Proposition 54K0305

Proposition de résolution sur la situation en Irak et la participation de la Belgique à la coalition internationale contre l'EI.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Peter Buysrogge
PS | SP Gwenaëlle Grovonius

Submission date

Sept. 25, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Iraq resolution of parliament multinational force religious fundamentalism forces abroad terrorism

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Sept. 26, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Following a first joint meeting of the Foreign Relations and Defence Committees held on 18 September 2014, which allowed an exchange of views with the Ministers Reynders and De Crem on the International Conference on Iraq of 15 September 2014 in Paris, these same commissions met again together on 24 September 2014 for an exchange of views on the situation in Iraq, following which a proposal for a resolution on the situation in Iraq and the participation of Belgium in the international coalition against ISIS was submitted by MM. Ducarme, Dallemagne, Yüksel, Francken, Van Biesen, Crusnière and Top.

In his speech, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and European Affairs emphasized the barbarism of the acts committed and the imperative of taking action, not only at the military level but also at the political, diplomatic and humanitarian levels.

by Mr. Reynders also noted that the UN Security Council met at ministerial level on 19 September 2014 and that the emphasis was placed on the legal and political legitimacy of international action. This legitimacy is undeniable given the demand of the Iraqi government and the broad support that this action benefits, ⁇ from the Arab countries in the region. Iran was represented at ministerial level, which constitutes an advance compared to the September 15 Paris Summit.

The Minister stressed that on the humanitarian level, additional measures will be needed.

Regarding the situation in Syria, the minister also indicated that Belgium has always refused to deliver weapons to the Syrian opposition because it is impossible to know who will be the final user.

He insists, however, that Syria should not be neglected in the current debate for humanitarian reasons but also because the pacification of Syria is an indispensable condition for Iraqi stability in the medium and long term.

Furthermore, a reflection must also be initiated at the European level in order to dry out the sources of financing from which terrorist groups in the region benefit.

by Mr. The Deputy Prime Minister also welcomed the organization, on September 24, 2014, of a meeting in the UN Security Council on the issue of Foreign Fighters.

by Mr. The Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister, on his part, was able to communicate to us the formal request of the United States for Belgium’s participation in the anti-IS coalition and the decision of the limited cabinet to sign its agreement on the dispatch of six F-16s and the installation of support personnel and means necessary in a friendly country for missions over Iraqi territory for an initial duration of one month. It is specified that thereafter, an evaluation of the operations and the decision-making process will be carried out in the perspective of a possible extension. The cost of this operation is 3.8 million euros per month. by Mr. De Crem also said that this commitment excludes the sending of ground troops to Iraq.

by Mr. De Crem also indicated that special humanitarian measures would be planned by Belgium in support of local populations. Finally Mr. De Crem indicated the strengthening of security measures and means in Belgium to anticipate a possible increase in the domestic threat following the Belgian participation in this international coalition.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, colleagues, I will briefly present further report from the meeting of the Joint Committees for Foreign Relations and Land Defense on Wednesday 24 September.

Mr Peter Luykx indicates that N-VA considers the participation of Belgium in a military intervention necessary. He also wants to break a loop for defence budgets. Only in this way can we ensure that we remain a reliable international partner.

Mr Luykx argues that security services should be provided with the necessary resources to guarantee domestic security. He also pointed out that humanitarian, social and diplomatic support to the region remains necessary.

This opinion is shared by all the present groups that will be discussed thereafter. Stéphane Crusnière of PS says there is a need for a clear framework. The intervention must be clearly defined in terms of time and territory. He also said that our military should under no circumstances be deployed for ground operations.

Mr Veli Yüksel of CD&V regrets that there is no UN mandate for this intervention. He says that Iraq’s demand for intervention provides legitimacy. He stressed that this is not a war between the West and Islam. Prevention also needs to be done to remove the nutrient ground for radicalization.

Mr Denis Ducarme of MR indicates that the proposed resolution is supported by a large number of political groups. The resolution expresses a wide range of concerns on the political, diplomatic, financial, economic, humanitarian and social levels.

Mr Ducarme emphasizes that IS is a threat not only to the stability of the region, but also to that of the European countries. He also emphasized the participation of the Arab League member states in the international coalition.

Ms. Nele Lines of Open Vld says that not intervening in this conflict is not an option. She also said that a solution to the Syrian problem needs to be found. However, this issue is not discussed as long as there is no question from the Syrian government or as long as there is no UN mandate.

It also questioned the attitude of some committee members. Some now urge military intervention with F-16s, but at the same time oppose an operation to renew our fighter jets.

Mr Alain Top of sp.a reports that the mission must be limited in time. In the short term, an evaluation of the intervention is needed. He also asked questions about the stationing of the Belgian military.

Mr. Benoit Hellings and Mr. Wouter De Vriendt of Ecolo-Groen wonder what the goal of the future Belgian intervention is. They also have questions about the time when this action will be terminated.

Mr. Hellings and Mr. De Vriendt are calling for a regional peace conference, which should include Russia and Iran. Mr. De Vriendt says that a country like Russia must be able to play a role in finding a sustainable solution.

He also said the financial channels between IS and countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States should be dismantled.

Mr Georges Dallemagne of CDH says it is our duty to intervene. He also ⁇ that an air operation, however, must be combined with the support of local ground troops. In this context, the Kurdish Peshmergas riders are referred to.

Mr. Theo Francken of N-VA stressed that his party regrets that no Special Forces are being sent to support and train Iraqi military. However, this support is of great importance. Mr. Francken says he understands why one chooses to prioritize action in Iraq. However, he has practical concerns in this regard, as the activities of IS mainly take place in the border area between Iraq and Syria.

Mr. Speaker, the draft resolution was approved by the committee after an amendment, emphasizing international law and human rights, following the abstinence of Ecolo-Groen.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, it can’t be discussed often enough: a political, lasting solution is the most important for the situation in Syria and Iraq. The military aspect is, unfortunately, absolutely necessary, according to our group. It is important to intervene there in the short term to stop the abomination. As Herman Van Rompuy said, it is about choosing between civilization and barbarism.

We need to consider domestic security as well. We need to be careful and well anticipate. Interfering in a war in which more than 350 of our inhabitants are active and fighting on the side that we just want to bomb is, of course, a very leftist matter.

Finally, I want to say something about the budgetary aspect. Mr De Roover, on behalf of our group, will subsequently hold a speech on the humanitarian aspect. In this regard, I recall the supplication of a Yezidi parliamentary member, which we ⁇ have ears to listen to.

The situation today resembles that of 2011, when the government was also in progress, and we in a plenary session under the same star decided to launch an operation in Libya, because of the serious atrocities committed by Gaddafi. To that end, a draft resolution was approved. Today there is again a ⁇ unanimous majority, with the exception of Ecolo-Greens and PVDA-PTB.

At that time, we met the principle of Responsibility to Protect. You may remember that Gaddafi stood at the gates of Benghazi, the fortress of which he had said that if he could take the city...

“...to hunt over the cling. At that time, President Sarkozy – the UN Security Council was still in session at the time – decided to start the operation. Then, a few days later, we promised our support, together with an international coalition. There was a military action. I repeat this again, also in response to the opinion of the PVDA.

Mr. Hedebouw, I understand that you want to disagree with our opinion. That is your good right. I wish, if you quote me, that you are doing the right thing. I said that the military aspect of the operation in Libya was a success story. We hit 98% of the target. Do you know the number of civilian casualties we have made? I read all sorts of things in what you write. Today, hundreds of people are protesting in front of the Defence Cabinet. You call what is happening “ideological blindness” because there will be civilian casualties. Well, do you know how many civilian casualties the Belgian army made in the operation that lasted several months in Libya? There were no civilian casualties. Whatever you say about it, it is not correct. There have been zero civilian casualties and you can ask the Minister of Land Defense and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Colleagues, is the now proposed operation, that international engagement within the coalition, ideological blindness? Exactly not . Last time we acted under the UN mandate, this time we respond to an explicit request from the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government has only been reassembled and can hopefully bring stability back. Hopefully that government can also properly involve the Sunni in the government. There was a lot of dissatisfaction about this. The previous Iraqi government did not pay too much attention to the Sunnis. So let us hope, under international pressure, with the support of the United States and Europe, that Iraq will finally have a stable government, capable of responding to the demands of the various populations in Iraq.

Is it ideological blindness to act now against atrocities, against headlessness, against mass rape, against trafficking on the human market? I do not think. What does this have to do with ideological blindness? I think it would be a witness to ideological blindness if we just do the opposite.

In the draft resolution, we limit ourselves to the operation in Iraq. Of course, this is understandable, since there has been a clear question from the Iraqi government. This will not come from the Syrian government. It is obvious that Syria is an even greater wespennest than Iraq. Of course, you must be careful with what you say. The border between Iraq and Syria cannot be crossed. This will be ⁇ difficult to ⁇ in practice. I asked the military experts. If one flies with a F-16 at a speed of a thousand kilometers per hour, in a way of speaking, while just the biggest troop movements take place in the border area, then one must act pragmatically.

Mr. Minister, I can only ask you to instruct the General Staff to work pragmatically on the operations we will carry out there. The border is ⁇ vague. There are two failed states, there is no border control at all, there is nothing more, there are constant troop movements around the border, so be flexible in that regard.

Mr. Francken, I don’t know if I understand you well. You are a member of Parliament.

Mr De Vriendt interrupts Mr Francken with a view to his nomination for the presidency of Green.

Mr. Minister, I had noticed that Mr. De Vriendt wanted to interrupt Mr. Francken and that he had no objection. I support a lively debate.

I wish you success in the presidential election.

I return to the essence. This is an important meeting: we decide here about war or peace.

Mr Francken, you are a federal member of Parliament. Have you called here to be pragmatic and not necessarily to limit the Belgian operation to Iraq, but to consider the border between Iraq and Syria not too fixed, and therefore to leave an intervention in Syria open as an option? If you do so, you, as a federal MP, are calling for this to violate international law.

An intervention in Syria currently has no UN mandate and is in no way covered by international law. If you call here, as a member of Parliament, to violate international law, then that is the best proof, Mr. Francken, that you above all want war and not a solution.

Mr. De Vriend, it may be that you have not listened properly and I will clarify it for a moment. The resolution proposal is limited to Iraq, but I ask for some pragmatism. Supposing that there is an operation ongoing of our F-16s, that the movement of ISIS troops goes up and down the border, and that the red card holder, the central command at NATO or in the United States, gives green light for that operation, then it should not become a game on the border. Then it must not be that IS is safe in one place and does what it wants, while the ten meters above the border can suddenly be bombed.

If you continue to hammer on that aspect of international law, I tell you that you will never get a mandate from the UN Security Council to act in Syria, you will never get that. Unlike you, we will not be held hostage by Russia and Putin. Look at what is happening in Ukraine. Putin holds the UN Security Council hostage, Putin constantly vetoes and that UN Security Council is politically outcast, that’s the problem.

If it means that we can only engage internationally with a mandate from the United Nations, while Putin constantly draws the red card and vetoes, then that is no longer useful for us. It is not the purpose of international law that one person constantly says to the West that it must not interfere anywhere else, because it does not interest him. Mr. De Vriend, we have a different view on this.

For us it is clear: we should not look 10 meters more or less at the border between Iraq and Syria. I would like to formally ask the persons who have submitted and signed the draft resolution, in particular from the Flemish side CD&V, Open Vld and sp.a, whether they share that interpretation and that position of the N-VA.

There must be a sustainable, political solution.

Second, the resolution proposal limits the action to one month, followed by an evaluation. There is a need for a good evaluation. It is also necessary to have the committee for foreign shipments, especially at the beginning, meet weekly, Mr. Minister. We really need to take that initiative so that you are present weekly in the committee. I will also submit this question on behalf of my group, so that we know exactly what to do and why.

I hear that you can leave on Monday, maybe already next weekend or only on Wednesday. When will the first operations take place? Will there be first exploration operations or will there be immediate bombing? What exactly is the framework?

Mr. Minister, I hope that you can set aside in your agenda sufficient time to spend at least a few hours a week with the members of the Committee on Foreign Shipments to inform us in a proper way about the state of affairs, about what is happening there.

In a month, we will do that evaluation. I read in the meantime that it is said that the operation will take three months, but as you know, for such operations one month is ⁇ short.

Third, the reporter had already talked about the Special Forces. From a military point of view, the operation in Libya was a successful operation for our country, but the political story that followed was a catastrophe. Libya is a safe haven for terrorists, human smugglers, arms dealers, let’s mention. We could actually expect that.

One of the reasons for this is the fact that Gaddafi’s arms deposits have been opened without protection. They did not want boots on the ground. Western troops have not been deployed there to control, at least, the weapons deposits and crucial points in the country, to help empty and transfer the ammunition to the West or to bring it into security. This was not done.

The result is that the weapons have spread throughout the Maghreb and that we have known the history in Mali. The Toearegs, who are fighting amok along with the terrorists, have weapons from Gaddafi’s weapons deposits.

From the point of view of the U.S. as well as other partners in the international coalition, it seems to me an idea to have boots on the ground, to send military personnel, especially for training and assistance. This is something we have done for years in Afghanistan, in Kunduz, with the OMLTs.

It is an idea to provide training and assistance to cope with the mistakes we made in Libya, by not sending anyone and then establishing what is happening, by now sending a number of pelotons with the F-16s.

We are asking for this, knowing that a resolution is a compromise. We have not pushed further, but what is not can still come.

When we talk about the Iraqi army – this was the subject of various debates in the committee – we are talking about an army whose morality is currently very low.

