Proposition 54K0988

Proposition de résolution relative à l'avenir de la Défense.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Veli Yüksel
MR Denis Ducarme, Damien Thiéry, Sophie Wilmès
N-VA Peter Buysrogge, Karolien Grosemans, Renate Hufkens, Johan Klaps
Open Vld Dirk Van Mechelen, Tim Vandenput

Submission date

March 25, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

defence policy resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Patricia Ceysens (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

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 ¶

April 2, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the extensive written report.

Mr Hellings also refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Minister of Defense has held a very broad consultation round to gather ideas and insights. The Parliament has done so in the Committee on Land Defense, with two objectives.

The first goal is to listen to a broad representation from society: academics, allies, international organizations but also our own military, the trade unions, the business world and the peace movement.

The second goal is to provide the government with recommendations on the future of Defense, based on those hearings.

These conclusions and recommendations are now on the vote. With the four majority parties, we have managed to write down the major strength lines and trends on paper in the short term.

The elaboration with concrete figures is of course work for the government, which will prepare a strategic plan.

We were repeatedly accused in the committee that our resolution was a copy-paste of the government agreement. Is it a copy-paste? Of course, this is not the case. The resolution is complementary to the government agreement, but is of course in line with the government agreement. The opposite would be very strange.

The majority has succeeded, but the left opposition has not reached a consensus. There was, however, a call from the PS in the committee to support their resolution. I quote Mr. Pirlot, who believed that their resolution was so good that everyone would like to sign them.

However, there was no correlation between the left parties. Moreover, the sp.a and the PS submitted two different resolutions, which may have to do with the fact that although the sp.a first gave an extensive list of all speakers, then completely ignored and completely wiped off the table the general trend, the major trends and all that the speakers brought.

Dear colleagues of the SP;A, you have not learned a lesson from the hearings. No lessons learned. You have not learned lessons for five hearings. The connection between your resolution and the hearings is entirely searched. You have completely fallen back to your red dogma.

You still want an army, but rather a kind of army of salvation, an army that serves the first care and clears debris, for example the accommodation of roof and homeless, which of course is also important, but there are other organizations for that.

In your resolution you want to specialize in Defense, not to get into a professional high-tech army, but to eliminate as many armies as possible, to get into a ⁇ small army that you can hide somewhere under Civil Protection. If you want to abolish the army, I think you better say that.

The reason why you didn’t find fellow supporters for your resolution may be because you put down all the lessons and recommendations from the speakers next to you. It was a measure for nothing.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am closing my presentation. In December 2013, the European Summit of Heads of State and Government declared: “Defence matters,” freely translated as: Defence is important.

Mrs. Grosemans, I notice that you are already moving to the substantive discussion. However, you also said something about how the resolution was made. You also referred to sp.a. Since you also enter into the methodology, I would like to repeat here what I have already said three times in the committee.

I deeply regret that the majority parties have not at any time accepted the hand the Ecolo-Green Group has handed out to come together to a consensus resolution, with a common share and choices that could be anchored for the next five to ten years, so that the vision on Defence can exceed the term of one legislature. That is important. After all, if we make choices and make purchases, then the purchase period from decision on order to delivery takes approximately four to five years.

Defence needs long-term security. That certainty can only be provided if all parties work together and see where the lowest common denominator lies. Per ⁇ that would produce a very concise resolution; it can. Per ⁇ it is, for example, the recommendation to the government, due to regional employment, to ⁇ retain one barracks per province. Per ⁇ it is also about the emphasis on the navy, because we are already far behind in the Benelux. We could say with all parties that we want to preserve and accentuate that.

You have chosen a different path, a path that consists in giving the government a blank check, by not making any choice, but also by making it pure a game of majority versus opposition, and that’s just what the military doesn’t need.

Mr. De Friend, what you say is absolutely not true. At no time has there been an outstretched hand of Ecolo-Green. It is just the opposite! We went to your group with our resolution proposal to ask if you could find yourself in it.

The [...]

Mr. Yüksel has asked you for this. Have you been in contact with Mr. Yüksel? We have discussed this. At no moment have you said, yes, we want to go for that.

Mr. De Vriendt, it is already so difficult between the left parties. Even sp.a and the PS refused to sign each other’s draft resolutions. The CDH also tried to submit a proposal for a resolution, too late, because they did not know who they would join. We have really reached your hand.

Colleague De Vriendt, you will remember that I was one of the first in the committee to say that we should strive for a house-wide resolution. Before the Crocus Recession, I said that the topic goes beyond the legislature, because it is about the future of Defense in 10, 15, 20 years and I called for cooperation for that. I have talked about this with you too. However, we found that, without any real talks, proposals for resolutions were submitted by sp.a and by the PS.

If that happens, what do you expect from us? I have always been in contact with you. However, I have never seen you take concrete steps to reach a general proposal for a resolution.

Mr Grosemans, I deeply regret the way you are starting this debate on this extremely important and worrying topic.

You are the president of this committee. These hearings were the focus of the committee’s meetings for six months. We have done important work on it. You have invited prominent personalities and you have done well. I have congratulated you in this regard.

We received all the staff, ambassadors, in fact, all those who count on defence in Belgium and neighboring countries. Nevertheless, you begin this debate by accusing one another, creating polemics, while you should rather give us your vision of the defence of tomorrow, the reason why Belgium must contribute to international security, the reason why it is so important that we find budgetary means and human resources to be able to ensure the defence of our country. This should be your concern, Mrs Grosemans, rather than sparking unnecessary and futile controversy over this fundamental issue!

Mr. Speaker, apparently it is more important for the opposition to immediately play political games and take the procedural step rather than conduct the substantive debate. Apparently, the opposition does not have sufficient substantive arguments to attack us, and therefore it only chooses the procedure, the argument that it was not addressed, and so on.

I think we all benefit from a room-wide resolution. Indeed, a long exchange of views took place and extensive hearings were organized. It was agreed to examine the possibility of submitting a document together with all political groups. However, if after a week and a half that agreement is violated by two groups, the PS and the sp.a — not the least therefore — who submit a resolution, why should the majority wait to jointly submit a document? It is true that Ecolo-Groen has not submitted a resolution, but if the other groups do, the majority must take responsibility.

Finally, I would like to note that the majority demonstrated goodwill during the debate yesterday by approving a number of amendments, which demonstrates transparency and openness to the opposition.

Mrs Grosemans, I would like to speak to you as the chairman of the committee, but also as a member of the majority that puts this resolution here.

I would like to add something to what my colleagues have just said.

The committee has six months to carry out thorough preparatory work on the future of the army, for the next ten to twenty years. In this context, many experts were heard and, as Mr. Dallemagne just did, we also thank you, Mrs. Speaker of the Commission, for the good functioning of the committee.

However, the desired result remained. First of all, I would like to point out the agreements made. The committee agreed that resolutions should be submitted by 4 March. During the last committee meeting, before 4 March, the resolutions of the majority were still recalled, since they had not yet been submitted. Then you literally answered: “We have not yet found the time to come together with the majority of all to complete the resolution.”

As for your speech and the text you just put forward, I think you are in government with more than four parties. Is it a resolution of four parties or all of them?

Finally, I didn’t hear your defense of the majority resolution, but you immediately started looking for the polemic and taking the other resolutions on the grain. I would like to hear your resolution and its content. This is the work of Parliament.

Mr Buysrogge, maybe you can read the report from the beginning of this discussion again. You shoot here out of your shell and you blame the opposition that it begins on the methodology and the various resolutions. Mr Buysrogge, it is enough to read the report once and then you will see that it was actually Mrs. Grosemans who started her presentation. A little intellectual honesty might...

That is perfectly normal and logical.

I understand that you, as the chairman of the Committee on the Defence of the Land, are extremely bored with the fact that you are choosing here for a pure party-political game of majority versus opposition, which Defence will bring nothing. I understand that you feel ashamed of the meaningless work you have done here, but that is not yet a reason to interrupt us, if we want to point out that.

Mr. Yüksel, at the beginning of the hearings, I called on behalf of Ecolo-Groen to work together to reach a consensus resolution, in the interest of Defense and in the interest of the long term, so that we do not have to restart the whole matter and make other decisions, if the next government is composed in a different way. This can also be read in the report.

What then happened? We found each other, in the walkways, I addressed you and you seemed to want to take a step in our direction. I have continued to address you, but I have not seen a single draft text that we could bow together. I have also not received any email from any majority group, with an invitation to sit together. If you deny that, Mrs. Grosemans, then I challenge you to show me that invitation. We handed out our hand, but you never accepted that hand. If you deny it, please show me the mail or the SMS message. You will not be able to. So I would like to ask you very formally to withdraw your words.

Mr. Yüksel, we did not see any text or invitation before the plenary session last week.

When the text of the majority resolution was considered last week, you came to me, in the corridor behind us, with a copy of the text, Mr. Yüksel. You said that text was what you could ⁇ in the majority. But well, now, as always, we can conduct the discussion on the basis of a text of the majority and a couple of texts of the opposition. This is very unfortunate and a missed opportunity. That nobody tells it here otherwise it is a flat lie.

First, I am going to the procedure. There were three proposals of resolutions on the table in the committee. Then it is very common to take one of those proposals as a basic text. Discussions are always possible. We have also allowed them. Everyone was able to speak extensively, from 10 o’clock in the morning to 15 o’clock in the afternoon. Therefore, we have not made the opposition mouth-dead. We followed a very correct and very normal procedure.

