

Ladies and gentlemen, here is my discussion on our two amendments. If they are approved by the majority, then we would ⁇ want to reconcile ourselves with the text, despite the fact that we have problems with the method. I believe that both amendments are a useful complement to an interesting and important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the proposal for a resolution that we are discussing today is the result of the debates and hearings we have organized abundantly on this subject. The future of the Belgian army in European context is a topic that concerns everyone today and about which everyone has a vision. Together with that vision, a number of priorities will then be pushed forward, depending on the preference of the political party concerned.

The budgetary situation of defense, in our country and in the rest of Europe, is of course not strange to this. In the past, the Flemish Interest Group has already advocated cooperation between European countries, especially in the field of defence.

As our group has already understood during the committee discussions, one of the principles here must be that we do not neglect our foreign policy and therefore continue to strive to be a strong partner within NATO. For us, that international cooperation must be seen first and foremost as a cooperation in the Benelux and later with other neighboring countries, such as Germany and France, of course without transferring the decision-making power over the own defence apparatus.

So we don’t want the decision-making power to be handed over to an uncontrollable supranational organization or an emerging superstate, such as the EU. We all know that the EU is now evolving in that direction and that the role of sovereign nations is too often undermined. This is an evolution that we are fighting at all times.

This is exactly what our group feels in the draft resolution, namely a strong will to transfer a large part of the decision-making power to the European level. In some parts of this proposal, it seems to us that one wants to evolve too much into a unity structure. At least there is the necessary uncertainty about this.

Collega Geerts has already taken it, this resolution is written in the walkways; in other words, everyone has been able to lay their eggs. It has thus become a fur and uncoherent ally in which a concrete vision is lacking to feel about us.

I am still asking myself, by the way, whether it is clear for the government, and more specifically for you, Mr. Minister of Lands Defense, which direction do you actually seek? Do you know what concrete initiatives the government should take in this regard and what concrete proposals you will submit at the end of this year? You have not responded to this in the committee, but I hope you will do so.

Colleagues, in this debate on European cooperation, the philosophy of pooling and sharing must of course be taken as a principled starting point. However, in order to put that philosophy into practice and make it run structured, we must also dare to think about the expansion and reduction of certain capacities in the European and international context, as cited in the amendment of colleague De Vriendt. Our group supported it in the committee. It is there, however, that the shoe wrinks; the intention to dismiss or reduce certain capabilities is still a taboo in defense circles.

In short, our group believes that we are best focused on the willingness to cooperate in Europe, while ⁇ ining everyone’s autonomy. We refer very specifically to existing cooperative relationships. Colleague Francken has already cited it. We advocate for a stronger integration of these partnerships within the Benelux.

Furthermore, such a cooperation, and therefore not a unified structure, can in turn provide a specific European emphasis within NATO, without the EU having to have its own defence apparatus in terms of decision-making power and financial resources. Together with the concerns already expressed, a warning for the latter is a reason for our group to abstain when voting on this draft resolution.

Mr. Speaker, a resolution is a parliamentary work piece, but I have heard many interesting issues that should help us move forward on the way to the European Defence Summit, which will be held at the end of this year.

If I want to summarize, I would say that I have only heard positive things about the role that Belgian Defence must play in the future, whether within NATO or the European Union. I am convinced that the efforts made in the previous years have helped us to have a positive approach.

I received a lot of suggestions. I feel a kind of consensus about the vocation of our armed forces. Of course, considerable efforts have been made and I think everyone sees an important role for the Belgian Defense.

We can also complain about our reduced resources. Several members, including Mr. Kindermans, they pointed out: it is surprising that despite a considerable reduction of the means, the output of our armed forces has become larger, for a multitude of reasons. When you look at the resources reserved for defence and how to measure its performance, there is still a positive evolution, which can be found in all available statistics.

I would like to emphasize once again that after the large savings, Defence can invest approximately EUR 242 million for this and next fiscal year. These are large amounts. They are also needed. We do not do this for the pleasure of the investment. This is done on the proposal of Defence, but also to be integrated into international structures.

Many speakers spoke about the relationship between Belgium and NATO.

The link between Belgium and NATO is important: Belgium participated in the birth of NATO and a historical link was established, probably due to the role the Allies played after World War II. NATO thus has the vocation and opportunities to develop a European defence policy in which Belgium wants to play a role.

In this matter, I think we need to apply a policy of “open doors”, but know what we want. We become a viable partner. I will not speak of a European defence, I will not speak of a European army, but I will speak rather of the development of a European vision of defence.

There are colleagues who have emphasized that Defence is not on its own.

We are not alone. We do not stand alone.

Of course, as colleague De Vriendt and other colleagues have said, a modern defense is an essential part of a country’s foreign policy. This also applies to Belgium. There are three D: development, diplomacy and defense. With the Belgian government, we see this as a three-unity and we want to continue working on that reasoning.