If one knows that Kirkuk was defended by thirty thousand soldiers of the Iraqi army, and that two or three IS battalions captured that city in a matter of hours, that those soldiers all suddenly left and left all the heavy weapons they had then received from the U.S. army, then that’s a good indication of how poorly trained the Iraqi army is still.

The Americans have so far pumped in more than $25 billion, but when those soldiers see the enemy, they leave for battle. I think it is necessary to adequately train and guide the Iraqi and Kurdish army, otherwise the battle will never be won.

The battle will be won by them, not by us. Let that also be clear. They will have to do it in practice, not us. We can give them combat support from the air, but nothing more. The Iraqi and Kurdish forces will have to enter the battlefield.

Third, the domestic security issue. We need to be aware of the importance of this decision. Many people wonder if this will have any consequences. If one moves to that region with F-16s, while one knows that there are about three hundred and fifty Belgian Syrian fighters there – in the meantime a little less, because some have already returned –, is one not afraid of attacks? Is it not likely that plans will be forged here, because, according to them, Belgium is joining with the great enemy, the Bohemians, which are the United States, and that they are coming here to take possible retaliations?

Would they come here? That is the big question. I do not know. That risk exists today. That risk existed even before we were going to send F-16. Is that risk increased? That could be. We will see.

The OCAD will conduct a threat analysis. Several institutions in this country are working full-time on doing that analysis. They will decide whether or not to raise the threat level from tomorrow or from next week. This must be considered. I hope the Government will discuss this in ongoing. I can only hope.

Apart from that, I think that measures against radicalization are absolutely necessary in the very short term. These measures are being fully negotiated with the Swedish coalition partners, as you ⁇ know. Time to take action is urgent. I also read a piece of opinion from colleague Hans Bonte, with whom I also had a strong discussion in the committee, but he is not present today; he is in the United States, if I have understood it correctly. The time is coming and in the coming hours and days we have to see whether or not we should play shorter on the ball.

Mr. Wathelet, Mr. Minister of the Interior, this is how we could call together the National Security Committee. Your predecessor, Ms. Milquet, hasn’t convened that committee for more than a year and a half, which is actually unimaginable. Per ⁇ this should happen in the short term. Who is competent to do so, Mr Wathelet, the Prime Minister or Mr Reynders?

In any case, we would like to analyze in the short term what measures may already be taken, and preferably as soon as possible, as there is an urgent need for action. We must make our borders clear to the Syrian fighters, with what we can and can’t.

We must also work to ensure the effective implementation of the 1979 Salary Act. This is a deterrent to those who are considering fighting in Syria. And whoever returns will face a prison sentence. Currently, there is non-binding, because of all the Syrian fighters who have returned, I don’t think there is just one person in jail. A trial will begin on Monday and we will have to wait for the outcome.

Several neighboring countries are pushing for other measures, and there is much more repression. Repression is only one element; prevention is much more important, but then we immediately touch partly on the division of powers in our country, on a community aspect, because in it, among other things, the Flemish Community must include its responsibility, which will undoubtedly do so. In any case, we must make it clear to the Syrian fighters that these atrocities are unacceptable. Yesterday I watched a Panorama broadcast on this, and some fighters seem to think they’re playing a video game.

Finally, my colleagues, I can only endorse the signing of the Wales NATO Agreement. I am pleased that Prime Minister Di Rupo, who is still the leading PS member in our country, signed that agreement two weeks ago in Wales. The Declaration of Wales is not a non-signing agreement. It was a historic summit, but I don’t easily take those words into my mouth. That summit was historic because, for the first time in twenty years, it was said that it should be done by always saving on defence, with always reducing the defence budget. It is even symbolic, if I can say so, that ultimately Prime Minister Di Rupo, of the Socialist Party, signed that agreement.

Officially, he said he would make a reservation, but I informed myself and at no time, in any way, there has been a reservation made by Prime Minister Di Rupo. He just signed it. I have the contract with me. He said it should be done with defence cuts. The defence budget should not be further cut, it must grow again and keep pace with the growth of GDP.

I am convinced that after many years of shouting in the desert, a majority in the chamber can finally be found if even Prime Minister Di Rupo signs this international commitment, which is not foolish.

I was at a reception at the U.S. Embassy on Thursday. The ambassador was able to tell me that she was ⁇ pleased that Belgium had also signed the treaty. Such an international commitment is not nonsense. I am pleased that we are finally getting some budget savings. It is already given. Of all departments, Defence applies the Moses standard best. It does even more, according to any interpretation of the Moses standard given in recent months, by us or by others. Defence has always done more than Moses’ standard. It is the only department that has already undergone profound reforms. Now it has been enough. I am pleased that the Socialist Party, through this international commitment, is finally bringing a break in it.

Mr Francken, I do not want to measure your argument with the chronometer, but your group has half an hour. You have announced a second speaker, while you yourself are already working for 25 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, you are coming too late. I made my point.

Can De Roover count?

and yes. Thanks to you.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, my dear colleagues, on Wednesday, Belgium received from the United States a request for intervention from our country within the framework of an international coalition to fight against ISIS in Iraq.

While the use of force is still a failure for diplomacy, we find ourselves here facing terrorists, bloody barbarians, who kill women, children, religious and ethnic minorities in the name of crazy and borderless religious radicalism. As such, no amalgamation can be accepted between Islam and this alleged and self-proclaimed Islamic State.

To stop this inhumane barbarism, to stop these senseless massacres, a targeted and time-limited military response can be considered under strict conditions.

Yes, my group would like to respond positively to the call made by the Iraqi authorities to join us in this international solidarity movement. Because behind Iraq, it is of course the security of this entire region on the edge of Europe that is at stake.

First, we want a concrete commitment but not in a logic that goes-in-war. This should be done within a strictly defined framework. First, in compliance with international law. I think in particular of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, the request made by the Iraqi authorities and the support expressed by the countries of the region.

Secondly, our area of intervention must be limited to Iraqi territory. For the PS, in fact, it is out of question that Belgium intervenes on Syrian soil where, at the moment, without a UN mandate, no international legitimacy can be found.

Third, the safety of our soldiers must remain our priority. The PS is totally opposed to the sending of Belgian ground combat troops and demands that all measures be taken to ensure the anonymity of our men.

Fourth, this intervention should be limited in time. A period of one month seems to be a reasonable timing.

Within a month, we will have to carry out an evaluation of this mission. For our group, if there were to be an extension of our participation, the decision could in no way take place without this assessment of the mission and without consulting Parliament. If we are still in ordinary affairs, we will need the approval of this Parliament. The operation will have to be followed by an assessment of our participation before the government, whatever it may be, returns to our assembly.

Let us not forget that the response to such crises cannot be solely military. We must also sign up to any initiative aimed at helping the affected populations on a humanitarian level, of course, but also politically and socio-economically. No air strike in the world, however precise it may be, will be a long-term solution. Libya and Afghanistan are bad examples.

Finally, a participation of Belgium in an operation in Iraq can ⁇ not be at the expense of the support that Belgium must provide in major humanitarian crises such as the one we currently know with the Ebola epidemic.

As you can see, our terms are clear, precise and pragmatic. For the PS, these conditions must necessarily be in the proposal for a resolution adopted in the committee on Wednesday and submitted to us in plenary today. This will not be a white-seing vote. It, of course, implies that information on ongoing operations is guaranteed to our assembly, both behind closed doors for operational details and in a public session for political aspects. This information is even more indispensable if new circumstances change the nature and duration of the military engagement.

Alongside the logistical, humanitarian and developmental support that our country, Europe and the United Nations could provide, the Iraqi government will have to show itself as inclusive as possible beyond its communities and re-establish its authority across its entire territory. Fighting the war crimes perpetrated by ISIL will be just as essential as investigating violations ⁇ by several NGOs when the Iraqi army is resorting to bombing densely populated areas.

Our intervention in Iraq must also induce a reflection on the fight against radicalism within our own country and in Europe. The threat is not virtual; it is real. Therefore, let us be extremely vigilant, not giving in to paranoia.

As the outgoing government has been involved in this, and as Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo recalled in his speech at the special meeting of the Security Council, I wish that sustained efforts are provided in this regard, including in the field of prevention. Concrete measures must be taken in collaboration with the police, the Ocam, the State Security and the mayors. Take the example of the initiative taken by the City of Brussels, which consists in setting up a cell to monitor Belgians suspected of having gone to fight. Such measures should be encouraged.

Finally, I will conclude by reminding that if Belgium is militarily ready to support the international community on Iraqi soil to arrest ISIS fighters, it will not do so either blindly or banally. No, going to war cannot be a banality. No, we can’t be enthusiastic about a “Let’s Go,” as some do. Belgium must assume its share in international security, but this military responsibility we assume goes hand in hand with a heavy diplomatic and political responsibility to undertake everything to stabilize the region. Our country must, at the same time, show that it is a concerned partner for sustainable peace and international law. This is ⁇ the most dangerous challenge we will face. Indeed, if triggering a military operation does not improvise, act as a vector of lasting peace either.

I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Ministers, dear colleagues, when our assembly meets, like this afternoon, to engage our military forces in operations abroad, it is always a solemn moment, a strong political act that we carry out with seriousness and respect. Serious, because the situation in Iraq and throughout the Middle East is serious for the future and the solidity of the states that make up it, for the security of the goods and people who live there, for the overall living of these communities that have been side by side for millennia and, in general, for the stability of the world. Respect, because we send our soldiers to fight fanatics without restraint or pity, whether for civilians or for adversary fighters, fanatics for whom human life is worthless. So I already praise their commitment and their sense of duty and I join with the recognition that the country owes them all.

As I had the opportunity to say in the committee last week, not intervening would simply be guilty of complicity with bullies massacring unarmed populations. It would be complicit in a crime against all the values of humanity. It would be to remain passive before the creation, at the gates of the Mediterranean, of a fanatic state, of a kind of zone of non-right, as Afghanistan has already known it.

Our role as politicians is to explain to our fellow citizens the reasons for our commitment. This is not an intervention against a country, a people, a religion. It means defending our common values, those inscribed in the Charter of the United Nations where States are determined – I quote – “to re-proclaim their faith in the fundamental rights of man, in the dignity and value of the human person, in the equality of rights of men and women”. Therefore, it is not in any way to enter into a shock of civilizations. I do not believe in the shocks of civilizations. Comte-Sponville, when he said that the real fight opposes those who are for the world civilization, secular and democratic, and those who are against.

There is a collision between civilization and tyranny. As Elie Barnavi said, there is civilization and there is barbarism, and between the two there is no possible dialogue.

In the face of this phenomenon, we must not demonstrate Angelism. Our security, here on Belgian soil, the security of all our fellow citizens, is directly threatened. As elected and political leaders, we must hold a language of truth because our participation in this military operation exposes our military, our territory, our compatriots abroad to risks of retaliation. A language of truth, because among the foreign recruits of the Islamic State there are a number of our fellow citizens. We must understand why the jihadist appeal meets such an echo with them. We must work to optimize our model of integration and the dissemination of our values. We must also dialogue with the official Muslim instances to deliver a clear message in order to deter those who would be tempted by this suicidal flight forward.

We must also be able to punish with the greatest severity those who leave to Syria or Iraq, those who return from these battles and who pose a threat to our security. On youths without points of reference, violent jihadism ⁇ exerts a morbid fascination that leads them to radicalization and leads them to direct action. The journey of Nemmouche, the murderer of the Brussels Jewish Museum, is a terrible example. Those who join the jihad are clearly enemies, and even traitors, to the international cause. They must be treated as such.

We have struggled several times with the angelicism of some. The facts already give them wrong and no additional risks should be taken. This is called political responsibility.

Mr. Deputy Prime Ministers, we are engaged in an international coalition, which requires diplomatic vigilance in which you have our full confidence. We regret that the European Union is not more visible and does not coordinate its efforts, both on the military and humanitarian level. In terms of intelligence, we need greater coordination of the networks. We must not give up our will to see a true Europe of defence, humanitarian cooperation and intelligence progress.

Iran plays a key role in the region. This country has influence in both Gaza and Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. We must seize this opportunity and the end of the negotiations on transparency of Iran’s nuclear program to encourage Tehran to play not a destabilizing role but rather a positive role in Iraq.

In this regard, Europe also has a very good diplomatic card to play.

Though Turkey is a member of NATO, it has been negotiating its accession to the European Union since 2005. This seems to me to imply that it matches the general orientations of the Union’s foreign policy, when it exists. But we must see that Turkey sometimes holds an ambiguous position on this issue: initially, support against the Syrian regime; now, threat at its doors with refugees flowing to its border; finally, concern over the Kurdish ambitions. We need to have a clarification dialogue with this country. This is also imperative with the Gulf States, which must take a more coherent position in the face of the jihadist danger that also threatens them.

Mr. Defense Minister, in the coming days, our military will carry out strikes in Iraq against Daesh positions. What is the purpose of war assigned to our Air Force? Very clearly, we have limited our intervention to Iraq, thus respecting international law. We help a State that so requests, in its natural right of legitimate individual or collective defence, as enunciated in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. However, we know very well that the conflict does not end at the border between Iraq and Syria, even though the back bases of the Islamic State are located in the latter country. We know that combatants can show great mobility and threaten Jordan, Lebanon, the Golan border.

We do not want a mere retreat of the Islamic State fighters, but their destruction. Whether you like it or not, the fight against terrorism can only be victorious if it is delivered in all its forms. Our military action is clearly in compliance with international law, is limited to Iraqi territory and does not include ground engagement.