I can respond here in advance to the content of our proposal for a resolution, but I can also respond to the many attacks we suffered on Tuesday in the committee. It is my right to get involved in this too. The controversy was mainly raised by the opposition. In the past, we have also conducted opposition, but it has always been constructive. Now, however, we have seen other steels.

As for the achievement of a consensus, I can say that I have not seen a hand out of you, no mail or SMS. I throw the ball back: show your SMS or mail. You have just acknowledged that Mr Yüksel has come to you with a request to support the draft resolution. The hand that was handed out came from our side.

Mr Yüksel did not come to us with the request to support the motion for a resolution. He came to us when the draft resolution had already been considered, last week. Put the dots on the i and don’t tell any other things that aren’t right, Mrs. Grosemans.

Go ahead, Mrs. Grosemans.

In December 2013, the European Summit of Heads of State and Government declared: “Defence matters”. Freely translated means: Defence is important. For the N-VA and for our majority partners, Defense is therefore important for the survival of our society and civilization, based on universal values and freedom. Therefore, after having listened extensively to representatives of different sectors of society, we have formulated a number of recommendations to the Government in the proposed draft resolution.

We are convinced that it will be an additional impetus for our government to draw out the defense that our country needs in the future.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, now almost two years ago, my colleague Lacroix was here to present the resolution of my group on the Europe of defence. He then rejoiced that a large majority would adopt this ambitious and unambiguous text, which had also inspired other national parliaments subsequently. If the European army does not yet exist, we can feel the wind turning, opinions changing or reflexes taking place: European anti-piracy force in the Horn of Africa, European training missions for African forces or the convocation of a European Council in 2013 dedicated to defence issues.

Two years later, I can no longer share the enthusiasm of my colleague. The new majority did not take the flame back, but on the contrary! Today we are forced to vote on a majority text that is a real white paper. This is not a framework, but a white-seed given to the Minister of Defense for the drafting of his strategic plan. A minister who, on the other hand, will not have the budget resources for his ambitions. As evidence, his strategic plan is late to be drafted, so the budget cuts imposed on his department by this government are enormous. In the face of more than 1.7 billion savings, there are investment currents close to absolute zero and it is not the 100 million released during the budget conclave that will be healthy, whatever some say. There will still be 1.6 billion euros to be found by the end of the legislature.

This text is deeply disturbing, both in form and in substance. On the form, there are seven pages, no considerant, eleven empty requests and a single commission led to the cravache by a president, who is also the first author of this text – look for the error and above all the objectivity that normally should be in such a position – to discuss a text that could have been capital for our army. This is what clearly summarizes the vision of Defense for the majority groups.

The text of my group and the sp.a of my colleagues Top and Van der Maelen have simply been swept away from the back of the hand. However, our texts had clearly the priority because we had respected the filing deadlines required by the chairman of the committee for this debate.

All the questions of the opposition on the system of the majority remained unanswered, the authors do not hesitate to acknowledge themselves, and I invite you to read the report of the commission, that they had no concrete example or any precision to bring us on points yet capital such as outsourcing.

A week between consideration of this text and voting today in the plenary, this shows the will of this MR-N-VA majority – and I still remember the true declaration of love of our colleague Mr. Denis Ducarme to the N-VA in commission, we would have believed in the American series The Love Boat, in French The Cruise is fun, and this is the case to say it concerning our frigates – to cut off any substantive debate, to avoid embarrassing questions while every day, the press makes the relay of leaks very ⁇ organized on the future strategic plan of Mr. The Minister .

By voting for the emergency last week, you simply deprived our assembly of its right and duty to question and reflect. You also despised the speakers of our hearings, who, however, were rich and who clearly pointed out the difficulties of all components of our army.

This urgency was not justified. It was not justified in view of the timing of Mr. The Minister . In fact, he announced in mid-February that he would present before Easter only the main lines of his strategic plan, asking for the government's agreement on them. In fact, he admitted that it was, in particular due to the savings imposed on Defense (225 million euros this year, up to 400 million at the end of the legislature in 2019), it was impossible for him to draw up a definitive plan in six months, as however provided in the government agreement. The minister then plans to ask the federal government to agree on the general principles of its strategic plan before the parliamentary holidays, and then present a implementation plan by September. The first implementation measures would result in their entry into force at the beginning of next year, namely 1 January 2016.

So where was this urgency, my dear colleagues of the majority? It is urgent to propose an empty text. This government, we are told, has made the fight against social fraud and tax fraud two of its priorities. I propose to add a third one: the fight against intellectual fraud. Our Parliament could, by rejecting the so-called text, put this priority into practice; for if one decided to put to the fine this draft resolution, the money would flow in flows into the state treasures, so great is within it the number of euphemisms, litotes and oratory contradictions – in short, a text of an extreme intellectual poverty.

Mr Pirlot, I appreciate you very much, but you must know what you want. The Minister goes to the Government with his draft strategic vision note. Do you want us to come with the recommendations, with this resolution, after Easter? Is that what you suggest?

Since there is nothing in the text, we could very well wait, after Easter, to begin a deeper discussion. But it will not be too late, since your text is empty. Therefore, we have all the time to refine it.

Now let’s get to the bottom and position of my group on this future strategic plan. It is good to speak a little deeper instead of limiting ourselves to criticism and waiting for this plan, which is somewhat announced as the Child Jesus or as the New Testament. The PS decided to engage in an energetic work in the field of defence, while organising thematic conferences as well as meetings with personalities from the academic world or trade unions. He also drafted a real alternative strategic plan, in addition to the joint resolution proposal that is submitted to you today.

The development of a strategic plan for 2015-2030 was necessary. Indeed, the 2000-2015 plan of Minister Flahaut has come to an end, and no direction has been taken by the former or current Minister of Defense. I confess that I do not know very well who performs this function given the many statements of Mr. Crem in the press. The new plan should develop armed forces adjusting the ambitions to the new realities of Belgium, Europe and the world – cybersecurity, fight against terrorism, etc. human and budgetary resources.

In general, our country’s ambition must be to remain an ambitious player in building a true Defence Europe in harmony and synergy with our participation in NATO. In fact, the numbers and facts must inspire us to reflect deeply in the context of a world that has changed, of U.S. military priorities that have evolved, or of changing battlefields. We can only regret that with 1.6 million men and women under arms and a budget of more than 190 billion euros, the European Union continues to be an economic giant, but a real diplomatic-military dwarf on a global scale. While this reality imposes courageous strategic choices, our level of ambition is to keep Belgium among the European states that count in international diplomatic relations and in peacekeeping missions.

This situation has only lasted too long. It is impossible for an average country, such as Belgium, to provide itself with the full range of military capabilities. Therefore, we must focus on developing targeted military capabilities but consistent with our European and international missions and commitments.

Parallel to the Belgian level, it remains indispensable to seek a greater interdepartmental cooperation within the state. Defence must promote transversality in order to highlight possible synergies, since many missions and tasks assigned to Defence directly affect other departments (SPF Interior, Economy, Public Health, Employment) and of course civil authorities.

Without fixing quotas on the number of Belgian military personnel to maintain in operation, the operational capacity of our army is truly the priority. This priority must be based on our country’s European volunteerism but also on a Defense that highlights human resources and training as a priority. This presence in operation will need to fully involve Parliament in a transparent process. If I invite you, of course, to read our contribution, I would like to list for you our five transversal priorities for the Strategic Plan 2015-2030.

1 of 1. An effective Defence Europe on the operational, diplomatic, training and industrial levels, which will be imperatively taken into account in the major investments to be made during the referred period.

2 of 2. A proactive aid to the Nation in Belgium, Europe and around the world, B-FAST, EU-FAST, in synergy with other SPFs, a rapprochement in particular with civil protection.

3 of 3. A defence operationality that must clearly define its missions and its added value within the framework of UN missions, the Common Security and Defence Policy and NATO within a clearly defined international framework (UN resolution, respect for international and humanitarian law, parliamentary follow-up).

4 of 4. A training and maximum limitation of the outsourcing of services and expertise within the army that should be a dynamic player of training, both for technical professions and through the ERM.

5 of 5. Finally, a work of memory, through the historical pole and the reform of the IV-INIG.

In the face of these five priorities, I would now like to develop several points.

1 of 1. The link between NATO and the European Union.

For us, the voice and positions of the European Union must be strengthened within NATO, whose role has also changed and evolved, in particular in light of the changing international context.

The place of our country in NATO is obviously by no means challenged by a call for a stronger and more community-based Europe of defence. This link with NATO could also be ensured, inter alia, by the European Defence Agency and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, as well as through an enhanced EU-NATO partnership.

At the international level, Belgium will need to continue and strengthen its commitment to a defence Europe, in order to enable the emergence of a real European strategy emancipated from NATO’s single strategy. Likewise, our country will have to make full use of its voice within NATO in order to fight for nuclear disarmament in the framework of multilateral negotiations, in particular to liberate our territory from any presence of nuclear weapons; that is the meaning of the amendment of my colleague Stéphane Crusnière, adopted in the Foreign Affairs Committee last week on the text of the majority on the NPT.