December is important for us as it follows the implementation of the second foot of the Lisbon Treaty, namely the development of a European security policy. Belgium will play an important role in this.

There is more than pooling and sharing.

There is more than sharing and mutuality. But as in life, you have to start somewhere. The intensive and intensified cooperation we have with the Netherlands, whether we like it or not, remains an example for integrations with other countries, other EU member states.

However, there are realities that must be taken into account! The implementation of a defence policy without Britain would be like a dead-born baby. The European Union has partners and Britain plays a very important role; developing a vision without Britain is really something I consider dead-born. It is very important that we can still convince all our other partners that Britain will play a very important role in developing this vision.

I will be brief and concise: one cannot have butter and money from butter! From time to time, I will talk about straw and straw! It is always said that investments in a European defence policy need to be made.

Mr. Francken, among others, but also others have expressed this reasoning. However, it is an illusion to think that investing in a new, high-performance defense would in itself mean saving resources. After all, the defense will have to be much more efficient at that time so that this will also require the necessary resources. Pooling and sharing is a good example of collecting all those resources in one basket, but even this will still cost us the necessary.

We have made considerable efforts. I have always defended these positions because other societal challenges are facing in our country, in Europe and around the world.

The efforts made by the defence have been sufficient. As they say in Brussels, "we have already given"; as they say in Petit Sablon and Grand-Place, "we are almost on the agreement", while knowing that we want to maintain that level of qualitative and quantitative ambition that was our goal.

With regard to the summit of Europe, I will talk about concrete and capabilities, the lessons learned, lessons learned, geleerde lessen.

The European top must be concrete. No duplication of other systems. What have we lacking? Air-to-air refueling, airbevoorrading,

We participated in the operation in Libya. We immediately participated in the operation in Mali (the Serval operation, then the European operation). We will have the opportunity to discuss this later. It was an opportunity to realize the shortcomings of a Europe that boasts of being a Europe of defence. We have learned lessons in terms of supply, data exchange, and satellite data exchange. A suggestion included in one of the recommendations or one of the amendments should also draw our attention, namely the role of battlegroups. For example, Belgium will have the opportunity, in 2014, to be at the head, along with Germany and the other Benelux countries, of a European battlegroup. At the European summit, therefore, the vocation of these battlegroups will have to be fixed.

We talked about equality, as Ms. Ponthier and other colleagues pointed out.

We must be equal partners.

It may be a lack of modesty.

Now that we have made so much effort, we are able to do something more than just honour the principle of equality. Our foreign operations, the main operations in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, with Atalanta and our military partnerships in Congo and other countries provide us with the opportunity to speak with knowledge of affairs and have the necessary influence on the decision-making file.

We do a bit of boxing beyond our weight. I would like to thank the colleagues who participated in the drafting of this draft resolution. For once, we tried not to scratch the small peas with boxing gloves.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your response. I would like to expressly thank you for the realism you demonstrate when you emphasize, among other things, that a European army without Britain is a deadborn child. This is a very important statement, with which I fully agree. That is a first point.

On the other hand, when you say “on a déjà donné” and that we are almost at the core, I mean that we have been there for a long time. You are talking about 240 million euros in investments. You will save again. You will know better than I do, but I think this year it will be 180 million euros, 150 million or 153 million euros. It is of that size order. That is almost as much as the planned investments for this year. However, we are not there yet, because there is likely to be another budget control in June.

Mr. Minister, I can only promise you the support of our group for an austerity stop in Defense. You know you have our support for this. For the rest, in the long run, we are going 100 percent for a European army. We must try to work first through the Benelux, always within a clear agreement and in consultation with the NATO alliance. In the end, we have huge interests.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I thank you for your speech.

You worry about the non-participation of the English, their lack of willingness to join a Defence Europe, and you think that the project would then be dead-born. However, if necessary, this would not prevent us from working to better spend and avoid duplication, in particular in terms of battlegroups and deficient commitments of the Eurocorps at certain levels.

We must take our pilgrimage stick and persuade as widely as possible. If we do not reach it in full, however, the aspects of policy promoted in this resolution can be activated without the use of European unanimousness and without the main – not main – remedy of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, in the same way as Mr. Speaker has just stated. Lacroix, on the British vision of a Europe in defence, as you have more or less stated, I would say that we should not reject the vision, the approach of the British, but we also do not have to stay there feet and fists tied.

It will therefore not be necessary that at every stage of the process, we must ask for a white-seing from the British; within the framework of all cooperations to be considered, we will have to act with those who want to, without necessarily believing themselves strictly bound to the British opinion.

This is a nuance that is not mainly mentioned in the resolution proposal, but which, in essence, for the Reform Movement, was important to clarify.