When evaluating the effects of the first weeks of this mission, the impact and developments will need to be measured. The resolution is explicit in this regard. This war can be long and difficult. So the question of the cost of this operation is raised.

If we all praise the development and professionalism of our soldiers, we must provide our armies with the human, material and financial resources to fulfill the tasks we assign them.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we wish to help an inclusive Iraqi government to rebuild an Iraqi society that has lived for decades the plagues of dictatorship and civil wars.

We wish to rescue and help people who have been martyred for their faith or ethnic origin.

We believe that the Syrian people, in all its components, deserve better than the cruelty of the Assad dynasty.

We want to support a Lebanese state that remains fragile.

We want Israelis and Palestinians to live in two countries in peace.

To ⁇ these goals, today we decide to use force because it alone can bend and annihilate the terrorist state. We must act to dry out its sources of funding, its recruitment of fighters and its acquisitions of modern weapons. These are the objectives set by the Paris Conference and the Security Council resolution 2170. We must also strike them directly and tomorrow, bringing them to account before an impartial justice.

The MR Group will support the resolution we are proposing today.

Mr. Speaker, gentlemen, gentlemen, colleagues, one should never go light on war. The deployment of armed forces in conflict areas must always be considered. In this case, it is clear that we cannot look out on the other side. What is currently happening in Iraq, the rise of the Islamic State terrorist movement and the horrible crimes that accompany it, forces us to act. To stop torture, ill-treatment, rape, headlessness and assault, it is now time to act.

With this resolution, Belgium stands on the side of a coalition of about forty countries that shake hands together to stop ISIS. It is not a Western interference in the Middle East, but a struggle involving regional powers such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The deployment of six Belgian F-16s will be a valuable contribution to the international alliance. The Belgian military intervention will be limited to operations on Iraqi territory. The Iraqi government itself has called for an intervention from the international community. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that in such cases assistance may be provided.

Dear colleagues, on this path, my group wants to express its disappointment that a UN mandate was not possible. We continue to emphasize the importance of such a mandate. Nevertheless, an impasse within the UN Security Council should not prevent us from asking for help when a country in such a need.

For Syria, colleagues, this is different, even though we know that IS initially started its operations from that country and that a third of the territory is in the hands of the organization. The situation in Syria is equally devastating and the population suffers. At the moment, an intervention in Syria is not being discussed, but it goes without saying that we must follow the situation closely.

The French sociologist Gustave Le Bon stated: “The overthrow of tyranny does not yet create freedom.” For this, the causes of the rise are too deep: frustrations of the Sunni population in Iraq who did not get a place in their own country and the rhetoric as if the West wanted to fight against all Muslims.

Of course, military intervention is only a first step. In order to truly eradicate Islamic State and other radical organizations, peace and stability in the region must be achieved.

The resolution presented here also explicitly calls for the necessary efforts to be made on the political, diplomatic, financial, economic, social and humanitarian levels.

It is crucial that all efforts are made to enable democracy to flourish in Iraq and to entrust the administration of the country to an inclusive government that respects all populations and minorities, such as Jezidi, Sunni, Kurds, Shiites and Christians, in the country and gives a voice in the political debate. It is up to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to place and keep those points on the international agenda.

In addition, it is essential that the financial network of IS, which is sponsored through revenue from oil, kidnappings and bank robberies, be halted.

Our group also attaches particular importance to the humanitarian aspect of the resolution. The terror of IS has already driven millions of people on the flight to, among other things, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. These countries find it difficult to provide refugees with dignified shelter, food and health care.

Also in this area, international cooperation is necessary to rebuild cities and villages so that the refugees can return safely.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, best citizens of the country – because I want to address our compatriots as well – when our F-16s fly to Iraq to strike targets, we must also think about our back cover. The fight against radicalization does not only take place thousands of kilometers from here. Some have already argued that a possible Belgian intervention could increase the threat of terrorist attacks in our country. This danger is indeed unimaginable. Therefore, the resolution also calls for all necessary measures to anticipate a potential increased terrorist threat in our country. It is important to keep in mind that non-intervention could make the terrorist threat even greater. If the areas concerned become a free port where IS and other terrorist organizations can train their fighters, the consequences may be unpredictable.

Excellence, colleagues, this is not a far-from-my bed-show. Moreover, Belgium is already indirectly involved in the conflict. Some of our young people have already gone to Syria and Iraq to fight for IS. In this sense, the problem is already present with us. It will therefore be necessary not only to take measures against a potential terrorist threat in our country and to combat the spread of the rejectional belief by all legal means, but also to make a structural effort to counter radicalization among young people.

Colleagues, Islamic State poses a danger to the inhabitants of that region, and in expansion to the whole world. Our group therefore stands firmly behind the resolution, because we are convinced that an intervention is necessary, because we cannot and should not close our eyes to the innumerable cruelty that IS is carrying out in the Middle East. We cannot stand on the side. We must assume our responsibility towards the international community.

On behalf of the CD&V group, I express explicitly our support for the resolution and I hope that colleagues from all other groups will also support the resolution.

Colleagues De Vriendt and Hellings, your group stated in the committee that, before a military intervention is initiated, a political roadmap must first be drawn up. What kind of roadmap? You are asking for a peace conference, in which the permanent members of the Security Council, therefore alongside the United States also Russia and China, sit alongside Iran and Turkey. That is a noble thought, but getting countries around the table that have not been able to come together to a solution since the start of the Syrian civil war is utopian and naive. Putting that condition for a military operation is irresponsible on a human and international level.

A broad coalition, a broad political consensus, will make clear not only to the Belgians, but also to our allies and to the international community that we are convinced of the importance of the mission.

Mr. De Vriendt wishes to interrupt you briefly. This interruption of course comes from his speech time!

Mr. Yüksel, I appreciate your serene tone, which fits the nature of the debate we are conducting here.

You say that it is a noble thought to get countries around the table that are so closely involved in the conflict, and at the same time it is a naive thought. My answer is that there is no other solution than political consultation. The countries that are so involved in that conflict must sit around a diplomatic, political table, because there is no other solution.

We have no UN mandate, but a UN mandate would have been better. Did you know that there has never been an attempt to obtain a UN mandate for the operation in Iraq?

We are blind to the military option. It seems that a military response is also the only possible for your party, while it is just the political path that we must go. It has not even been tried. Look at Libya, look at Afghanistan. If we do not walk the political path, then there is simply no solution to such a conflict. That’s pragmatic, that’s an effective attitude. I am afraid that with your attitude you demonstrate precisely naivety in the debate.

Colleague De Vriendt, there is a request from an ally, from a government, to act. There is a consensus, a broad international consensus. You say there must be a UN mandate, otherwise we do nothing. In fact, you say that in the meantime we have to do nothing and wait. I think that’s not the right way to react in an area where there are already several fires.

We say, of course, that in an international context one should always try to reach a dialogue in order to find a political solution. The resolution also emphasizes the importance of continuing to seek international political support. You suggest that we should not do anything in the meantime and just wait. I think that is not the right answer.

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. In addition, for Open Vld a woman takes the word.

At 3,150 kilometers from the Parliament and 1,000 kilometers from the eastern border of the European Union begins the caliphate of the so-called Islamic State.

Only Turkey separates the European Union from the territory controlled by IS and in that area there is oppression, women’s hatred, abomination and fear. The war crimes that the United Nations attributes to IS are numerous. The UN accuses IS, among other things, of using children in the fighting, of hostaging civilians, often women and children, of amputations, of stoning and beating, of disappearances and of public executions in which children are present and in which the bodies of victims are displayed for days. These practices are part of the daily reality, according to the United Nations. Men are beaten because they smoke, have alcohol with them, work during prayer or do not fast during Ramadan.

For women, the abomination does not stop there, there are hundreds, thousands of stories of abduction, rape, compulsory marriages and sexual slavery. To escape this, women often take away their lives, often it is women who are not yet twenty years old.

To an Italian newspaper, Mayat testified to the abomination that happens to her and many other women. Colleagues, allow me to read her testimony today. This testimony has touched me immensely, and that is why I stand here today.

“They treat us like slaves. The men beat and threaten us if we dare to resist. Sometimes I hope they hit me so hard that I die. If this torture ever ends, my life will always be marked by the abomination that has occurred. My only hope is that the peshmerga will come to free us. I know the Americans are bombing, I want them to hurry and drive out ISIS, because I don’t know how long I will endure it.”

Amnesty International also speaks of ethnic cleansing on a historic scale, in northern Iraq, with actual massacres and large-scale abductions of civilians belonging to ethnic or religious minorities: jezidi, Assyrian Christians, Turkmen Shia and Druze.

Dutch scientists spoke in an open letter last month even about a genocide and together with Amnesty International and many others, they therefore call to punish the perpetrators of this horrible violence and to protect the population, which is the victim of the attacks of IS.

We hear the same voice from Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein, the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. On September 8, in Geneva, he called on the international community to end the conflict and protect women and minorities from IS, which aims to create “a house of blood”.

Colleagues, according to Open Vld, our country must respond to this question. We will approve the resolution presented today with conviction. Belgium must take its responsibility in the international coalition that must stop the rise of IS, and this for three reasons.

First, because it is morally irresponsible for an entire population to be destroyed by the barbaric practices used by IS, without us taking any action against them. We have a duty to protect them and free them from this horrible monster.

Second, because of the war danger for the entire region. Not only does IS threaten the population in the territories it occupies today, but it can also turn countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia into war zones, with all the consequences thereof.

Third, the fight against IS is a fight against global terrorism. ISIS wants to make the so-called caliphate a free port from which fanatics can calmly prepare terrorist attacks in Western or other free societies. We must not be naive. The existence of such an area is also a direct danger to our society.

Colleagues, my message today is that we should not handle war lightly. It is not a matter of fighting against violence with a lot of pleasure in the shoes. It is about using necessary and targeted violence to stop terrorism.

Ecolo-Groen colleagues, I do not understand you. In the debate on Libya, you agreed that we must fight against the bloodshed in Libya, without explicit reference to a political roadmap. And today you submit an amendment, which is interesting, but very detailed and therefore also unrealistic to ask from a country like Belgium.

It almost seems that you are submitting this in the hope that it will not be adopted, so you do not have to take a stand today. I have read the debate about Libya well. I quote Ecolo-Groen from there: “It is our duty to protect the people.”

My friend, you said that. Well, what happened to Ecolo-Green’s duty to protect the Iraqi people, the minorities in Iraq, from this ISIS barbarism?

Deciding whether or not a war is not black and white. If the decision presupposes participation in a military intervention, each case must be assessed separately.

I am surprised that you are not able to do that historical exercise and that you are comparing the intervention in Libya to what is happening now in Iraq, and if I hear Mr. Francken also in Syria.

There are differences. I regret the intellectual level of this debate that I need to remind you of those differences. Do we have a UN mandate in Iraq?

Barbarism and international law that allows us to intervene, Mr. De Vriendt, and you know that.

There is no UN mandate in Iraq. We had one in Libya.

All surrounding countries agreed at the time of the intervention in Libya. That was important for the support. This is not the case here. Look at Turkey. Look at Saudi Arabia, which still funds the so-called Islamic State. We don’t deal with it, but we’re going to bomb them.

The Gaddafi regime was identifiable. The humanitarian emergency was very pressing. One stood in front of the gates of Benghazi and the rebel groups we then supported were credible at that time. You know that very well.

Who are our allies now? Syrian President Assad, who threatens to profit from U.S. attacks on ISIS and Syria.

So I ask a little nuance from you, Mrs. Linne.

It is about the resolution to intervene in Iraq, at the request of Iraq.

If I have been properly informed about international law, we may intervene at the request of another government. We do this not only from the West, but we do it with a very broad coalition. Colleagues, I think we can only approve this resolution today.

What has Libya taught us? That military intervention is one thing, but that a political path is also important. This is stated today in the resolution that you refuse to approve, Mrs. Almaci. It is written literally: humanitarian, political and military.

As I said before, we welcome the cooperation of the countries in the region: Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are visibly part of the operations. It is very positive, but also necessary, that they take responsibility in their own way.

I want to talk about the F-16. I have already mentioned this in the committee. We are convinced that our country with the F-16s can make an important contribution to this operation and to stopping the rise of IS. We believe that our Belgian participation in the international coalition also demonstrates that our military can play a significant role in stopping such armed gruesome gangs. Our army will therefore need to have performing combat aircraft.

Again, I want to emphasize that our military has a wonderful track record. What our F-16s have done in Afghanistan and Libya has made an international impression. We can entrust the current mission to our air force boys and girls with a very peaceful heart.

The resolution explicitly asks, and in my opinion also very rightly, that the government guarantees maximum security, but it speaks for itself – I return to this point, Mr. De Vriendt – that it is not a mere military matter. The resolution highlights the need to make parallel progress on diplomatic, financial-economic and humanitarian levels. We must be aware that military action is a prerequisite to weaken ISIS, that the conditions must be created to provide humanitarian aid and to reach a political solution. This is stated in the resolution on your banks, with the exception of one amendment.

If IS is a snake, its head is in Syria. Nevertheless, the mandate we will give today to our government remains very rightly limited to Iraq. After all, the government in Baghdad has explicitly called for our help. In this way, the intervention is in line with international law. Meanwhile, Belgium and the entire coalition must continue to pressure to gain broad international support for a military operation in Syria.

The resolution stipulates that the government will return to Parliament if the duration, nature or location of our military deployment changes. At that point we will have to assess whether there is sufficient ground to reorient or expand our commitment. This is all stated in this resolution.