The strategic plan should, I think, incorporate all of these aspects. It would not be, but ⁇ it is too much to ask, but of a coherence of our assembly.

2nd The European Defence Industry.

As a key aspect for the future of our Defence and the future strategic plan facing the potential replacement of several major equipment, we demand a real ambition of consolidating the industrial and technological base of European Defence, creating jobs and rich with innovative know-how. It is around this industrial tool, preserved and strengthened by the European Network of Defence SMEs, that the Defence Europe will need to be reactivated, with the European partners who will, using synergies between research and development, both civilian and military.

Furthermore, this cooperation must also continue to encourage the joint purchase of European military equipment and thus further promote a common basis for training of military personnel at European level and the full compatibility of the equipment that is currently lacking. We should not, I believe, miss the European train and undermine this dynamic and all the potential positive impacts for the Belgian and European industries. I think of course of the Musis project, for example, and of the long-term replacement of major equipment, or of the possible exceptions to be defended in the context of the debate on the negotiating mandates for the future free trade agreement between the EU and the United States.

It is also a matter of focusing on the benefits that such cooperation can have for jobs, growth, innovation and industrial competitiveness in the European Union, but also for our technological and strategic independence, which would not allow, a priori, the purchase of the F-35, the aircraft with 362 potential failures, for example.

By the way, I welcome the majority vote in favour of an opposition amendment on the need to prioritize European industrial impacts, which is not the case with the F-35. It would be inconceivable, for my group, that the strategic plan foresees nothing on the European industrial level and does not highlight such a European preference.

Three The human aspects.

Of course, a strategic plan is simply not conceivable without a genuine consideration of human resource management, fully involving the social partners. In this context, the PS’s vision is clear: we want to develop a version tailored to the realities of the army – the existing Erasmus and Bologna programmes between the European civilian universities, in order to foster collaboration, gateways, common skills and languages among young European military personnel – but also the establishment of a genuine common training base fostering exchanges and compatibility, in particular in operations under the auspices of the Common Defence Security Policy or NATO.

This strategic plan will also have to address difficult issues such as language balance, the future of the EVMI and BDL statutes, but also the possibility of facilitated gateways to other departments of the state. A qualitative and quantitative recruitment policy is indispensable to ensure the operational character of the units. A proactive policy, closest to the employment basins of our country, is therefore necessary, taking full account of the fight against all discrimination.

The medical and psychosocial support of the staff is ⁇ crucial during and after operations. And families also need to be able to count on serious and socially appropriate support. Of course, we will pay special attention to these issues.

4 is Aid to the Nation and International Solidarity.

Defense is capable of performing many tasks within the nation, the population, or the international community. For my group, it is necessary that the strategic plan fully takes into account the considerable added value that Defense represents in terms of the so-called missions of aid to the Nation, as the Queen Astrid Military Hospital, for example, proves every day. These tasks must remain free of charge and be ensured by public authorities.

The Defence tasks should strengthen the army-nation link and highlight the solidarity expressed by Belgium on the Belgian, European and international levels by further developing B-FAST, EU-FAST and a rapprochement with civil protection.

Defence must also demonstrate its commitment to democratic values and the development of citizenship, including through memory work, which is a full and complete competence of our army. The ORM also has a crucial role to play, especially in terms of social elevator.

5 is and diplomacy .

I could not finish our vision of defence without insisting that the strategic plan must fully consider the military as part of a global solution, a 3D solution, largely absent from the strategy of this government, especially in Iraq.

For the PS Group, the use of defence capabilities must always be seen as an element of a comprehensive conflict resolution solution. The use of force must be made in the last place and is always a failure for diplomacy and multilateralism. While this use of force may be necessary in the short term to help populations defend values, such as human rights or democracy, in the long term, only political-diplomatic and socio-economic solutions can be the solutions for sustainable pacification.

In this context, the Defense must continue to provide constructive solutions, ⁇ through the empowerment of local forces, such as in the DRC or in Mali or as was the case with the demining missions in Lebanon, which I regret abandoning.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my dear colleagues, now that I have discussed our vision, we can ⁇ not be accused of not being constructive. Let’s go to the white page, proposed today for urgent vote by the majority! I really hope that at the end of this exhibition you will reserve me a thunder of applause, because it is a difficult exercise than analyzing the nothing.

Indeed, in my life as a parliamentary, I have never seen a text so bad and so meaningless. Overall, this text completely departs from the vision of modern, European Belgian Defence and the service of the population that we developed in our text and in our strategic orientations that I have just presented to you.

While, unlike most, we do not have a cabinet, we have done a much more thorough and comprehensive work. In the developments, it is interesting to note that there is not much talk about investment. Remember, this majority has put all the courses on this subject to zero. We are therefore facing a budget not of rationalization but of mass destruction.

We have been strongly opposed to this budget during all the debates. This budget does not meet the ambitions, even extremely low, of the majority’s resolution. Indeed, this budget directly threatens, as of 2015, the essential missions of our national defense, which must now be content to survive. Furthermore, we learned from the press, ⁇ much better informed than our parliament, that a confidential report from the staff states that the announced savings could no longer allow the army to pay its debts. This would result in a deficit of €80 million next year, which could rise to €213 million in 2019.

In an interview with L'Echo, the minister himself said that with the budget level in 2018-2019, Belgium will no longer be able to meet its obligations to its international partners. This will no longer be enough! How, in this context, do we not reduce the level of ambition, as mentioned on page 4 of the developments of the majority text? Sure, the adjustment grants – and one of my colleagues in the majority overwhelmed it – 100 million more for Defence. But in the face of a dark cut of 1.7 billion, what are you going to do with that sum since there are still 1.6 billion to be found?

I hear the response of Mr. Ducarme, for whom I have a lot of appreciation, pseudo figures in support, saying that the previous government had asked the Defense to make efforts like all other departments. But, as a reminder, this budget then enabled the realization of 83% of the investment plan approved in 2012. In the configuration at the time, neither staff nor training nor even operations were affected because it was the core business of our Defense.

Should I recall what the hearings revealed about the abyssal lack of military intelligence funds, training or investments under the current government? It is true that it will be easy for it to reach a 100% realization rate of the planned investments since there is none!

Furthermore, this text makes no clear choice as developments talk about operability in the air, on land and at sea. More shockingly, developments systematically induce the idea of a choice between the common European security and defense policy and NATO, using "or" on each line. Paradoxically, no, for parties that supported our defence Europe resolution during the previous legislature?

Then, of course, the text takes a security approach. It is far from seeing Defence as a vector of humanitarian aid, international solidarity, part of a global solution or aid to the Nation, since we speak of a resurgence of terrorist groups in neighboring countries as well as on its territory.

by Mr. Ducarme, with whom I occasionally have somewhat virile political confrontations – but that is all the charm of democracy – demands an army that returns to its essential missions. But which ones are correct? Is being on the street one of them?

Once the weak developments are digested, in the device, the text immediately begins by speaking of a Defense that remains a reliable partner of NATO and speaks of the UN-NATO or European Union context. For us, this is unacceptable, because all these levels are complementary and additive.

With regard to request 4, for us, the mission of aid to the Nation and international solidarity must be as important as combat missions, as the Ebola crisis has demonstrated.

As for request 5, although we welcome the space left for social dialogue, we oppose outsourcing which must always be the last resort. To note, the complete inability of majority authors, during committee discussions, to specifically determine the tasks and tasks that could be outsourced in the future. It is worrying.

As for request 8, let us recall that we are not in a Euro-Atlantic Europe of security, but rather a Europe that speaks as much as possible with one voice within NATO. In the current context, how can the majority want to revive the partnership between NATO and Russia?

Then, and it is also on our agenda today, how can the MR support the request 10 on recommendations on linguistic balance, while at the same time it rejected our bill implementing one of these recommendations of activating a follow-up working group. Will you change your mind again?

Last but not least, the 11th request is ⁇ the most shocking for me. It is about strengthening the army-nation link through different types of action that value the image of the army. At the level of the PS group, we do not want an army that acts for its image, but rather for peace and help to the populations in both war and disaster situations.

The best way to guarantee a good image of our army is to show an army that is open to the world and that comes in aid to the peoples, an army that helps to maintain peace and our values of human rights. Now, in this text, we do not find a word about the Royal Military Hospital, Aid to the Nation, B-FAST, EU-FAST; and that is the most disturbing.

I was talking to you in the empty hour. Even empty, this text worries me, despite the rich hearings we have had and that have served nothing.

Nothing about staff - the future of BDL status, Erasmus, Military Bologna, gender equality, fight against discrimination, attraction of EVMI status, openness to youth.

Nothing about international and humanitarian law.

Nothing about the Royal Military School.

Nothing about Memorial Work (IV-INIG) or the Royal Army Museum as we celebrate this year the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II and we are still in the commemorations of the Great War.

Finally, nothing ambitious about the Defense Europe, not even a reminder of the PS resolution adopted during the previous legislature.

Nothing operational at the European level (European Staff, etc.)

Nothing about missions of aid to the nation or of international solidarity.

Nothing about parliamentary involvement, completely ignored by the current government.

In the face of such a void, you will have understood, my colleagues, my group can only forcefully confirm its vote against this majority resolution. The PS group has, indeed, too much conviction for a modern Belgian army, reformed within the framework of a European Union as a major player on an international scale, to support what is subject to our vote.