As far as the EU is concerned, as I have said in the committee, I am very disappointed. I deeply regret that she as a political and military partner is as much as absent. The abomination happens in the backyard of Europe, but almost twenty years after the war in Bosnia and fifteen years after Kosovo, it was again waiting for an American initiative. It is high time for Europe to remove the fear of its own shadow on the political and military level and take its place, if we feel that we are willing to defend our values.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am closing my speech. I would like to do so with the words of concerned scientists on genocide studies and human rights in an open letter to the UN Security Council on 26 August 2014. “It is our conviction that failing to act will be equivalent to deliberately closing our eyes to a threatening or already ongoing genocide. Passivity can result in a catastrophe similar to the loose and conscientious response of the international community during the crisis in Rwanda in 1994. It is time to stand up for humanity, to stand up for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.”

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, dear ministers, our group has chosen not to close their eyes, as others will do today, although I still have the idle hope that they will show with us the courage to address the abomination. It is our damn duty to protect the civilians in Iraq. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, colleagues, we are facing a problem, a very big problem: today we are being asked to intervene in the Middle East.

The Middle East, colleagues, is a mess and the West itself bears a very great responsibility for that fact. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, we almost arbitrarily pulled boundaries. We have helped regimes in the saddle to defend our interests so that we could take advantage of the raw materials in the region. We have created a problem that we have also rotted: the relations between Israel and Palestine.

I am getting closer to the topic of today: Iraq. At the beginning of this century, the United States intervened in that country under false pretext. If the situation in that country is so disastrous now, it is primarily a responsibility of the United States and its coalition partners from that period.

Colleagues, there are other people responsible for the difficult situation we face. These are countries from the region, which I will name by name. Turkey has allegedly done little to prevent thousands of Syrian fighters from crossing its border to Syria. Saudi Arabia has created and financed ISIS with the sole intention of complicating the Shiite alliance between Syria and Iran. Saudi Arabia is now being bitten by the adder that has grown it itself. The same goes for Qatar. We are facing an enormous problem.

The question we must answer today is whether we are passively watching the Middle East sink into total chaos. Imagine that we would not intervene. Then it is certain, given the weakness of the states in which ISIS operates, that it is going under its feet.

And then there are other countries in turn: Jordan and Lebanon. We cannot allow this to happen, just because we have a historical responsibility for the penible situation in which that region is.

But, colleagues, we need to learn from previous interventions. We must not repeat the mistakes we have made in the past. It is wrong to think that a military intervention is sufficient. It also requires a stable framework in the country where it is intervening. Look at Libya. There, Gaddafi was militarily defeated and the vacuum was subsequently filled by horrible fundamentalist Islamic groups.

The second thing we need is the following. We need to be humble enough to acknowledge this. The United States and the West are no longer in power to impose their will without the cooperation and cooperation of the countries of the region. The war in Afghanistan has lasted a long time and is a total failure. Thirteen years, two and a half times as long as the Second World War, we have fought there. It is a total failure for a number of reasons, including because Pakistan has been a safe haven for the Taliban for years. If the countries close to Iraq and Syria do not cooperate, we can’t bring the matter right.

We stand for a hell of a job. Because yes, many of the states, Iraq and Syria, are weak or are swinging. And yes, those countries that we expect to cooperate with us to stabilize that region are divided, divided by sectarian, ethnic and religious lines of division, and overcoming that will not be easy.

Colleagues, it’s not easy, but sp.a says the military operation is necessary. It is necessary to gain time, to ensure that the roadmap, colleagues of the Greens, is drawn out. After all, not intervening now creates an insoluble situation. The intervention is necessary to forge a coalition between the countries involved. Maybe I’m optimist, but I see things move. I disagree with you, De Vriendt, because I see Turkey moving in the right direction. I see that Saudi Arabia and Iran have contacts again. The foreign ministers are together. So it could – but I will not lie here and I can’t predict the future – that such a coalition is possible.

The SPD does not want us to do the job instead of the countries in the region. Such a approach has failed in the past in Iraq; it has failed in Libya.

Our continued support for the operation is conditioned by the local efforts we want to see, by the local agreement we want to see, and above all by the progress we want to see. That really means that those who fueled the conflict – Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia – must work together. We want to see improvement. We want solutions for Iraq and Syria.

I’ve heard a lot of pessimism here about Syria, and that pessimism can be right, but sometimes there are also small lights. The United Nations has sent a special envoy. There are others working to more or less stabilize the situation in Syria.

To be really very clear and clear, so that we are not blamed for this later: if we see that there is no progress, we will withdraw our support for the operation. After all, we don’t want a repeat of Afghanistan or Libya: spend thirteen years billions of euros on a region and see no solution, or, in the case of Libya, spend hundreds of millions of euros and then find that the country has turned into hell.

There is still some doubt and fear among the honest supporters of the operation. If the operation turns out to be counterproductive and, for example, a reinforcement of ISIS, we must have the courage to establish that it has failed and stop it.

We held a heated debate on Wednesday, partly in front and partly behind the scenes. There was a proposal for a resolution by the Swedish majority. We said that we could not accept them and submitted amendments on three key points.

The first amendment is a principle that my group and my party have upheld for decades, and it states that every operation must be in line with international law. Every operation must be legal.

Mr Francken, we would like to urge you not to be pragmatic about international law. You are in this Room one of the best acquaintances of the military apparatus. I’m not a specialist in military equipment, but if there are aircraft that can fire a bomb or a missile up to one meter accurately, you can’t assume that those aircraft can’t see whether their target is on Syrian or Iraqi territory.

I think my friend is right. You are preparing a mission creep. You love war, and after Iraq, you prefer Syria.

Watson was warned. I hope you have sufficient respect for parliamentary decision-making. This resolution is clear and clear. We are giving Belgian pilots permission to hit targets only in Iraq.

A second point on which we have been able to reverse this resolution...

The [...]

I will stay until I have done it. I did not interrupt you either. I wanted to, but I did not.

A second point on which we reversed the resolution of the Swedish negotiators concerns the breadth of the contribution. In the design of the text we received, we also talked about “train, advise and assist” and special exploration assignments. Fortunately, we were able to update the resolution. We found it much wiser to limit ourselves to the use of F-16. Why Why ? For two simple reasons.

First, you know my principle: we should not try to do everything ourselves. Let the countries of the region, some of which are much richer than us, and some of which have a military arsenal that others can only look forward to, take their responsibility. Did you know that Saudi Arabia has 700 fighter aircraft? Do you know how many troops it has? Well, let the countries in the region also take their responsibilities and do not shift them to the West.

Second, colleagues, we are opposed because we, unlike colleague Francken, who subsequently advocated for more money and more resources for Defence, believe that these are harsh budgetary times. We do not think it is wise to throw money now. If we had followed the proposal of the Swedish negotiators to also carry out “to train, advise and assist” and exploration assignments, we would have achieved a monthly gross spending of 14 million. Now it will be between 3.5 and 4 million. I think that’s still a lot of money, but it’s at least two-thirds less than the originally planned spending.

I do not understand how the Swedish majority can imagine this at a time when they are proposing an index jump and want to cut in healthcare. It appears to be impossible: 14 million a month to simply give away to this operation. Not with us! Fortunately, others, who are wiser than colleague Francken, have followed us.

Third, we made an important amendment regarding the duration. It is now one month, after which an evaluation will be made. Furthermore, we want the guarantee of a comprehensive reporting to Parliament in the Committee on the Follow-up of Foreign Missions and in the Committee on Foreign Relations, and consultation with Parliament if the duration, nature or territory of the operation changes.

On the basis of these three points, we will adopt this resolution. We remain faithful to our logic. If we put three points on the table at the beginning of a negotiation process, and if we also get them all three, it means that the resolution is, in our opinion, sufficiently adjusted.

In short, I would like to repeat what other colleagues have said here, without going too deeply into it. In paragraphs 4 and 6, we recall the need for a broad approach on the military, political, diplomatic, humanitarian, economic and financial levels. Several speakers who spoke for me advocate this, and we are of course also in favour of this.

In connection with point 5, the increased risk, I would like to invite the Swedish negotiators to quickly form a government so that they can present their new projects on the subject. I think the waiting time is really very long. We have an urgent problem: the increased risk resulting from that operation must be addressed. I do not yet know what proposal the Swedish coalition will submit, but I can already say that the sp.a. test stone will be resolution 2178, which was approved yesterday in the Security Council. Resolution 2178 addresses the approach of foreign terrorist fighters and for us that is the teststone. Belgium, as a small country, supports best what has been agreed at the international level.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am closing my speech. The SP will approve the present resolution. I do not want to hide from you that we have received critical responses to our intention. It may be unusual to say that, but I have a lot of understanding for some of that criticism. We are asked difficult questions, which I personally find I cannot give a satisfactory answer.

Colleagues, there is indeed a chance that the political-military response we now give to the emergency situation in the Middle East will not work. However, it is a step too far for us to decide to do nothing.

Can I ask a question to my colleagues in the committee who have already announced that they will abstain or vote against? The question is very simple, colleagues. If we do nothing, if we do not intervene, will ISIS stop its conquest? Do you think so? If we remain passive, if we keep watching with our arms crossed, do you really believe ISIS will stop? I would like to propose the three groups: go and consult the Turkmen minority of Amerli. The city was threatened to be overthrown by ISIS three weeks ago. Thanks to air support, the ISIS offensive was stopped. Per ⁇ listen to the people of Kobani who are now struggling with the dwarf, as ISIS troops are approaching as far as eight kilometers from that city. Just before I came to the talk table, I saw a call from the gathered Kurdish leaders. They ask the West: come to help us, for we can’t stop it.

140,000 people have already crossed the border to Turkey. They are joining the 1.4 million refugees that are already there. According to experts, there are still 260,000 people living in the region. If we look passively, then it is certain that those 260,000 have the choice between, brutally speaking, to suck under the terror of ISIS or to take their feet to Turkey. Protecting the population and the minorities, as others have already said to me, is one of the first reasons we have to intervene.

In addition, foreign policy is also about our own interests, let’s be honest. Do you think, colleagues who do not want to intervene, that it is in the interests of Europe that a whole region a few hundred kilometers from us sink into chaos, completely destabilize? Do you think this is in the interests of Europe? Do you think we will not suffer any damage?

We believe that this is the case. Therefore, we will say yes later, but our support for this operation is not a blank check. Our support is conditioned by the cooperation we get in the region and the progress we see in the field. We do not want to fall into a costly, hopeless war again, like in Afghanistan.

Mr Francken, you want to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the speaking time is not reduced with my colleague, because I do not want a dispute in the group.

Mr Van der Maelen, the truth has its rights. Can you show us a draft resolution from the Swedish coalition in the future stating that we will intervene in Syria? I challenge you. It does not exist. It has never been on the table. You were not present at those discussions. We were present there.

You say I am warlike. I am not at all warlike. I have always said very clearly in military interventions that there must be respect for human rights, that there must be respect for international law.

What I said about Syria is that one must be careful that there can be no abuse by those IS troops, because there are just as many troop movements on that border. That is our point. It cannot be the intention that we limit ourselves to that limit and that it is then abused.

It is of course true that our bombs are effective up to a few meters, but if there are so many troop movements of IS fighters, also because Kurdistan is nearby, then we should pay attention to that. I said that.

Second, you say we wanted to send C-130s. The idea of sending C-130s has never been included in a resolution, not even in a draft resolution. The Minister has said a number of things in the committee that may be considered. So you didn’t have a resolution in your hands stating that C-130s would be sent, and if so, you can show that draft resolution.

Now, what I said about the Special Forces. It is about 34 people, no more, about three pelotons from Heverlee. It seems logical to us that the Kurdish and Iraqi armies will be further trained. The moral of the troops needs urgently to be raised and that can only be achieved through Western training. I have said. We do that, by the way, in Afghanistan with the approval of your party.

Finally, on the defence budget: I know that your party is still in the federal government, I know that Minister Johan Vande Lanotte is still Deputy Prime Minister in the federal government, and I know that the signature of the Declaration of Wales took place three weeks ago under the auspices of the federal government, including your ministers, Mr. Van der Maelen. Mr Di Rupo signed this document on behalf of the Belgian Government. It is clear that the defence budget must be increased.

Mr Francken, I read you point 1 of the Swedish resolution: “Ask the Belgian Government to take an active part in the international fight against IS.” I read you the text for which we will approve later: “...Ask the Government to take an active part in the international fight against IS in Iraq for the duration of one month.” Here, then you have the difference. Colleague, it is the available part of a resolution that counts, it wasn’t in your text.

Colleague Francken, I invite you to read the report of this meeting and then you will find that I did not say that the C-130s were in the resolution of Sweden. I mentioned the C-130s, which is correct, when I pointed out that in the first meeting with the Minister of National Defense, the minister said that six F-16s, two C-130s and training together cost 14 million euros. There I talked about C-130s, not when I talked about the content of the resolution to which you collaborated and which was presented to us.

In this plenary debate, we must focus on the main lines and principles. To this end, I would like to make a call, also to colleague De Vriendt, to whom I would like to give the word.

Few decisions are as difficult as the decision to take or not take part in a war. A war is about life and death. That means that the soldiers we are sending are at risk and that the people in the places we are attacking are at a much greater risk. What are the long-term consequences of our bombing? The debate we have on this issue must be careful and nuanced.

After the committee meeting earlier this week, we reflected and submitted the outcome of the vote. Green and Ecolo have an understanding of the reflex, of the excitement to want to do something. We are also fully aware of the threat that the terrorists of the so-called Islamic State pose in the Middle East, in the world, and also in ourselves. When we look at the reckless abomination, the deprivation of heads, the instability that terrorists cause, we also say that we need to destroy ISIS terrorists as soon as possible and that we need to do something.

We have opened up from the beginning. In our first response, we said that we were willing to carefully examine the question of participation in the military intervention. My colleagues, we are politicians. That means that we should not give in to that first reflex, that first excitement to do anything. It is our social duty to think about the consequences of our decisions. We also need to learn from the past, from other military operations. Let us also look at the opinions of the ULB professors, or the opinions of respected NGOs like Broederlijk Delen or Pax Christi, who warn us. They warn us, because the military operation will take care of civilian casualties. They warn us, because this military operation will only increase radicalism in the region. The attraction of jihadists will only increase.

They also warn us that the Syrian President Assad, whom we have all cast here a few months ago, may benefit from a military operation if it is carried out there in this way. They warn us that key partners for global security, such as Russia and China, will now turn further away from the Western community and the European Union. This can be very harmful to future conflicts.

They are warning us that the Sunni community in Syria and Iraq may now be further collapsing under the attacks of the international coalition and further radicalizing towards the so-called Islamic State.

That first reflex, that first shock is valuable, colleagues, but a reflection on the long term, on the consequences of our actions, is even more valuable.

In this sense, the cure can be worse than the disease. Sometimes it is so. This can be avoided by working on the underlying causes of the problem and by developing a political strategy. We hardly did that exercise today. The military plan is on the table. Minister De Crem was ⁇ detailed in the committee. The plan is written. But where is the political plan to make military intervention a success?

I listened closely to Dirk Van der Maelen. I found it nuanced, but I don’t really find the position of sp.a. in the debate about the conflict clear.

Mr Van der Maelen, what do you think? If it turns out that the bombings have only worsened the situation, then withdraw your support. But then the evil has already happened. Well, ⁇ it is useful to make that reflection already and listen to the numerous opinions issued that warn us. I think you should do that thinking now, not when it’s too late.

I came back to the resolution. Paragraph 4 literally states: “Requests that all necessary efforts on the political-diplomatic, financial, economic and social-humanitarian levels be continued in order to find a sustainable solution to the crisis in order to stabilize the region in the longer term.” Paragraph 6: “Requests the Government to continue using all diplomatic means to ensure sufficient military and political support from the region for the actions against IS.” Consideration I: “Requires that pure military intervention is insufficient to find a sustainable solution to the crisis and that, in addition, a very general political-diplomatic, financial, economic and social-humanitarian approach is needed in order to stabilise the region in the longer term and solve the problem of refugees.”

Mr. De Vriend, I understand your concern very well. Therefore, I would like to formulate a proposal. After reading your amendment, I think we can quickly reach a consensus. You are asking for a political roadmap and also I think it is essential to think carefully about how politics should go on. Although we have already mentioned this in the resolution, we can ask colleagues to agree to your amendment, provided that you remove the sentence "before moving to military action" and the rest of your amendment. I think we can include the question of the political roadmap in the resolution. Then you will find the basis of your amendment back in the resolution. In the resolution, we do not give any further details about the military action. With the approval of your amendment, the resolution also includes the question of the political roadmap and then I think we can reach a consensus.

We differ only in terms of timing. You are right when you say that for now only the contours of such a political roadmap have been drawn. Now I would like to ask you to be honest. If we, as you ask, fill out the contours now, it means a diplomatic offensive of at least one or two months. Well, if we do that, I think the situation on the ground will be insoluble in the meantime. The majority that will approve the resolution states that immediate intervention should be taken now in order not to aggravate the situation, but parallelly all efforts must be made to fill those contours.

You do not agree with this. If you remain with your own position, how do you think the situation in Iraq and Syria will evolve in the next two months, if there is no intervention?

Kobani, Lebanon and Jordan are severely threatened. Do you not worry about that?

Mrs Lijnen, I will answer your questions later, but I would like to say the following, also with regard to colleague Van der Maelen.

I would like to make a comparison between the debate in Belgium and that in the Netherlands. Open Vld, sp.a, CD&V and the N-VA satisfy themselves with a vague meaning in the resolution. You read it: “requests that all necessary efforts on the political-diplomatic, financial, economic and social-humanitarian levels be continued.”

This is ⁇ vague and does not contain any guarantee or result. Just those results, those steps forward are necessary to make that military intervention a success.

The policy letter of the Dutch Ministry of Defence to the Second Chamber is an eleven-page analysis with a detailed political plan of approach, of what the Dutch government will do on humanitarian, diplomatic and political levels.

This is a serious discussion. These are steps in the right direction. Mr Van der Maelen, you were present in the Committee on Foreign Relations. Tell me, hand on heart, that we have received from the Belgian government and Minister Reynders an equally detailed political plan of approach. Do you dare to say that?

Mr. Van der Maelen, the government will have the word later.

Mrs. Temmerman, I am in favor of good debates. We must succeed in listening to each other on an important issue like this within a reasonable timeframe, but we will not continue to try to persuade each other. Everyone is responsible for their voting behavior and announces that.

I am in favor of a lively debate, but again, for a debate that takes place within a reasonable timing. So I urge us not to continue interrupting each other. Another speaker from the same group has been announced. Mr. De Vriend should also take this into account. I insist on a certain degree of consistency.

Mr. Speaker, can you ask the speakers not to address someone directly? It is true on both sides, I assume: if one cannot answer, one should also not ask questions.

Collega Temmerman, Mr Van der Maelen spoke for Mr De Vriendt, so he may refer in his speech to what is said here. Do not let everyone feel unnecessarily invited to get into a ping-pong game, because that does not contribute to the comprehensiveness of the debate. Again, I judge this very objectively.

I would like to add more nuance to the debate. It won’t surprise you: Green and Ecolo are not necessarily opposed to military interventions, but they must always be part of a political strategy with perspective on a sustainable solution.

I take a step further: I tell you that the military approach to the terrorist threat is most likely necessary, but in the right framework. If not, we threaten to make the situation worse, with more instability, more chaos and more victims in the longer term, which we are now trying to ⁇ in the short term. Hence our amendment in which we ask the government to submit a political roadmap to Parliament before moving to military action.

This roadmap sets out the commitments of the international coalition to ⁇ a number of key objectives including, first, the establishment of a political consultation, a peace conference for the region, led by the UN and with as many countries involved as possible. Only in this way can we find a sustainable solution. That means countries like Turkey, which plays a dubious role in the story, are involved. That means that countries like Iran are also involved, which – you will remember – was first excluded from international consultation. Russia is still hardly involved. What does bombing help if today only the so-called Islamic State is an option to replace the failing state in northern Syria and Iraq?

Second, we demand guarantees for stopping and prosecuting human rights violations by the Iraqi army, especially against the Sunni population, which now stands on the side of Islamic State. The UN mission on the ground reports not only human rights violations by IS, but also by the Iraqi army and by groups that support the Iraqi regime. We also call for an inclusive composition of the Iraqi regime and the new Iraqi government with Sunnis and a fair distribution of the revenue from oil sales between the Kurdish region and other minorities. What helps bombing, as long as the Sunni population does not get opportunities and thus further radicalizes in the arms of IS?

Third, we ask for commitments for concrete decisions that cut off the smuggling routes, the supply routes to IS. Nota bene Turkey, a NATO ally, takes care of IS fighters in hospitals on its territory and ⁇ ins those delivery routes to IS. Does it no longer make sense to first ensure that that NATO ally engages in a political strategy and that international coalition before bombing?

The same applies to funding from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. What helps bombing as long as these routes continue to exist?

Is that nothing, colleagues? That is a lot to do. That is making efforts to move towards a sustainable solution, Mr Yüksel. You just said I don’t want to do anything, but I’ve already said that this is not a black-and-white game.

I find it a pity that there is such a simplistic analysis of such a complex conflict. The only solution for CD&V to address an international conflict is nowadays apparently a military solution. I am watching it. I thought you were a party of nuance. I apparently made a mistake in that. Where is your political plan?

For all clarity, we do not ask for a comprehensive political agreement before intervening, but we ask for commitments, a number of results and a number of steps in the right direction.

We should learn from the operations in Libya and Afghanistan that they are necessary, but we do not have the political roadmap that we demand from the international coalition. Then, apparently, we are going to bomb, because we have to do something. It is not a solution and it testifies to a boundless naivety, because a military solution to a conflict does not exist.

Those who think that such a solution does exist, such as Open Vld just in the intervention of Mrs. Lijnen, unfortunately conduct a simplistic discourse, which is very optimistic but actually transcends the reality. It is too optimistic and therefore no longer realistic.

That is why we will abstain. We are neither hard-learned militarists nor doctrinal pacifists who reject the use of force in any case. We are ecologists. We are aware of the precarious and extensive decision to use force. This is the reflection we wanted to make here today.

The Chamber Committee earlier this week was in that sense a bitter pill to swallow, because we felt there that the majority, sp.a, Open Vld and CD&V, were quite light-sensitive with the question of whether bombing today is the best and only answer.

In addition, we are also clearly putting ourselves as Parliament out of play, because in the resolution it is stated, colleagues, that we only get an evaluation after a month of war. Until then, we ask the government for a vague involvement of the Parliament. We ask the government to consult with us if the nature, duration and also the territory of the operation would change.

Green and Ecolo have tried to persuade you to tighten that succession, that parliamentary control, and to ask the government to cooperate in making the special commission for the follow-up of foreign operations meet weekly. Unfortunately, we were not supported in this, however, it is important to monitor the execution of that operation closely.

After all, there is a risk of mission creep, on the silent expansion of this operation, for example from Iraq to Syria. Colleagues, at the moment, the United States is already undertaking an operation in Syria. The United States is already bombing Syria. This operation is not covered by international law, it is not covered by the United Nations.

Foreign policy requires unity within the government. The spectacle we have seen here of the four Flemish parties who have signed this resolution, with the different interpretations about Syria, promises little good for the unity needed to manage this conflict.

Colleagues, a stronger role of the Parliament would also mean that we not only ask the government to consult with the Parliament, but that we also ask the government to let the Parliament re-decide if the operation would change in terms of nature, duration or territory. We can do it perfectly. It is not included in the Constitution, but today we are working here with a resolution. It is a useful parliamentary tool. We can not only re-consult between government and Parliament; we can make Parliament completely re-decide if that operation would change. We can do this again through a parliamentary resolution. We proposed this in an amendment, but this was rejected. What kind of parliament is this? It weakens itself instead of strengthening itself, to ensure the succession of such a complex military operation.

I would like to invite you to reflect. We all share the same moral outrage and the urge to do something, but the pensée unique in this meeting and the speed with which we want to bomb without a sufficiently strong political framework, is actually shocking. We must ask ourselves: do we not make things worse by bombing now? Have we not neglected the so important political part of this international operation? What are the consequences of our actions? These are the questions that we as politicians should ask.

Mr. De Vriendt, you have been questionable with the citation of names. I must apply the Rules: if a name is quoted, I must have the person replicate. Mr Yüksel and Mrs Demir requested this.

Mr. Van der Maelen, if you absolutely feel the need to add something... You have spoken very extensively. I have ⁇ not wronged you in granting the speech time. You have exceeded your speech time. Do you realize that?

Mr. Chairman, colleague De Vriendt, you just said that I held a very serene presentation, with sufficient nuance. Now you say that you miss the nuance in the presentation of CD&V.

You are talking about an international conference, with international actors such as the members of the Security Council, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and so on, but those countries have failed to intervene in this conflict for months.

How long will you wait and watch those torture, headlessness, and rape that happen in the name of a world religion?

Mr. Speaker, colleague De Vriendt, our group has received the Kurdish parliamentary member of jezidic origin Vian Dakhil. She told us what was going on there and begged us to take action.

I don’t understand that a group like the Greens wants to take responsibility for today’s Jezidi women being sold on the streets as sex slaves and Christians being abused again and again every day. How long will you wait to stop the barbarians of IS? How much time do you want to take while women of the jezidic minority are raped daily?

Ladies and gentlemen, I repeat my point. Military action now, without a comprehensive and sufficiently strong political framework, can only make things worse. It can only cause the number of victims in Iraq and Syria – a Syria of the Assad regime – to increase and the attractiveness and terrorist threat of Islamic State only to increase.

I ask you to think and not give in to that first reflex to do something and then just do the wrong thing.

I am surprised by the laxity with which political consultation is discussed here. Did you know that there has not even been an attempt to get those countries around the table and get a resolution in the Security Council approved? Do you know that no attempt has even been made, apart from the Security Council, to have a resolution passed in the General Assembly of the United Nations, where the threshold, as you know, is much lower?

I want to talk about moral outrage. We have them all. However, I would like to point out the selectivity. I want to put that into the debate. Today you say that we need to do something. Over the past three years, 190,000 people have been killed in Syria. Where was that moral outrage then to intervene immediately?

Mr. De Vriend, can I consider your speech terminated?

Then I give the word to Mr. Dallemagne.

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, 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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. But for obvious reasons, especially in periods of ordinary business, he asks for the support and approval of our parliament.

Our group, the CDH, will vote in favour of the resolution proposal, which I co-signed with six other groups, which plans to support the government in its action not only military but also political and humanitarian, and which also provides for clarifying its limits and contours.

The central question that drives us is: why intervene and why intervene today? I would add: why intervene at last? Some people think they are acting in a hurry. But, Mr. De Vriendt, this is your strategy that has been applied for three years in Syria. By doing nothing, by calling for government conferences, by avoiding interference on the ground. By accepting four times the veto of Russia and China. Both countries have already opposed any intervention on the ground.