At the moment, I do not comment on the text submitted by the majority. First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. Pirlot for his interest in the military. This is not common because within the Socialist Party there is a tradition of broken rifles.

Furthermore, he strongly and virulently denounced the fact that the text of the majority is empty and so I listened to it carefully.

What I take from your speech, Mr. Pirlot, is a journey between an army of operettes to the Grand Duchess of Gerolstein and Woodstock, peace and love. I have not heard anything concrete. Therefore, I don’t understand what you blame the majority, which proposes a whole series of very precise elements – and it’s not about writing a detailed Bible.

Mr Fleming, you are wrong. I really invite you to read the draft resolution carefully and, above all, to understand it. You will see that it is completely different.

I hear you make a lot of criticism. You say that a lot of things don’t work. I have to give you wrong in that. For example, you say that there is nothing about diversity. That is not true. There was also explicitly adopted an amendment in which we talk about gender and diversity aspects. You say that there is nothing about youth and influx, but that is also not true: in Article 5 there is an effective discussion of the necessary influx of young people and the measures to be taken to do so.

Before you say that something is wrong, I would like to ask you to read the resolution thoroughly first and then criticise.

It is not a matter of generalization. You are talking about youth, I am talking about youth. I do not see any project in terms of revaluing the status of young people. These are just empty terms.

I end it. All that the text of the majority delivered by the N-VA, with the active complicity of the MR, offers us is a parliamentary white-seing to an amputed defence budget of 1.6 billion euros – and this, even before presenting any strategic plan. But, after all, and that will be my conclusion, as the proverb says: "In the kingdom of the blind, the blind are kings!"

The opposition is already agitating. We have had very interesting and very intense hearings in the committee, in January and February. We have listened carefully to the input of academics, experts, representatives of the various components of the army, trade unions and civil society organisations. The resolution that presents is a synthesis of the main points, the main concerns that have been cited.

With regard to the future of Defence, it is essential for my party that we can fulfill our international commitments. Belgium has always been a reliable partner within NATO and wants to remain so in the future. We are internationally highly appreciated and respected for our efforts, such as the operation in Libya, such as the demining operation in Lebanon, such as our support in Afghanistan and recently also our interventions in Iraq. A military operation should always be a last resort, a last resort. It must always be done in an international framework and with an international mandate. We refer to the EU, NATO and especially the United Nations. For my group, it is therefore incredibly important that this is seen in that context.

Defense must be flexible, dynamic and multi-useable. To remain a reliable partner, of course, the necessary investments must be followed. The main principle is pooling and sharing. This principle was, of course, taken as a starting point in the previous legislatures, under the former Minister of Defense Pieter De Crem and among previous governments.

Working together as much as possible is therefore actually the motto and that of course also means that we focus on specialisations. Pooling and sharing means, of course, specializing but also working cost-efficiently and going for more output. Colleagues, in these times of savings, this is more than necessary and is also a very responsible starting point.

Defence, like other departments, has an important task when it comes to budgetary. In recent years, under the former Minister of Defence, there have been significant cuts in Defence. In every budget control, Defence had to contribute and has always done so faithfully. So there was still a lot of space to save, but we all notice that the space to save is slowly increasing. And so, of course, the safety of the operations, with the capabilities, but also with the safety of our crews must be taken into account. Colleagues, we must not compromise the operations and the safety of our boys and girls.

I come to the point of the staff. We all expect that there will be an increasing wave of personnel within Defence in the coming years. We will also face a certain demotivation, which is shown at least by studies.

Under the previous government, many adjustments were made to the staff status to make a job in the army attractive. I think we need to work further on this, in this way we can attract young people to Defence. This resolution also calls for more attention to mobility.

It is about mobility within the army and mobility between Defence and the public sector and the private sector respectively.

Finally, I would like to pay attention to cyberspace. All international studies show that this is an important point. In terms of defence, cybersecurity needs to be invested more.

Our draft resolution contains a number of interesting proposals and suggestions with which we want to create a general framework. To say that this is a white sheet, that there is nothing in the text here, is a step too far. It is, by the way, also very denigrating to all who have held interesting presentations about our defense and its future. It is denigrating to anyone who has taken the time and comforted himself the effort to share his or her vision and suggestions with us.

I repeat what I have already said in the committee. Do not expect a 3Suissescatalogue. It is not the intention of the draft resolution to make all sorts of concrete suggestions to the Government and the Minister of Land Defense on the future of Defence. It is up to the Minister to include the points of the text in his draft of strategic vision note, which we may receive after the Easter vacation.

Mr. Yüksel, I have a question for you. You will agree with me that Parliament does not serve for double work. There is already the government agreement, there is the policy letter of the minister. These are documents with a vision, which are supported by the majority parties and the government.

Can you tell me in what areas the 11 points of your draft resolution add value to what already exists, in particular the government agreement and the Minister’s policy note?

Mr De Vriendt, you can put the government agreement and the draft resolution side by side and you will see what the added value is. I invite you to put the text next to the government agreement. The government agreement goes a long way and the proposed work is a complement to it.

You have apparently not listened well. We made a summary of what was said in the committee and we took into account the recommendations of the experts.

Mr. Yüksel, Mr. De Vriendt wants to intervene for a moment.

Mr Yüksel, I thank you for your very clarificing answer.

Mr. De Vriendt, read the government agreement and the draft resolution and then tell me which point is a repeat of the government agreement.

Mr. Speaker, that it is not a murmur in the margin, will be shown when the Minister comes out with his strategic vision note.

We urge you, Mr. Minister, to take the recommendations into account. We will, of course, watch it and come back to it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the majority resolution proposal is the result of a number of very interesting hearings, where the academic world, civil society, industry, international partners and a delegation of the military staff explained their vision of the future of the military.

The present text is not the policy note of a minister. It is also not the upcoming note that the minister will submit to the government after Easter. No, it contains a number of guidelines, some of which are included in the government agreement, and some that were suggested during the many hearings on the future of the army.

What did we all learn from these hearings? Well, I remembered that the army chief is definitely ready to reorganize. He calls for a stable long-term budgetary framework, no matter how small or large the annual amount may be. The army base is large and must be drastically reduced. Some call that in the hearings the waterhead. There is also a need for a flexible, multifunctional and rapidly deployable army, which is also relevant. Necessary investment in materials is pressing, so that the output, which is delivered today, remains equally efficient. We have also learned that now is the time to make decisions and implement them.

The Belgian Defense should remain a relevant partner, relevant to our neighbors, in the EU, in NATO and above all for all inhabitants of our country. That relevance, dear colleagues, according to our party, is not determined by the amount of the amount given annually to defence. No, that relevance is determined by the way the available budget is used efficiently. Doing less, but better, cutting to grow, this is our vision on the different sections of government and ⁇ on Defense.

The difficult budgetary circumstances force us to think about some essential choices. If we continue to murmur in the margins and continue to handle the cheesecake on the left and right, then the army will become unlivable in the long run.

Instead, let us go for a well-thoughtful reform. Should we not dare to say that the Belgian army of the future should excel in specialisations? The Belgian army will always operate in cooperation with international partners within the European Union and NATO.

Let us choose an army that is not only a reliable partner, but also a real added value for our allies and for the people of our country.

The Belgian contribution to international operations has always been very positively welcomed by our international partners. I talked about the good output. Our activities in Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon, Mali and recently Iraq are clear examples of this.

This can remain the case if we find the right balance in the spending between personnel, working resources and investments. Only then will we be able to smartly invest in a specialized army that resolutely adheres to a European defence strategy. In that European strategy, we will have to think and talk about issues such as sovereignty and one command. This, however, is subordinate to the fact that in the future we can have a single European army, which can guarantee the physical integrity of all Belgians and all Europeans.

The Open Vld is satisfied with the present resolution and therefore fully supports it. It is an ambitious but sober text in the spirit of the government agreement.

Our group would like to briefly explain two elements of the resolution.

Point 3 of the resolution, which, by the way, is already included in the government agreement, proposes a military program law, to record and pay for the major investments in the next ten to fifteen years.

Paragraph 7 of the resolution proposes that the proceeds from the real estate, such as casernes and domains, which may be removed in the coming years, should be returned to the army in its entirety, in order to make investments with it.

Colleagues, these two points are, in our opinion, two proposals in which the Parliament can give a great sign of confidence to the Belgian army.

This resolution constitutes a link between the government agreement, the Parliament hearings and the strategic note that the Minister will soon explain to the Government and then to the Parliament.

We look forward to this note with impatience and expect an ambitious plan that will keep our military relevant for the coming decades.

Mr. President, Mr. Vandenput, you have spoken about the choices that Defence must make. Where are those choices in your resolution? I do not see them.

You have said that Defense can no longer handle the cheesecake. Ms. Rutten, your party chairman, by the way, has actually said the same, though in the media.

When it comes to bringing us, Members of Parliament, together in this Parliament on whether or not we should make choices, you are sorry. You give forfeit and lay down, with your beautiful rhetoric of choices, to a resolution consisting of eleven points, which gives the government a blanco cheque and which is largely copy-paste of all existing documents and already made decisions, the government agreement and the policy note.

I think it is not a good thing to make all kinds of beautiful statements in the media and on this tribune, but not to do your job in Parliament when it really matters.

Then, if I am not mistaken by Mrs. Grosemans, the following was said.

My friend, I expected this comment. You have made the same comment, in other words, also in the committee. I do not give a forfait. I am a football fan. They never give forfait.

I would like to explain for a moment what my Chairman has said and what is stated in the resolution, and what, by the way, is perfectly aligned with each other. Read the resolution carefully and you will notice that they have it over land, at sea and in the air. However, it is not stated that we must do all these things ourselves. I have already said, and this is also stated in the resolution, that there must be extensive cooperation.

It is completely beyond the issue that you proclaim that we defend something that we actually do not want to defend. It shows that you do not listen to your colleagues in Parliament and that you only want to do your own thing, your own destructive work. In addition, I have not seen any proposal for a resolution from you and your group. It’s always easy to stay on the side and comment on everything that isn’t good. You come here hanging the moralist or the pastor, but suggestions I have not heard yet. I am still waiting for the first proposal from Ecolo-Green.

Mr. Vandenput, now I am really insulted. Sometimes I feel like you don’t remember your own words. You said we have to make choices. Well, again, where are those choices in your resolution?

Your chairman has literally said on the radio, “Is it so meaningful to keep another and a land force, and an air force and a navy?” I do not think that a resolution serves to ask those questions too and to leave everything open. No, a resolution serves to make those choices effective, to make decisions itself, as Parliament, and to forward those decisions in the form of a recommendation to the Minister. Of course, you do not do that. In the committee you have, by the way, said yourself, Mr. Vandenput, and I quote: “This resolution does not make statements.”

What do you do in that committee, Mr. Vandenput? So why are you still working on the resolution, if it does not make statements?

If you quote me, please quote me in full. I said, “...do not make statements about how this should be done. It is up to the government.”

and excuse .

Mr. De Vriendt, it is not up to me to defend Open Vld and the statements of Mrs. Rutten.

The resolution states: “...to ensure that an efficient Defense, which remains a credible partner of NATO, can continue to carry out military operations in the air, on land and at sea.”

I want to translate this for you. The three components remain, unless you understand otherwise. So do not say that this note does not make a clear choice.

Mr Grosemans, you have spent more time speaking on the procedure and how the resolutions were made than on the content of the resolution itself.

We have not submitted a resolution. We did not do that very consciously. I have said that in the committee and it is also stated in the report. There is no point in submitting three or four resolutions on this.

What should have happened is to submit a single resolution with a number of consensus decisions that could be supported by both the majority and the opposition and that could go beyond the term of a legislature.

This is also the question of defence in politics. Politics has not met that question, at least not at this stage. We will see what the government’s strategic plan will bring. Then it will still be a strategic plan that is not supported by a resolution that was also approved by the opposition parties. That is regrettable. It is a missed opportunity.

You have just said, with respect to the SPAA, that in their resolution the emphasis is placed on helping the nation. It may all be so, and there are other things in that resolution, but they made at least a choice.

We can then debate all these choices, but if the resolution effectively states, Mr. Yüksel, that we will continue to do everything with our army, then of course there is no choice made and then one ignores the fact that the budgetary context of the army no longer allows it to continue doing everything, ⁇ not if one also takes into account the purchase of the fighter aircraft, which is also in the government agreement. It is the wish of this majority to spend 5 to 6 billion euros on heavy fighter aircraft, in a time when there are many other societal needs. CD&V is, by the way, the great forerunner of this, under the auspices of State Secretary Pieter De Crem.

With regard to those choices, the journal The Military Spectator has a very interesting article, which describes how the military arms race, we all know, during the Cold War was conducted in a highly coordinated manner, with agreements within NATO. After the Cold War, defense savings were made wildly, without coordination and without agreements between NATO member states or EU member states. This creates a rather chaotic situation on the ground today. Therefore, coordination at the international level is needed to see where Belgium should invest. I think that seems logical.

That certain countries are able to make these choices, I would like to illustrate with a few examples. Let’s look at the situation in Norway. Norway has 24,500 troops, more or less similar to the number of Belgian troops. Norway has chosen a very small land force and for the development of a navy and an air force.

They now have a smaller army than before, but modernly equipped. Therefore, a choice was made away from the land power to other components.

In 1991, New Zealand had 25,000 soldiers, now 8,500. They, like Belgium, have tried to sustain that baldness, with savings and cuts everywhere. They were able to do so until 1999 but then the budgetary was no longer going because one could actually no longer remain operational. It was then chosen to choose a land force deployable for foreign operations in the nearby region and a navy that is limited to its own economic zone. They therefore opted for the abolition of the air combat capacity. So they made very radical choices in New Zealand, Norway then idem.

Austria invests heavily in the land force with a dozen battalions and in peacekeeping operations with the land force abroad. They succeed in having 1,100 people abroad permanently in an army of 23,000 men. According to the information I have, that is the goal. They have an army that is capable of doing that. When you look at our ratio, it is, of course, completely different. We are able to be active in foreign operations this year with about three hundred people. This is hardly operational. If we do not make choices and continue to handle the cheese brewer, then that operationality will only be further compromised. Austria has also chosen to have an air force that is limited to air policing, so without heavy combat aircraft to start bombing.

Ireland has 8,900 troops specialized in light infantry. There is also a ratio of 1 to 10 for overseas. 850 soldiers are permanently ready to participate in operations. Furthermore, no fregates, no transport and a very limited air force. The Air Force is limited to air patrol, search and rescue and air support to the police. There are no combat aircraft.

Mr. Minister, what I want to show with this is that a country can perfectly make such profound choices. Countries with a similar scale could at any given time only make such a choice. Now don’t think that because of the 100 million euros extra that you have been able to mobilize in budget control, all the problems are off the job.

This is at most a postponement of execution. It really requires a vision.

As Parliament, we must be perfectly capable of making similar choices. Just then I suggested why we would not agree to choose, for example, from the need for regional employment, one large barracks per province. We will retain and further strengthen the naval cooperation we have ⁇ ined: this is a unique Benelux cooperation worldwide. We need to speak out about how we engage in major foreign conflicts. Is that in the front line, like the Americans and the British, with heavy combat aircraft going to bomb? Or is it in another way? Today we already have a number of specialties: special forces, demining, transport. These specialties can be further validated and expanded. That requires choices on paper, Mr. Vandenput.

Mr. Minister, you will soon come up with a strategic plan. I want to tell you clearly that afterwards you will have no more excuses. You will no longer be able to refer, as you do now, to the savings context, to the difficult budgetary situation for Defence, because the strategic plan will have to take this into account. Within one or two years you cannot repeat that we are in operational difficulties, that we can no longer replace a certain infrastructure, or that we need additional budget for the combat aircraft or for the fregates, because your strategic plan must take the current budgetary timeline and take it into account. If you want to maintain an operational, small, modern, efficient army, then I recommend that you make effective radical choices and permanently store the cheesecake in the drawer.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, let me express it in a proverb: but the mountain has given birth to a mouse. Per ⁇ my presentation will be as short, or as long as the majority’s resolution.

The majority decision does not really matter much. It has already been said here that it is a blanco cheque or a carte blanche for the minister and the army. Nevertheless, we consider it very important that Parliament continues to play an important role in such important discussions. In my opinion, the resolution shows ⁇ little respect for the expert speakers, who have given us their vision for the future of Defense for weeks. Moreover, it demonstrates ⁇ little ambition due to the majority factions, because temporary choices are made and because the matters described are not appointed.

I will illustrate this with two examples from the Commission. When asked what it meant with outsourcing what was not strictly military or with considering outsourcing certain tasks due to a shortage of personnel over five to ten years, no answer came. When we also asked which investments would be included in the military program bill, it remained silent again. However, in that same point 3 of the resolution it is stated that the majority – I quote – “wants to create stability and predictability”. This is not at all the case here. The majority do not dare to speak out.

Mr. Top, you say that we didn’t want to say anything about outsourcing, but we wrote that the minister may continue working on that mindset. Numerous speakers made suggestions during the hearings to assign non-core Defence tasks. Is it up to us to speak out about concrete tasks? I mean not.

I believe that the Parliament should provide a clear framework and that the Minister may continue to work with that framework.

Mr. Buysrogge, in a resolution proposals are made, which are not decisions, but at least encourage the vision that the minister must put forward, but if you only use those hollow words of outsourcing and outsourcing and do not formulate any suggestions yourself, that is bitterly little.

I even got the idea that the responsibility for helping the nation is pushed aside. That is unfortunate, because with the help of the nation, the military carries out missions within its own borders almost daily. After all, defense was established to protect the population. With the help of the nation, the soldiers also prove their usefulness to their own people.

I must also reiterate that there is very little consensus in the majority about the future of our Belgian army. Even – and this has already been cited here – gender and diversity could not be found. These issues are important and very relevant today. Fortunately, our amendment was approved.

We dare at least propose choices in our motion for a resolution. This is absolutely necessary given the challenges and budget constraints faced by our army. Mr. Van der Maelen will go deeper into this later when he explains our proposal.

Ladies and gentlemen, you understand where the shoe is knelting. We have been discussing the future of defence for months. Not only in the room, but especially with the staff. The concerns of the staff are huge. The lives and the future of many people are at stake. I therefore expected that the majority would have approached the text with much greater ambition, not only in terms of content but also in terms of timing. The majority’s resolution came a month late, after which it called for urgency.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me summarize the events of the past week. Thro ⁇ the week, there were several leaks that tried to push the policy in a certain direction. Then we got a resolution that is uncontrollable and in which no choices are made.