The reason why we intervene today is, first of all, a duty of humanity. It is time to stop the massacre on a large scale, this flashy, terrifying fire, the horrifying violence that is currently spreading over an extremely vast territory, riding between Iraq and Syria. This has already contaminated neighboring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. This is a conflict that threatens the security of the world, other colleagues have also highlighted this.

Mr. De Vriendt, I am returning from Iraqi Kurdistan. I met the victims of Chaldeans, Syrians, Yezidians, Turkmen, Shiites, Sabeans. They are many. These people told me about the horrors they experienced. I met with survivors, those who could run fast enough not to be massacred by these barbarians. They told me about their escape, the hallucinating scenes during which their loved ones were murdered, their children beheaded, their elderly, too slow, destroyed in dynamite buildings.

These were simple women, men, children expelled from their villages, hunted for their beliefs, massacred because they were not Islamists, unfaithful, impure, pseudo- adorers of the devil, or simply not enough believers, or former local collaborators of the Iraqi army or the US army. In their extreme distress, what they first demanded, Mr. De Vriendt, was not so much humanitarian aid, yet indispensable given their extreme precariousness, but our protection.

It was always, at each interview, the first word, the first request, the first supplication that was addressed to us: "Protect us from these monsters, find our loved ones taken as captives, as hostages, as sexual slaves! We will not return to where we were driven from if you do not protect us sustainably."These are the words we heard during this week that we spent alongside these displaced people.

I truly believe that we have a responsibility to protect these populations. It is often mentioned that international law consists of the absolute will of states. This principle has also been reinforced by the five major nuclear powers – Mr. De Vriendt, this should evoke you something! –, winners in 1945 and who therefore have a veto right that allows them, even when world peace is threatened, to prevent any action.

This veto right, I recall, has already been used four times by Russia and China to do nothing in Syria! Despite the horrors, despite the destabilization of a whole region, despite the millions of refugees, despite the 200,000 deaths you recall, despite the chemical gases! Right of veto not used for reasons of international security by these two countries but for reasons of domestic policy or cynical vision of international relations: Everyone has the right to massacre, provided that he does it at home! This is what Russia and China are proposing today with their veto right!

These powers have not hesitated to invade Crimea, part of Ukraine, and destabilize the Sea of China today by taking positions in some of its islets.

Let us understand! I attach great importance to the prerogatives of the Security Council and in the vast majority of cases, this Council has worked rather well since the end of the Cold War but it is equally important to clearly measure the limits of this Council and to well understand that the current rules of the international order could one day be taken away if in the eyes of the peoples, they no longer have any legitimacy.

Two fundamental elements in international law are often forgotten, which I never hear you recall, and which also underlie our action.

First, when a genocide is ongoing – and this is ⁇ the case against the Yezidis but one can also fear it against other beliefs such as Christians or Sabeans – it is our duty to intervene. I repeat: we have a duty to intervene! A veto right that would be granted at that time would violate the obligations of the United Nations Charter.

Second, the responsibility to protect, which I mentioned recently, is also an important principle of international doctrine, approved by the United Nations General Assembly at its autumn session in 2005. This responsibility to protect clearly provides for the subordination of the sovereignty of States to the application of minimum standards in humanitarian law and human rights.

I will also remind you that we are acting at the invitation of Iraq, whose recent political developments also create a window of opportunity. But if we act now, it is also because the threat is no longer only regional. It becomes global, first by the claim of this Islamic caliphate to demand the allegiance of all Muslim countries and a number of other nations to its authority, then by the alliances that it has already been able to provoke.

And we also act because the metastases of this cancer spread to us. Young people, 300 to 350, left our home to fight. Some have returned, dangerous, endoctrinated, trained to kill, ready to commit crimes. Mehdi Nemmouche went to the case against the Brussels Jewish Museum. Others are probably ready to do so. It is therefore our own security that is concerned, not to mention that our responsibility is engaged by the fact that some of these young parties are precisely the bullies of the refugees I met in Iraqi Kurdistan. It was the Iraqi Kurdistan Interior Minister who told me when I met him. He said to me, “But what are you doing in Europe? What is happening? There are those young people who leave your home, who come to kill our compatriots and then return and move freely in Europe. When are you going to stop these young people and when are you going to be more severe with these departures?"It is a Sunni Muslim, Mr. De Vriendt, who told me.

On the format of the military engagement, I said in the commission, I’m sure our F-16s will be useful. Targeted strikes, carried out with discernment, such as those carried out by the US military and now by the French and the United Arab States, have allowed, in some cases, and will still allow, to stop the advance of the Islamic State group. We know, our planes are excellent, our pilots are among the best in the world. Our rules of engagement – if they are those that prevailed in Afghanistan – are clear and reassuring. But I continue to insist that the men who today, daily, fight against this Daesh group and who share, in any case for those I have met and who have demonstrated it elsewhere, our values of tolerance and respect for diversity, integrity and human dignity.

In Kurdistan, I met the Peshmerga who came to the rescue of Christians, Yezidis, Turkmen and even Shiites. They fight bravely to save their own, but also others, all other Daesh victims. Without them, Baghdad would probably now be in the hands of the caliph al-Baghdadi. Without them, the Christians would have been decimated and the Yezidis completely annihilated. They are reliable partners. I am happy that they are recognized as such by the international community, but we need to help them quickly. When I met them ten days ago, they were still fighting with lightweight weapons dating from the Iran-Iraq war against ISIS forces equipped, they, with the best weapons looted from the Iraqi army stocks, supplied by the US army. It is therefore a completely unequal battle that explains the flashy advance in northern Iraq, here six weeks ago, and in Syrian Kurdistan, here a few days ago.

So, I want to and I understand that Belgium now prefers to limit its action in Iraq. We are a small country. And I understand that we are focusing on this action. Parliament should be closely linked to the evaluation of operations. But I want to be clear. Mr. Van Der Maelen, as you said in other words, I will not condemn the United States for hitting Daesh forces in recent days around the Kurdish town of Koban in northern Syria, because that is where it is happening today and tens of thousands of people are surrounded by Daesh. These strikes allowed, to some extent, to loosen the roof around Koban.

Let us not de facto create sanctuaries or retreat zones for Daesh forces, as the Foreign Minister in commission said. And let us be clear: for this caliphate, there is no border between Iraq and Syria. It controls 120,000 square kilometers and thirteen million inhabitants on both sides of this Iraqi-Syrian border.

I will also recall the words of the Grand Rabbin of France, who hoped that we would intervene faster for these populations than we did for the Jews during World War II. However, we will not win the war against obscurantism and brutality by the weapons alone, we agree in this regard. We are conducting a long-term struggle, which began at least fifteen years ago, which is ahead of us for a long time and which is above all political. This war will be won by the reaffirmation of our values, by education, by the struggle for more social justice, by better international cooperation to advance the values of freedom, dignity and justice. It will also be gained by more firmness against those who engage in the field of jihad. We also need to move forward in this area. A binding text of the Security Council, voted two days ago – in the presence of our prime minister and twenty-seven heads of state – obliges us to do so.

We have long demanded, at the CDH, that the famous “mercenaries” law be approved. Joëlle Milquet – Mr Francken, you referred to it recently – deposited this text on the kern table in April 2013. There was no support at that time. We continue to demand that the royal decree enabling the implementation of this law be finally approved by the Council of Ministers. Other measures such as the travel ban or the Schengen entry and exit list system, as suggested by Gilles de Kerchove, must also be taken.

The resources of the Daesh terrorists must be dried up. Why is it that Daesh continues to receive millions of euros of oil revenue every day while the oil pipelines they control run for a large part in Turkey? Who are the buyers of this oil? What arrangements are the European Union and the international community putting in place to permanently close these taps?

I have spoken several times in the committee on the troubled role of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar. I hope that we will finally learn from the role they have played in this conflict.

I will end with the humanitarian aspect. Millions of people were thrown on the roads. Nearly 200,000 people were murdered. Some are hiding. 1,700 Yezidis are still hidden in the Sinjar Mountains and pursued by Daesh forces who want to exterminate them. 7,400 Yezidis are held hostage and could be used as human shields. We need to help them better, faster. We must effectively go to help people who are at the border of these conflicts but also be able to provide them with more effective humanitarian aid, also at home.

Finally, I would like to greet all those Muslims who, from Great Britain, and now throughout the world, have once again wanted to shout out loud and to reaffirm that all these horrors were not done in their name, that they were also horrified, that they were scandalized and ready to mobilize to fight against this new fascism, this Nazism of the 21st century, this threat that weighs on the whole world, on all peoples, whatever their beliefs, whatever the country they live in. I am pleased to know that today a very large majority of our nation, through its elected members, whether in the north or south of the country, regardless of their political or philosophical convictions, supports our government and our armed forces that commit themselves. It was necessary and I am delighted.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Dear colleagues, the Islamic State terrorist organization must be dismantled. There is no doubt about this among the members of this assembly. The crimes perpetrated by this terrorist group are intolerable, as are the crimes, Madame Lijnen, of Boko Haram in Mali and Central Africa, to name just a few examples. The situation in which they plunge the Syrian and Iraqi populations is unacceptable.

The question here is not whether to fight them, but how to fight them and that effectively. For the Greens, this special majority takes the problem on the wrong side. Should we do something? and yes. But you are considering military involvement in Iraq without having previously established a comprehensive political strategy. Certainly, the bombing could change some strength ratio on the ground. But they will not bring a lasting solution to this conflict. There is even a real risk of seeing the situation complicate and crime intensify.

The Greens are questioning the purpose of this military mission. We specifically asked the question in the committee of what concrete objectives the ministers considered to have to fulfill in order to consider the mission accomplished. The answer was vague, as is unfortunately the rest of this project. The countless military strikes that have hit this region – I’m not talking only about Iraq – since 2003 have clearly done worse than better. This has even probably contributed to the emergence of those ultraviolet groups that we all want here to see disappear.

It is naive to think that only a military operation, without the prior establishment of a concrete and serious political project, under the auspices of the UN, can end this terrorist threat there, but also here. Where is your plan?

To dry out the marsh where these fanatics grow and embellish is to give a place to the Sunnis and Kurds, to the Turkmen and to all the other minorities that have been discussed in this debate, in this new Iraqi state. This is to make traceable the oil produced in the areas controlled by these terrorists and those criminals, the oil they sell on the market, including here. This doubles their financial and military capabilities.

Belgium must also fight at European level to grant the status of temporary protection to Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Our country and its armed forces could help the countries in the region that face a massive influx of refugees and need help.

It is primarily and finally about putting, once and for all, around the same table and under the auspices of the UN, those who pull the threads of these innumerable regional conflicts, starting with Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This is where the solution goes.

The solution is political and not strictly military. The military tool must be at the service of politics and not vice versa. Yes, we have to do something, not let it do, not go to war!

Finally, I would like to point out a contrast, Mr. Minister of Defence. The Public Health Commission, unanimously, asked you to hear about the aid that the Belgian army could provide to the African populations that are now victims of Ebola. These populations and NGOs on the ground are asking for equipment and personnel, women and men, in order to contain these sick people to prevent the spread of this disaster-causing virus.

Ecolo and Groen would like to see you present before the Public Health Commission with the same enthusiasm as you showed to come to defend this war project in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I have understood that my group has already deepened into the subject.

Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of the intervention of the N-VA to resume the speech in response to the intervention of Mr. Francken in order to put the pendul somewhat back in time.

No, the prime minister did not support the call for additional effort for NATO’s defense spending. No, the PS does not support an increase in arms spending in such proportions. On the contrary, the Prime Minister has expressly made a reservation on military spending in order to accept the final document.

Such an important debate as this deserves something else than counter-truths.

I would be greatly surprised that Mr Di Rupo did not sign the declaration, as his signature is under it. I am a bit confused. In the next few minutes, let’s figure out who was there. The Wales Summit Declaration was signed by the Belgian government under Prime Minister Di Rupo. The defence budget needs to be increased. We will see.

Now the word is to your party. Mr. De Roover makes a second attempt.

[...] for about a quarter of an hour.

Would it help if I temporarily removed myself from my group?

The [...]

If you tell us where you want to go, it may help.

I can tell a lot about Mr. Calvo’s pace.

A decision on a military intervention is ironic against the backdrop of the fact that a number of people must go to an activity tonight to commemorate the Great War, which took place just a hundred years ago. The roots of the Flemish Movement lie in this event. At that time, young people were driven into battle, and the survivors, too few in number, returned tired of war. I think we should not forget this in this debate.

In this debate dominate, on the one hand, the F-16s, which in some circles appear to have an almost erotic appearance, and on the other hand there is an equally damaging as naive pacifism, where the impression is created that a beneficial evening is enough to stop the IS fighters. Behind the beautiful debates, people hide. Two weeks ago we had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Vian Dakhil, an Iraqi parliamentary member for the jezidi. She gave a striking testimony about headless men, kidnapped children, raped girls and women sold as slaves. We can hardly imagine that. For them, this is a harsh, everyday reality.

Strangely enough, for jezidi, the sound of our fighter aircraft sounds like the flutter of a peace duck. Without our military involvement, they remain unprotected and helpless behind, as the prey of the worst barbarism. It has already been said here: they are not the only ones who rely on our active support. Christians, Kurds, other minorities and religions also rely on this. But also the Muslims, who do not want to follow ISIS fanaticism, count on our active commitment.

So joining the broadest possible coalition, especially including Middle Eastern allies, is the only right choice we can make today.

However, I think we should also express our hope that we can move our fighter aircraft back into the hangars as soon as possible. Today we have to think about the day after. This is also why I think that participation in that intervention is important, so that we will have more right to speak day after day than if we abstain today. Following our meeting with Ms. Dakhil, I would like to ask our government members a few very concrete questions.

We have already decided with our governments, both Flemish and federal, to provide humanitarian aid. From Ms. Dakhil’s testimony we have to draw out that this support is very difficult to reach the places where it is needed, the jezidi. Very often NGOs are involved who are not even active in the area where the people in need live. Within the limits, which are appropriate at this time, I urge the Government to keep us informed of the efforts being made to ensure that the aid granted actually reaches the victims.

By the way, following the debates here, I must conclude that sometimes we look like frogs that explode themselves. We are talking here about a very small portion of the total intervention force, but it sometimes seems like the Security Council.

When we have made our small contribution, I think we should use the prestige it has built up with the allies. The raped women, of course, need much more than breaking cell doors to truly be liberated. Even after the battle there is a coalition of the willing, a coalition of the good-minded, which, as it was said before, must be able to take confidence-building measures. I call on our country to take the lead in very small, concrete measures, rather than advocate for large international conferences, which nevertheless did not extend beyond the space of our hemisphere here.

The resolution is rightly not limited to military action. We therefore would like to urge that this resolution be taken equally seriously in all its parts.

We must take the most important lesson from previous military interventions to mind. Military action is often and even now necessary to combat evil, but military action can never be enough to bring about good.

Mr. Speaker, gentlemen ministers, dear colleagues, it is ⁇ worth recalling, at the beginning, that this proposal for a resolution, despite our notable differences, our profound disagreements, was approved almost unanimously, two days ago, in the Joint Committee on Foreign Relations and Defence, and that it was supported by seven political formations: the Reformist Movement, the CD&V, the N-VA, the Open Vld, the CDH, the SP, the PS. For a move as important as that which sees our country at the gates of war, by contributing to the international coalition that must strike the Islamic State, it was therefore obvious that it was necessary to gather as widely as possible, go as close as possible to consensus. The work carried out in advance at this level by our Minister of Foreign Affairs and our Minister of Defense, because we also had to commit to being ready with military and technical means, has been quite important and hard for weeks.

This proposal of resolution naturally engages us on a military level, but goes far beyond that. A lot of things were said. We know that we will not find solutions only through military operation and weapons. We therefore call on our Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Government to continue to be active in the concert of nations to work on the diplomatic and political level on convergence paths that are also fully part of the approach we are operating today.

Thro ⁇ this debate, which has already lasted for a few hours, I have had the impression that there is sometimes humanitarian and military opposition, but this military operation aims to respond to a humanitarian emergency. We simply have no choice. The number of refugees amounts to millions. Families are destroyed, homes are destroyed. I will not go back on all the words that have been said or the numbers that have been outlined. The United Nations even speaks of genocide against religious minorities. We simply have no choice. We must respond in compliance with international law to the request of the Iraqi government. We must respond militarily to this humanitarian emergency for the safety of these populations but also for our own security. This has been indicated.

The Islamic State is carrying the threat beyond the region, to Europe, and especially to our country. Remember the attack on the Jewish Museum. by mr. Nemmouche returned from Syria. A couple have been arrested in Brussels for plotting attacks in Belgium. Acting there also means obeying imperatives for the security of the Belgians. Beyond the front that is nationally open against radicalism and terrorism and that will likely be strengthened in the coming weeks, we must assume our responsibilities, modestly support, as we can, the work that is to be accomplished to weaken and destroy the Islamic State.

Beyond the military and humanitarian aspects, we naturally need to make sure – and the Foreign Ministry, with its European Union counterparts, is working on this – to do everything we can to keep Islamic State from getting richer. He is now ten times richer than al-Qaeda and he pays his fighters. We know that thousands of European fighters have joined them. It is therefore clear that part of the solution will depend on the agreements we will conclude with certain countries to prevent this terrorist organization from continuing to enrich itself.

We are on a difficult ground. Entering a war involves multiple risks – first and foremost, for our military. Shortly before this vote, we can only think of them, but also their families. We also need to consider our resilience. Almost all of us will decide to send our troops to war.

If Belgians are to be wounded, will we be able to continue to assume the responsibility we take today? This will be assessed in a month. We will see if there is a possibility to extend. I doubt that after a month this operation will be completed, but this is a risk that we must be aware of when voting.

This is also a danger for foreigners. We know that the Department of Foreign Affairs is working to inform places, countries, where it is strongly advised that Belgians do not travel during this period.

This is also a danger for Belgium. by mr. De Kerchove, the EU-wide counter-terrorist coordinator, told us that in his view the risk was ⁇ greater today than yesterday. We will see the message that will be delivered by the OCAM.

I would like to conclude, Mr. President, without referring to a fourth risk, that of the Muslims in Belgium who are at risk of amalgamation. Let us remind as far as we can that the countries of the Arab League participate as Muslim countries with us, within this coalition, to destroy this Islamic State that should never become a state!

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, the Flemish Belang is a cool lover of military action against IS in Iraq. Of course, as many have confirmed throughout the afternoon here, IS needs to be fought, IS needs to be pushed back, IS needs to be turned off.

My question is ⁇ a new element in the debate, which was not discussed this afternoon: against whom are we actually fighting? Are we fighting against barbarism? Are we fighting terrorism? Are we fighting against violence? Will we go against what Minister De Crem said in the committee, with a new word, against “daesh”? No, that’s not the brand of any wash product, but “daesh”, which should be the Arabic word for terror. “Because,” he said, “I don’t even want to pronounce the word ‘Islamic State’.”There comes the word Islam in and Islam – we’ve heard it so often – obviously has nothing to do with the Islamic State as such.

But against whom are we going to fight? Were we in 1940, at the time of World War II, in the fight against terror? Against the barbarism? Against the violence? Yes of course. We went into the fight against National Socialism, I thought. What did we do in the Cold War? Did we fight against terror, violence and barbarism? Yes, we went into the struggle against communism. Today, whether we want it or not, whether it fits in your multicultural and politically correct logic or not, we are going to fight Salafism. Today we are going to fight Sunni extremists. Today we are fighting against jihadists. Today we are fighting against radical Islam, excuse me for daring to say it. We should dare to say that here. If we don’t dare to say that, then forget it, keep on with it, keep those planes on the ground, limit our costs and risks, ladies and gentlemen of the majority, and ⁇ also limit the bodybags that come back and the human lives that we will put at risk here.

Today we are not just fighting against IS. Let us be consistent in what we do here today.

We are also, or should be, fighting against Boko Haram in Nigeria, against Al-Shabaab in Somalia, against Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia, against Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, against the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, against Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Why Why ? Because of the fact that these are all jihadist, salafist, extreme Sunni terrorist organizations that have one clear goal in mind: by force establish an Islamic state, an Islamic caliphate.

The boundaries of Islam have indeed become very bloody boundaries, and those boundaries are continually shifting.

Whether you want it or not, but thanks to the mass immigration, also from those countries that you have so joyfully admitted in the past decades, ladies and gentlemen of the PS, sp.a and relatives, we are today here with us also confronted with that salafism, that Sunni extremism, with that jihadism, with Sharia4Belgium that of course has nothing to do with Islam, with Al Qaeda that has nothing to do with Islam, with Islamic State that of course has nothing to do with Islam.

“After Jerusalem Rome falls,” is a statement by the self-proclaimed IS-Rolex Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the great self-proclaimed leader of IS.

When it is intended to effectively destroy IS, an air offensive – let’s not be naive about it – will not be enough. IS is a guerrilla movement that, like Hamas in Gaza – the friends of the Greens and the socialists and also a jihadist, salafist organization – will hide behind the civilian population as soon as the first bombs fall.

Such armies do not fight according to the classical military logic as we are used to. In the meantime, our interventions in Iraq, Lebanon and Libya will have made this clear.

Furthermore, one actually switches – the peace movement says it, it’s not entirely wrong, but I interpret it slightly differently – with bombs and bullets no fanatic ideology.

Sometimes it could be that we ⁇ the opposite. It may well be that our attack, which I support, but I give it to consider, will have just the opposite effect and perfectly fit in the strategy of Islamic State and related organizations, which do not prefer but that the West, with the United States on its head, attacks them, because this will only increase their support in the Middle East and the Islamic world.

We must try and learn not to engage too much in the debate with those radical Salafists according to our standards, our thinking patterns, our Western logic; we must try to understand what they actually want. Their logic is not ours, it is a completely different logic, it is a logic of suicide terrorism, it is a logic of decapitating people, of barbarism, of torture and all that is involved in the function of achieving their purpose. The sacrifice of a few thousand or tens of thousands of their people is not a problem for them, on the contrary, it will become their martyrs, their best propagandists in the coming months and years.

Mr. Minister of Defence, not only an air offensive, but ⁇ a ground offensive will be needed. Boots on the ground will be needed to completely destroy ISIS, which I doubt if it will ever be possible.

Another question, of course, is obvious: what about IS in Syria? IS wants a caliphate in the Levant and the Levant is much larger than just Iraq and even larger than Syria; it extends over almost half of the Middle East. Do we stop at the border because we don’t have a UN mandate? ISIS takes very little attention to UN mandates and all those kinds of other matters. If we cross the border to Syria, will Bashar al-Assad become your ally, your best friend in the fight against ISIS?

It is cynical that those who in the past helped Al-Nusra Front and even Al Qaeda, financed and provided with weapons and technical and military advisors, today are part of the coalition of the willing. Imagine, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, until recently the great financiers of Al-Nusra, the predecessor of IS, are now our allies in these. How crazy can it be?

I also give a few political considerations on the subject. In any case, a military intervention against IS will increase polarization with the Muslim community in our own country. Putting your head in the sand for the radicalization of the Islamic community in our country, and by the way throughout Europe, makes no sense. By doing so, you may deny the problem to yourself and your conscience, but with it, the problem has not disappeared.

Can I retrieve two studies and polls from authoritative media in Europe? The Dutch NCRV recently ⁇ that 75 percent of Muslims consider Syrian jihadists to be heroes and that 70 percent of Dutch Muslims consider Islamic laws, Sharia, more important than our laws. Similar figures appeared in The Sunday Telegraph, Newsweek, Le Figaro, TF1, Berliner Zeitung, I will not quote them all. The figures are alarming, but nobody wants to hear them, because Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Sharia4Belgium and so on, of course, have nothing to do with Islam, we know that in the meantime.

My question is the following. If we do what we are going to do, sending our troops to Iraq, should we not take measures with the same urgency to ensure that it does not go out of hand here? Shouldn’t we make sure that the well-known jihadists and their sympathizers who reside on the territory of our country and who collaborate with IS, give them hand-and-spandanties and make publicity for them, all, as soon as possible, if it depends on me within 24 hours, disappear behind the trails? Shouldn’t there be an urgent law, like in France, that ensures that those who return from Iraq and Syria, where they fought with ISIS, are deprived of their nationality and they are never allowed to enter this country again? Shouldn’t we, like Germany, ensure that the symbols of IS and other radical-salafist symbols are banned by law? Are these measures not urgently necessary?

Finally, I would like to say the following. I said this at the beginning of my speech, and I will repeat it. Both ministers have exhausted themselves in the committee and several speakers have also done so today, arguing that ISIS and its affiliates have nothing to do with Islam. Nevertheless, the Qur’an is the constitution of IS and Allah is their unconditional leader. It is true that Muslim leaders and Muslims generally reject the means and strategy of IS, but about the goals, achieving an Islamic caliphate, an Islamic state where Sharia is ruled, that Islamic leaders in all languages remain silent. That is also logical, because the goals are the same: to create an intolerant totalitarian society where only the laws of Islam apply. This is also the essence of Islamic doctrine.

To talk about IS, but to be silent about Islam, in this case the Salafist Islam, is like to talk about Stalin, but to be silent about Communism, like to talk about Adolf Hitler, but to be silent about National Socialism.

In 1980, we heard that the Iranian regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, which hanged homosexuals on cranes in their major cities – which is still happening there – was not Islamic. In 2001, we heard that al-Qaida was not an Islamic movement. In 2010-2011, we heard that Sharia4Belgium obviously had nothing to do with Islam. Today, in 2014, we hear that even Islamic State does not actually have an outstanding relationship with Islam.

Ladies and gentlemen, IS and with expansion many dozens of other similar Salafist extremist-Sunnite and jihadist organizations behave to Islam like a chicken to an egg: they are inextricably linked.

Mr. Minister of Defence and Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, one can do his best to make a crocodile a vegetarian, but no one has ever succeeded. You will also not succeed in giving the impression that all these organizations do not have an outstanding relationship with Islam, on the contrary. Islam is not a religion of peace, tolerance and tolerance. It is a religion of war, it is a religion of hatred and intolerance towards dissenters and unbelievers, towards the West. As long as you have not understood it, this intervention is in fact meaningless.

Anyway, something is better than nothing: better one bird in the hand than ten in the air. We will support this resolution with a lot of critical concerns. I hope this is the beginning of a war against radical salafism, everywhere in the world.

The situation in Syria and Iraq is dramatic for the civilian population. The testimonies of torture perpetrated in this region that reach us are incredible. The situation is serious.

The question we are concerned with today is whether the bombing will solve something.

The question in Parliament today is whether the bombing will resolve anything.

To answer this question, I think it’s time to make a review of our various interventions over the last ten years in the region.

We believed that by intervening in 2003 in the region in Iraq, we would resolve the situation. We believed, in 2001, that by bombing Afghanistan, we would resolve the situation.

In 2011, we would bomb Libya and then everything would be resolved. We must quickly conclude that this was not the case. We must conclude that the bombing did not solve anything. On the contrary, most ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria come from Libya.