I think this is a dangerous combination. The Parliament is there to exercise strong parliamentary control, but also to determine the direction of the policy. This resolution is a missed opportunity.

Mr. Top, you constantly say that the majority did not find consensus and was divided. This is a majority resolution, so there was no division at all. The division was with the leftist parties.

You had a resolution ready very quickly and submitted it after a few days. Congratulations for that! But what I wonder is, did you ask the PS to sign it with it? If not, why not? If so, why didn’t the PM sign it? I would like to know why there was no consensus between the two socialist parties, the Flemish and the Wallonian.

First, our resolution, as you requested in the committee, was submitted by 4 March.

Secondly, we are not debating our resolution here; we are not debating the resolutions of the opposition but the resolution of the majority. The conclusions I draw here are about the content of your resolution, which has no value at all.

Is your resolution on the agenda? You put them on yourself, right?

We can talk about this later.

My question is why there is no consensus between the SP and the PS. This is a very clear question, right?

For the sake of clarity, each of us submitted a resolution and whether a consensus was reached or not could be discussed. For this, the opportunity is created. But in the committee, only your resolution was discussed. It has been pushed forward, and against the tradition in our resolution was not first addressed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Top, first of all, you are constantly talking about the fact that no choices are made in the resolution. Well, the resolution contains eleven concrete points to form a framework.

I also read your resolution, consisting of eight points. You would rather come to talk about your own resolution instead of constantly outlining here what is not in the present resolution and giving it your own interpretation.

Furthermore, regarding the timing is the question of why you had to submit your resolution on 4 February, while at some point it was announced that the strategic note would not come on Easter but much later. As a result, the agenda was shifted. So you must explain to me why, without seeking consensus and without consulting the opposition, you submitted a resolution.

Mr. Yüksel, for all clarity, I think you are mistaken of month. It was not February 4, 2015 but March 4, 2015. That was the arrangement.

It is not until 4 March 2015 or just after we asked the question where the other resolutions remained. After all, at that time there was still nothing and the agreement to shift the point was not yet made. It is only after our resolution, according to the agreements, was submitted that it was raised that your resolution was not ready and still had to be submitted. That was the explanation in the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to see you. We missed you in the committee.

Two days after our work in the committee, I read again on my bench the text of the resolution submitted by the majority. I listen to the comments and explanations of the authors. There is not much. It must be said. And once again I want to say, “All this for that!” All this work in committees, all these experts audited, these colloquiums organized by the minister himself to result in this result, to this resolution empty of meaning, laconic, without ambition, without a numbered objective, without a scoreboard and which therefore only enunciates vague generalities below even the note of general policy of the minister. Is this really what the majority sees as rigorous parliamentary work?

If the proposal presented by the majority today were to be adopted, we would not take the personalities we have heard seriously. We would not take our own work and our own role as parliament seriously.

I recall, as my colleagues have already done, that the National Defense Committee has led on this important, essential topic that is the future of Belgian external security and our contribution to international security, ⁇ three months of searched hearings. And at the end of its work, this committee produced a ⁇ dense report, hundreds of pages, in particular in order to formulate a real parliamentary contribution to the strategic plan that the minister must prepare.

In turn, experts, the heads of the State Security, the SGRS, the officials of NATO, the European Defence Agency, the General Staff in general, as well as other representatives of the Dutch General Staff, embassies, academics, military unions, the Belgian Security and Defence Industry, etc. were heard. The list is long.

In parallel to these hearings conducted by our committee, the Minister of Defense had also entrusted a group of experts, the Wise Pen, – ⁇ somewhat suspicious of the results of our work – with the task of drawing up a document answering the following questions. These were interesting and important questions. We could have found answers to this in our resolution. Does the Belgian society need a defence tool in 2030? This is an interesting question that you have asked this expert group.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the resolution on this issue, Mr. Minister. If yes, what should be the key tasks? The answers are vague, it must be said, in the resolution of the majority. Based on today’s reality, in what direction should the Belgian Defense evolve? And again, I must admit that there is not much in the majority resolution.

Nevertheless, the contributions and conclusions of this Wise Pen were presented and discussed before the majority resolution was deposited; so it could have been inspired by it. The work was extremely interesting; I participated in the discussion. There is nothing in this resolution.

So what will these experts, these academics, these ambassadors, our Defense Staff say about the conclusion and results of our parliamentary work? What will they think of the contribution of the Parliament to what I consider to be a major issue today? Because we cannot doubt, dear colleagues, the seriousness and urgency of the challenges and challenges facing the Belgian Defence. It is experiencing a profound existential crisis. All our interlocutors have said it. And if nothing changes, Defense will soon no longer be able to respond, with its partners, to the new and complex threats that weigh on our security.

On behalf of the CDH, I submitted eighteen amendments that would have allowed Parliament to have a more voluntary, more demanding, more precise text. But these were rejected by the majority, with the exception of a single amendment to strengthen our European industrial programs for military equipment. One amendment, all the others were rejected without even the slightest discussion!

Making this a real serious parliamentary work, my group, the CDH, but also other opposition parties – it must be emphasized – wanted to allow the majority, the Parliament, our commission, to present, nonetheless, a resolution that has content and ambition and that is a true specification of charges or, at least, a marked political vision, a path, a dashboard for the minister for the drafting of his strategic plan for the future of defence. Because it was exactly what we were asked for. We have seen that in fact, in an emergency, the majority wanted to file this resolution to mark the road of the minister, but in reality, once again, he presented a white page.

Therefore, I have decided to re-submit to the plenary session the amendments that I find most significant in order to once again give the majority the opportunity to reassemble itself and so that the Parliament can finally propose a strong, serious and precise text. These include proposing numbered measures in terms of redefining missions, identifying new threats, international partnerships, budgetary resources, investments, equipment renewal and human resource enhancement.

I would like to quickly highlight with you, dear colleagues, some of the elements that I consider important and that should have been included in this resolution. First of all, Defence must be part of an integrated approach to our external relations. I’m talking about the famous 3D vision: defense, diplomacy and development. It would have been useful to recall that in terms of external relations and international action, these three components must be able to articulate in order to contribute to a world that is safer, more equitable and centered on human development. I re-present this amendment in order to integrate Defence into this broader effort.

Similarly, one cannot design a foreign policy that is not supported by a credible Defense. The world has changed. Curiously, again, the resolution proposal presented by the majority speaks little about this evolution. The nature and intensity of the threats to the security of our country and the European Union and, more generally, to the international security prohibit from now on any further decline in our defence capacity. If we do not contribute to the stability and serenity of the world, we will have to subcontract this mission to other countries, which will do so according to their methods, with their agendas and their interests. They will pay for it politically. We cannot subcontract all of our missions and contributions in terms of international security, as we are increasingly doing today.

We believed, dear colleagues, that peace within the European Union would mechanically lead to peace in the environment of Europe. This turned out to be false. We have moved from a stable neighborhood to an unstable, even threatening neighborhood, both in the South, Southeast and East, with in particular these jihadist proto-states capable of conducting operations far from their borders and a Russia that – recognize it – has become more aggressive.

The European Union and Belgium must also be concerned with certain crises – which, again, are not included in the resolution – which may seem more distant, but which are equally important for the defence of peace, our values and our interests, such as instability and violence in Central Africa, tensions in the China Sea, security and freedom of navigation on international maritime routes, issues of not only nuclear proliferation but also of a whole range of other weapons, and issues related to the control of resources, including energy resources.

A resolution that would have been serious would have mentioned all these issues, these threats, these developments, because the ambition was to draw out the reasons why we must, tomorrow, contribute to international security.

The very nature of these conflicts and threats has changed. From now on, these conflicts are largely hybrid, asymmetric, transversal. They also mix state and non-state actors, terrorist groups, cyber attacks, indirect military interventions (proxi wars or suicide bombing). Nevertheless, the majority’s resolution is limited to mentioning only three threats, which weigh on the world’s security: the Islamist terrorist threat, cybersecurity and nuclear disarmament.

Of course, these are three major threats, but it would have been interesting to be able to explain, in a broader way, the challenges we are facing. There is nothing about Ukraine. This is extraordinary, though, when the Foreign Minister recently said in a committee that we are no longer in a situation of a Cold War, but of a “cold war.” He said this due to the ongoing attacks and offensives, even as our F-16s are participating in the protection of the airspace in the Baltic states. We wonder what our F-16s are doing there, since it doesn’t seem like a security issue. Nothing about Central Africa. Nothing about China’s rise in power. Nothing about increasing military budgets everywhere outside of Europe, that is, so many threats!

For more than twenty years now, budget constraints have continued to be imposed on the Belgian Defense, which has seen its budget and staff shrink every time faster than originally desired or planned. The defence was, therefore, what we rightly call this variable of budget adjustment. This has been very much the case under this government.

While all analysts, while the general staff at large, most politicians felt that it was no longer possible to further reduce defence budgets without directly threatening the very existence of a real Belgian army, the prospects under this government go, unfortunately, much further.

The reduction in appropriations is 20 percent over the legislature, or 1.7 billion, according to the Court of Auditors. Others, like mr Ducarme, tried to challenge it in the commission before yesterday, but this is the figure of the Court of Auditors. It illustrates our progressive failure to contribute to international defense and security.