On the contrary, it was by intervening in Iraq in 2003 that we completely dismantled the Iraqi state to make it a partition on a religious basis. Our interventions over the past ten or fifteen years are more of a part of the problem than of the solution.

I am very surprised to see how much we have a consensus in this Parliament that intervening by bombing will solve something. The consensus is so strong that we just learned by Belga announcement that the F-16s took off a quarter of an hour ago, so before the vote of this Parliament!

I ask: what is the use of this Parliament if, without even waiting for our vote, you are already sending the F-16s on a mission in the region, Mr. Minister?

It is time to analyze the various factors. What does ISIS do?

Yes, sending airplanes before our vote is a democratic issue! It is not because I am new to this Parliament that the rules should not continue to apply. Parliament must vote to send F-16s.

Let’s analyze the various factors that make an organization like ISIS so strong. The first factor is, of course, the social misery in the region, in countries like Iraq. The second factor is the fact that there is no more state in Iraq. A third factor is the discrimination against the Sunnis.

I ask the question. For two years, the al-Maliki government has been carrying out a repression against the Sunni population, victim of severe discrimination. What have we done? Nothing at all! What did the United States of America do? Nothing at all!

When we talk today about the creation of the various terrorist and jihadist organizations, I ask you: who is at the basis of their formation? You know it. Saudi Arabia is one of the main sources of funding. What has Belgium done in the last twenty-five or thirty years with respect to Saudi Arabia? Nothing at all! Not from a political or diplomatic point of view.

Who financed the birth of these jihadist organizations in this region during the 80s and 90s? The United States of America. Who reacted against this funding? No one in this assembly.

Dear colleagues, it is time to understand that we cannot continue to believe that we will solve the problems of this part of the world by bombing. The balance sheet of the last fifteen years is very clear about this: all our interventions have destabilized the situation on the ground and created zones of non-right that have allowed barbaric and terrorist organizations such as ISIS to pull out.

For this reason, the PTB-GO group! I will vote against this resolution. We believe it is time to establish an inclusive partnership with all countries in the region. And we cannot interpret differently Iran’s non-invitation to the Paris Conference as a provocation on the part of the United States, which thus manifests their refusal to resolve the local situation.

Second, it is clear that an immediate embargo on arms supplies in the region must be imposed. That embargo can only be put on foot with the support of Turkey, a NATO country, an ally, while everyone knows well that the borders are simply open to both jihadists and weapons. Let us stop being hypocritical, colleagues. It is time to take a clear stand against countries like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which actually throw oil on the fire and do not solve the situation in the region at all.

Your time is over. You are new to Parliament, but you must fulfill your commitments. You asked for five minutes and got five minutes.

Why do I only have 5 minutes?

We agreed five minutes, and I ask you to respect the time you have been given.

It must be clear. We will not solve this problem by making public opinion believe that, like in an American film starring Sylvester Stallone, we will intervene with a few well-placed bombs. We must be able to work on a short- and medium-term basis, with all countries in the region. That is why I ask Belgium, considering our expertise at the diplomatic level, to contact with the European Union, to contact with all countries in the region, not to forget Syria and Iran! We cannot make it the economy if we want a medium and long-term solution. This is the role that Belgium must play, and we must not follow the Atlantic maneuver to go bombing, saying to ourselves that we will solve everything. That would be a lie to the public.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, as I am the last to speak, I will focus on the precise position of the People’s Party regarding the indispensable struggle to be waged against the Syrian-Iraqi caliphate.

Yes, we must eradicate the some 30,000 jihadists who terrorize entire populations such as the Christian minorities in Mosul and northern Iraq, now massacred or displaced.

(Brouhaha of the city)

I listened to everyone without talking, without disturbing. If you could listen to me or not speak...

You have the word.

thank you . That is democracy too!

Yes, Belgium must participate in the international force engaged against the Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

Yes, we need to agree with Russia on the Syrian-Iraqi caliphate. NATO and the European Union have already taken enough dangerous and counterproductive decisions about the civil war in Ukraine. Enough of provocations from Europe and NATO to Russia! Let us agree with her on what we will do together in Iraq and Syria.

Yes, we must stop this threat to Europe, but the Belgian government does not seem to us to be taking the right direction. After communication to the Joint Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees, during the government press conference led by the Deputy Prime Ministers, we talked about everything but the important: the return of Belgian or resident jihadists in Belgium. The People’s Party does not understand that all traditional parties are merely discussing the activation of the 1979 law on the ban on fighting abroad. What the Belgians want, you all know, is that they are not allowed to come back!

The People’s Party considers the legal treatment of jihadists in Belgium to be inappropriate, ineffective and dangerous. There are no sanctions to be imposed on those who return from Syria or Iraq. They must be forbidden from returning, depriving them of Belgian citizenship and expelling those who embride or endoctrinate them into our territory.

The vast majority of the 350 Belgian jihadists or residents of Belgium who left since 2012 are both men and women. Therefore, they would not become stateless, which the UN convention ratified by Belgium does not allow. The Belgian citizens do not understand the government’s delusions. Belgium is the first country in Europe for the number of young jihadists fighting in the Middle East per capita. That’s six times more than Britain. There is nothing to be proud of.

The United Kingdom and the Netherlands have recently passed legislation to withdraw British or Dutch citizenship from jihadists. What will Belgium do? To provide them with care when they return injured, at the expense of social security? To accommodate them in social housing if they are impeccable or to provide CPAS assistance to their families?

Let us go a step further. Are we not at risk of witnessing fights between our Belgian soldiers, on Iraqi soil, and jihadists of Belgian origin or naturalized? The People’s Party urges that all social rights – the right to family allowances, the right to social housing, the right to health care if they return for treatment in Belgium – be removed to the jihadists, along with the Belgian nationality.

This is the first of two aspects of the action that we call on our country; the other is to act on Belgian territory to end the radicalization of young people and the recruitment of fighters for the Middle East. These people are out and no longer have a place in our society. Accepting their return to help them reintegrate is one of the most dangerous angels. Their departure proved, if necessary, that their integration into our society was a total failure.

It is clear for the People’s Party that the coalition to which Belgium belongs has the mission of fighting barbarism and terrorism, not a religion. I think you will agree that neither Britain nor the Netherlands are totalitarian states. Their governments, at least, have a backbone – unlike ours.

The People’s Party will submit a bill in this regard. We must do everything we can to minimize the risks our citizens face in the face of this totalitarian threat. Their protection is a priority and a duty. I thank you.

The debate was long.

There is a major fact: a resolution of the United Nations Security Council, resolution 2170. Adherence to this resolution alone is sufficient to determine the mandate that belongs to a Member State of the United Nations to implement it. I am somewhat surprised that those who so often have the will to invoke international law, who so often have the will to say that without a mandate of the United Nations, one cannot accomplish any mission of intervention in a sovereign state, today try to add conditions beyond even what resolution 2170 imposes.

There is a contradiction here. One cannot invoke international law to govern relations between sovereign states and at the same time evade when the international community reminds each state of its obligations under international law.

This is exactly what makes the difference with the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003, at the time out of international mandate. This was also justified by the fact that our country is not committed to the side of the United States. And that is what justifies today, because there is a UN resolution, that we participate in a coalition of armed forces to implement the UN resolution.

I heard another paradox when we are told that Resolution 2170 could not be sufficient on its own and that, in addition, a political plan would be needed. First of all, we need to read Resolution 2170. It must be read in all its developments, in all its obligations, including on the level of humanitarian law, on the implementation of humanitarian procedures, on the implementation of a consultation with the countries of the region. But it should also not be that the will of the international community depends solely on the will of the states of the region because, rightly, it has been recalled here that a number of states of the region have played a troublesome, if not guilty, game in the rise of radical extremism of terrorist movements.

We can’t tell the international community today to stay out of the game because we have to wait for Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Tehran to say what their definitive intentions are regarding compliance with international law. I think that would be a heavy responsibility.

The major fact of resolution 2170 reminds us that fortunately, in the face of the crimes that are committed in this region of the world, in the face of crimes that can be qualified as crimes against humanity, force can still remain to the international law that the United Nations represents. This is the reason for our commitment, our support to this coalition, which is not a coalition of going to war, but of all those who still have enough conscience to ensure that international law is respected.

First and foremost, I would like to thank all the groups. We have already had three meetings, one meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations and two joint meetings of the Committees on Defence and Foreign Relations.

We have said that this is only the beginning. We must do something against the many barbaric acts in Iraq and Syria and against the terror in the region.

We have always said that military support is conditional.

First, we must work within the framework of international law. This is the case here. The government in Baghdad in Iraq has asked for help. Therefore, we must formulate a response to this. That is the task of Parliament today.

Second, the government has also always said that we would only go to Iraq and not to the territory of other states. This is in accordance with international law; we have always insisted on this, and this is also stated in the resolution.

We also said that we would not send ground troops. We will send our F-16s and a C-130 for logistical support in the operation.

It is important to remain within this framework and to be able to take responsibility to react against barbarism. This is obviously not, as we have said several times in the commission, exclusively to react on the military level. Nevertheless, I would like to recall that, from a political and humanitarian point of view, through other interventions – in particular against the financial means of this terrorist organization – and measures aimed at fighting those fighters abroad who sometimes leave our own country, all this must be carried out.

To those who wish everything to be implemented first on the political or humanitarian level, I would like to remind, concerning Syria, that for three years, all the political initiatives are taken, multiple meetings of Friends of the Syrian People take place, but that, every time – as Mr. Remembered. Germany vetoed the Security Council. Therefore, no intervention on the ground is feasible. That said, we have done everything in humanitarian terms to help refugees and also to try to get access to medical places in Syria. Here we are, I repeat, in the framework of an action fully consistent with international law. The Iraqi government has expressed a request, to which the international community responds. This response is indispensable to put an end to the barbaric actions in the region.

I would also like to say that we are intervening with the awareness of the risks we face. First of all, I think of course of those incurred by those and those who will participate in the military operation. No military intervention abroad is free of risks. We need to think of the soldiers who participate in it, but also of their families. This is the support we owe them. It should also be said that there are risks for civilian populations on the ground, as has already been recalled. Our military is intervening in a very correct way, following very strict rules of engagement, but we can never guarantee that there will be no civilian casualties in what is purely called “collateral damage.”

We should also consider the risks in Belgium. We have already suffered the return of jihadist fighters through this drama experienced at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. We must also think, and we do, of the Belgians abroad, who can also take risks. Several measures are taken in this regard.

I would also like to answer one or the other question.

As regards the issues related to humanitarian aid in the region, it is indeed not always easy to get humanitarian aid to the victims. We are trying to do that and we have managed to bring 13 tons of food and medicine to Erbil with the C-130 aircraft.

There we work with local NGOs, with local authorities in the region and with the various neighboring countries, so that the aid reaches to the population. It is not always easy in Iraq and Syria.

Second, there was a comment about the fact that there have already been F-16s left.

This was already the case during the operations in Libya. It is clear that the diplomatic services, like the defense services, are preparing – and it is happy – an operation in the event that a decision is made. I just want to confirm – my Defense colleague will ⁇ do so too – that, of course, a prepositioning of the F-16s is already taking place in Greece, but there will be no intervention in an international coalition without a House decision.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you of two things. In ordinary affairs, any decision must of course be taken by the government but also by the parliament. This will be the case again in the coming days. Outside of ordinary affairs, it is a government decision that is communicated to the House as soon as possible. The intention is to work, in all cases, with complete information from the Parliament and with a capacity to assess the situation.

The government, even in ordinary affairs, wants to thank all the groups that clearly assume today the responsibility of engaging our military in this international coalition because we cannot remain inactive. We cannot remain without a clear decision when we see the barbarism that is not only on the ground in Iraq and Syria but that has also been on the ground, just a few hours ago, in Algeria and that could again be on our own territory in the days, weeks or months to come, as was the case at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

I thank you.

Myheer de voorzitter, my colleagues, I will be brief. I agree with the general remarks of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I would like to thank all the members of the House who have contributed to the preparation of this resolution. I will limit myself to the military part of the commitment resulting from the resolution approved in the committee and which will be adopted here in a few moments.

Following this resolution, the six F-16s will participate in the military operation requested by the Iraqi government. These F-16s took off from the Florennes airbase this afternoon. As was the case for Operation Unified Protector in Libya three years ago, they were prepositioned in an operational mode on the basis of Araxos. Also this afternoon, a C-130 and an Embraer departed with the staff. The refueling will take place at night and once the green light is given by the Chamber, we will be able to participate in the operation.

This is what we have done at this moment. So six F-16s and two replacement aircraft have departed to the Greek Araxos. Some members of the House visited this base when we participated in the operation in Libya. An Embraer and a C-130 also left with equipment and personnel. The repair follows. If the House gives green light to this resolution, they will be able to come into operation from tomorrow, from a base in Jordan.

I had a contact with our colleague Delpérée. I can also assure you, Mr. Speaker, you who presided over the Joint Committee on the Monitoring of Military Operations Abroad, that I am at the disposal of both the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Defense, in a public meeting or at closed doors, for the monitoring of this operation.

Here, Mr. Speaker, is what I have to add. I thank the Chamber for its support.

I ask for the word for a reply.

Well, if you wish, I can also give you the floor to defend your amendment.

The arguments have been exchanged and many speakers have spoken, both for and against and with more or less sense of nuance.

However, the fact that a government in ongoing matters does not wait for Parliament’s approval to send the F-16s to Jordan is an insult to each of the speakers who spoke here, and it shows a lack of respect for the democratic institution that Parliament is. I would like to address this point to you as Chairman of the Committee.