Under this legislature, our budget spending will go from 0.66% of GDP to 0.5% of GDP. At the end of the parliamentary term, we will pay as much for the pensions of our former military personnel as for national defense spending. We must be aware of this situation.

We are far from the goals of Cardiff. I think Belgium would have been honoured to say that it would not be able to fulfill these – the objectives of last September’s NATO summit – instead of signing, when it knew it would not ⁇ that 2% GDP target. We are very far from that and we know that we will never reach that 2%. I think it would have been honorable to say that we ⁇ ’t reach them.

However, in the resolution, it would have been interesting to promote a stabilization of our defence spending. Nothing is said about it, absolutely nothing, not one single information. It is said that we will try to increase investments, but there is nothing about stabilization or potential growth. I have proposed, through an amendment, to devote 1% of our GDP to defence spending.

Mr Dallemagne, I would like to react to your intention of reaching the target of 0.6%. You have long talked about the things that should have been included in this resolution, namely the future professions and the possible specialization of the army. We do not care whether the military budget should be 2% or 0.6%; what matters to us is what it does!

If the 0.6% or 2% is spent on buying fighter bombers to replace the F-16, it is not for us! If they are devoted to demining, intelligence in Africa, cybersecurity, why not? Let us discuss! It is not about being a fetishist of the number, but a fetishist of the function!

You have already had the opportunity to develop this argument in commission, Mr. Hellings. This is not fetishism. It is about spending a minimum of resources on a major issue for Belgium. You often speak on cooperation issues, insisting on the fact that the 0.7% must be respected in this area. You are right, and I don’t consider you a fanatic.

When you have priorities, and personally I put Defense on the same foot as Cooperation because I think that they are two important instruments, we need to give a signal and the signal given today by the majority is negative. She does not talk about it in the resolution; she does not dare to address the subject. It was said earlier that the majority agreed, but in reality it agreed on a blank page. Again, on the budget, nothing is said. It is not said that we will stabilize the budget. Even that is not said! And even less that we will try to follow a growth path for defence.

Therefore, I think that in this area it would have been healthy to have a modest goal. I propose to devote 1% of GDP to international security issues. Once again, if we do not do it, others will do it in our place. It must be realized. With their agendas, their methods, their interests. I think we should have a minimum of ambition in this area.

I would also like to return to a hallucinating forgetting – and the term is weak! resolution of the majority.

Belgian Defence only makes sense if it is integrated into a genuine European defence. The very words "European defence" do not appear in the majority resolution. Nothing is! Not a word about that! It is as if we were alone, Belgium, wanting to ensure our security; but, everyone has said it, we know it, our defence only makes sense when integrated into a European defence.

You realize that you are drawing the next fifteen years of the Belgian Defence and that the words "European Defence" do not appear either in the developments or in the device of your resolution.

It is simply incredible! This is simply shocking to our European partners and all those who have a minimum interest in the future of our collective security.

However, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, launched an appeal on March 8, which could have been reversed. Today’s Europe does not necessarily distinguish itself by a series of extremely ambitious initiatives, it does not shoot all wood, but there was an important proposal. It could have been supported by Belgium, which is one of the founding countries of the European Union. There was no interest on the part of Belgium in this proposal! I find this absolutely hallucinating!

To support a European defence, since we are aware of the constraints that weigh on the European construction, the CDH proposed to establish a strategic convergence plan with all our neighbors. We have bilateral cooperations, we do what is called pooling and sharing with the Netherlands, with France, with Germany, with Luxembourg. We cooperate and work with all these neighboring countries.

Rather than calling for this convergence plan, which would be useful and important as a contribution to European defence, to try to build a defence effort with these founding countries of the European Union, the majority resolution ultimately cites only the Benelux. I fall to the ground! This was the entire battle of Mr. During the previous legislature, Ducarme was not to lock ourselves in this Benelux cooperation. Today, your resolution proposal speaks only about that! We’re not talking about France or Germany, we’re talking about the Benelux. I have nothing against a Benelux cooperation, on the contrary, but I simply note that it is difficult, that we do not necessarily have the same strategic visions, that we do not necessarily intervene on the same theatres of operations, that we have substantial divergences in some cases. We also have cooperation with France, where our pilots are trained.

We have cooperation on satellite programs with France as well as cooperation with Germany. You don’t say a word in your resolution. Mr. Ducarme, frankly, here too, it is a mistake that is no longer simply strategic but that is a major political mistake in relation to the future of our defence. You lock yourself in the only and only Benelux framework.

I would also like to return to another element that I think is extremely important for the future of our defence. During the previous legislature, the central point of the completion of the Defense Convergence Plan, which was presented by Pieter De Crem, was our international deployment capacity. It was our ability to have an expeditionary corps that could participate in international defence missions. He made it the main objective. The main mission was to be able to deploy 1,200 men. And there too, nothing. There is no will. We are not told what our international deployment capacity will be, what the minimum number of men we would be willing to deploy abroad. Nothing is said to our interlocutors or our partners who will read this resolution. There too, I proposed to label the resolution and to come with, again, a modest contribution. I propose that we make sure we have 1,000 men who can be deployed abroad. This is less than before. This is significantly less than a decade ago. This is actually a little more than what we do today. I suggest that, there too, we have a much clearer, much more marked and a little more voluntary proposal than what appears in the majority proposal today.

There are a whole series of other items that I have already had the opportunity to expose in commission. Of course, we must continue to specialize and modernize our army, but our interlocutors told us that we should not go too far in specializing our various military capabilities because we need to be able to continue to offer a service that can be integrated. We will need to find the means to continue to modernize our capacity on the air level, on the naval level, on the ground force level and on the medical component level, another total forgetfulness of the resolution.

There is nothing on the Medical Component, while it is a reference center that is recognized by NATO as well as by the European Union, in particular for the treatment of large burns. One could have had the ambition of being able to treat NBC wounded, in case of nuclear, bacteriological, chemical attack. We have a large hospital, we have recognised specialists. There is no mention even of this Medical Component in your resolution. I think, at the Military Hospital, they will see this as a real stroke in relation to their work.

But since it is about finding resources and we know that they are rare, I made a very concrete proposal in our resolution. Since it is about having investment in the field of defence (federal competence); since it is also about developing employment, ⁇ ining an industrial capacity in Belgium, developing a capacity in the field of research and development in the field of defence; and since it is also about associating the private sector in that field and thus recovering resources, both at the federal level and possibly at the level of industrial development, I proposed to create a fund.

By the way, one of the experts of Wise Pen had proposed to create a fund, as it exists in other countries, both public and private, both federal state and federal entities, with industrial development being today a competence largely dependent on federal entities. This fund would be able to find resources for national defense. Indeed, we know that we will not find all the necessary resources only in the federal budget, but that we must also go and look for them in the private, among others.

This proposal was on the table; it could be discussed, debated. I would have liked to have the opinion of my colleagues, to know what they thought about it. There was no reaction. We simply voted against this amendment, without any debate, while the suggestion was issued during the colloquium at the Royal Military School. I found that the proposal was clever, that we could find ways to invest in these large equipment that we need at the level of defence. It was rejected purely and simply, swept away. There were no comments from the majority of my colleagues.

We must also ensure that our military quarters can be distributed differently in our country. We know that we will not be able to keep all our military quarters.

But we attach great importance to some extremely important military bases: those of Florence or Bastogne. We also want a new military district in Hainaut, which represents a large pool of jobs.

We know that the military districts are a legacy from the Cold War and that they are all located in the north of the country. It was about drawing a line for a possible advance from Russia. There is no point in preserving their architecture, and we may not be able to maintain them all; we are aware of it. In any case, a fair distribution between the regions should be promoted. For memory work, and that’s why I quote Bastogne, it’s important to keep some of these sites.

In terms of human resources, the quality of the Belgian military is internationally recognized. And I would like to greet her here, because she is exemplary. That said, we are facing the challenge of ageing these human resources. We know that efforts are being made in this area. However, it would have been interesting to mark this area more accurately. Thus, since the average age of the military is 41 years and of the civilians 51 years, it would be wise, within ten years, to lower the average age of the military. That would have been a good indicator. I see that mr. The Defence Minister accepted. But that amendment was rejected. This would have enabled the human resources managers and the minister to see the direction to take.

It also raises the question of the attractiveness of the military profession. Others than me have talked about it. I have submitted a number of amendments in this regard, and I will not return to them.

Finally, I’m not making many illusions, because the majority might persist in their lack of ambition. If the European Parliament adopts a resolution without any amendments, it will abstain.

We could have expected, after we have been so harsh, that we would oppose it. But we are not opposed to emptiness, to nothingness. You are not stuck on an empty resolution; you go its way.

“Proposal for a resolution on the future of defence.” Mr. Speaker, when I read this resolution, I have the impression that the future of defence is the attack. This is not just a semantic question. What was the concept of defense? Defending a country was ensuring peace in that country; having enough military forces not to be attacked by other forces. It was a certain conception of defence, of peace. Here, we are very far away!

In your opinion, what is the missing word in this resolution?

The [...]

You are not there entirely. The word "NATO", you find it there almost in every sentence, or even in every line. On the other hand, a word surprisingly absent from this resolution is the word "peace". The word “peace” is absent.

Mr. Ducarme, since sometimes you are desperate to have to wait after the holidays to hear new qualifications for this government, I will please you. I think that if that is the line of conduct of this government, we can say that it is NATO’s larbin government, or NATO’s valet if you prefer, or NATO’s laquais, or NATO’s towels. Are you tired of it?

I still read, as point 1, that the goal is to remain a reliable partner of NATO, even to carry out military operations.

Mr. Van Hees, so much on your first point regarding peace, I can join you, so much on your second point, I will bring a few nuances. Indeed, when we are NATO’s red lantern in terms of military contributions, so red lantern that we could be picked up by the balai truck, because ultimately we are really the ones who contribute far the least – and that will obviously get worse – we cannot really say that we are NATO’s laquai.

Mr. Dallemagne, I learned from the press that the F-16s performed wonders in operations, to the point that one wondered why F-35s were indispensable. We asked ourselves the question. “Remaining a reliable partner of NATO, in order to carry out military operations in the air, land and sea,” is a certain conception of defense, but that actually comes closer to the attack.

What this resolution proposes is to continue in this direction. I thought that a resolution on the future of Defense was the dreamed opportunity to question the path that is being taken.

Take the case of one of our neighbors, who is ⁇ one of NATO’s best pupils, France. At one time, she wasn’t really a friend of NATO. In recent years alone, she has intervened in Chad in 2008, Afghanistan in 2009, Ivory Coast in 2010, Libya in 2011, Mali and the Central African Republic in 2012 and 2013, Iraq and the Middle East in 2014. Each year, there are one or more military interventions. Belgium has followed this movement with a little less urgency, of course, but we can quote the number of interventions from Belgium.

Has it created a better world? Just watch the situation!

The (...)

Ms. Onkelinx, international solidarity is not about military intervention and dropping bombs. This is what Belgium is doing today. We can see how much freedom has progressed given the situation in Afghanistan, in Libya! I quote MO magazine that mentions: “The war on terrorism is a shouting failure with a multiplication of terrorist foci since 2001.”

Mr. Van Hees, this is not the first time I hear the PTB speak on international issues. I hear a major, fundamental contradiction, which does not surprise me knowing what PTB is. When it comes to human rights in Belgium, on social rights, you climb the barricades for all these issues, but as soon as this happens outside our borders, as soon as other peoples are crushed, as soon as human rights are violated outside our borders, for the PTB it is: "Circulate, there is nothing to see and do not intervene!" (Applause from various banks)

I agree with the majority and the opposition. I am delighted.

Mr. Dallemagne, what NATO is doing everywhere in the world is not defending human rights, but on the contrary, violating them. That is what we oppose.

Mr. Van Hees, the operations of the Belgian military abroad are not NATO operations! Where are you going to look for that? These operations are either bilateral or multilateral, but they are not carried out within the framework of NATO. You are fantasizing!

Mr Delpérée, you properly know that this defence policy is run by the great powers. Sometimes this is done under the official cover of NATO, sometimes not. But it is always under the leadership of the great powers. Who are the major NATO countries? France, Germany and the United States.

You mix everything!

You are the one who blends everything. Take a good example, Syria. The Syrian regime, considered antidemocratic, had to be overthrown. What is quite surprising is that Saudi Arabia, for example, would be a perfectly democratic regime ... There is no problem there ... There are daily decapitations but there is no need to intervene! Why should we intervene in Syria and not in Saudi Arabia?

Because there are different interests in one country and the other. There are geopolitical interests, economic interests that play. On the one hand, they are our enemies and on the other, our allies. That is the difference!

You are right in criticizing some interventions, but do you reject from the outset any intervention of international solidarity when it comes to defending yourself, defending freedoms and defending yourself against terrorism? Yes or not?

Ms. Onkelinx, Assad had to be overthrown at all costs! I remember mr. Reynders said the Syrian regime had to be overthrown. Today it is even worse! Every time we intervene, the situation gets worse.

The [...]

I answer you clearly! No, we should not intervene because every time we intervene, the situation gets worse!

The [...]

The reality may bother you, Mrs. Onkelinx, but these are the facts. You can take every country, every time we intervene, it’s worse! We had to intervene at all costs in Syria and today there is a war that has killed 200,000 people and made 1 million refugees. It is the fighters in Syria who now justify putting the army on the streets.

What should Belgium do? Belgium should fundamentally change its direction. The problem with this resolution is not a lack of strategic vision, it is a bad strategic vision!

I will give you a few examples.

We could stop arms deliveries to countries like Saudi Arabia.

Instead of participating in military interventions, it would be better to specialize in peace and disarmament initiatives. Belgium has also been a model in the prohibition of fragmented ammunition. Take the example of Switzerland. Switzerland may not be an excellent model to follow in banking. Nevertheless, it has mediators in conflict and collaborates in international humanitarian aid.

We could also reform the army in the direction of a defensive, i.e. non-offensive army. I’m back to my first idea of organizing the defense and not the attack. Rather than developing research scenarios on how to finance fighter jets that know how to throw atomic bombs, one should rather think about how to develop a truly defensive army. What are the needs? What form should such an army take?

We must fight for zones free from nuclear weapons, fight against the nuclear danger. It is fundamental! What does the resolution say? He says one thing and his opposite in the same sentence. It is said that it is necessary to contribute to the development of a security architecture in Europe that works in the direction of nuclear disarmament and, this, in consultation with all allies within NATO. NATO, of which it is known that the nuclear option is fundamental, including in Belgium. I invite you to organize one day an expedition to Kleine-Brogel to see what is there as weapons.

This problem is also found in the replacement of the F-16. In our view, there is no need to replace the F-16. You can keep them very well. They are even judged as exemplary aircraft in Syria. So why does the government want to impose on us the F-35, even if it doesn’t say it clearly? Why does the army want to impose it on us? Because it is NATO that wants to impose it. What is the advantage of the F-35, besides ⁇ some unacceptable considerations? They can carry nuclear missiles. This is the reason for choosing this aircraft. Of course, we are totally opposed to this.

The PTB advocates the withdrawal of NATO: the withdrawal of Belgium from NATO and the withdrawal of NATO from the country. There are, indeed, a whole series of European countries – Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland – that are not members of NATO. If it is possible for them, why not for us? Does Belgium have such autonomy? Is follow-up so important to you that you can’t even imagine leaving NATO?

Finally, I think that soldiers in the streets, as it is today, is a rather serious antidemocratic drift. That we use soldiers to cope with certain natural disasters, for example in the event of flooding, I agree. But I fear that one day the soldiers will be put on the streets because they will be flooded with protesters. And that would be an unacceptable antidemocratic drift!

Mr. Van Hees, thank you, finally we were able to hear your group and your party’s position. It is a pity that this could not be done in the committee. You will not be able to confirm it, but the draft resolution does take into account the hearings of recent months.

I just want to clarify to the dear colleague that I have come several times to the Defence Committee. Then we are two for eleven permanent committees, not counting the special committees. So, apologize for not having the gift of ubiquity!

Mr. Van Hees, I thank you for clarifying your point of view.

I would like to reassure the colleague: at PTB, we will do everything to be much more numerous in the next election and in all committees.

Mr. Minister, during our hearings in January and February, we heard the confirmation that a trend break for Defence is needed. There were signals from NATO, expressed at the latest summit in Wales, or from the EU at the mouth of the EDA, the European Defence Agency. There are also signals from our population, interpreted by all sorts of media, academics, the business world, the social partners and many other channels.

What are the main characteristics of the trend break? The future is full of risks, which require a modern and versatile defense. Terrorism, failed states, cyber threats will continue to attract attention and set new demands on the defense apparatus of tomorrow.

The collective defense of Europe and its civilization remains a priority. Therefore, it will be necessary to re-invest in high-quality military capabilities. Therefore, the announced Strategic Plan and the Military Program Law are of fundamental importance.

In an initial period, a reorientation to the military nuclear tasks is crucial and a restoration of the balance in defence spending is appropriate.

It will be a difficult period that will have to result in choices in defence with effects for the people within Defence. Together with the social partners, this should be given adequate attention.

I would also like to address a word of gratitude from the speaker to all those who have passed the review in recent months: academics, allies, army top, trade unions. Everyone threw their light on Defense from their own experience and expertise. I can assure you that one message was already a little more rewarding than the other. One was more predictable than the other. All of them stressed the need to continue investing in Defense, now and in the future, for our safety, that of our children and of all our neighbors.

In the committee, some opposition members, like here, talked about a white sheet for Defence.

Dear colleagues, I call our resolution proposal not a white sheet, but a kakablad, with a future for Defence. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize a few elements that prove that the resolution is a full-fledged cake leaf.

First, we must remain a credible partner in NATO. We also want to work with all our allies. In terms of output, we have scored so far, somewhat surprisingly ⁇ , still very well. This was confirmed during the hearings. Our military is associated with efficiency, professionalism and quality. It must also remain so. This requires a coherent policy on input. The Military Program Law must answer this, Mr. Minister.

Second, we want military operations in the air, on the ground and on the sea, but not a far-reaching niche, but a sustainable and versatile defense, which focuses on military nuclear tasks.

Thirdly, our resolution has rightly given a great deal of attention to personnel policy, in particular to the necessary influx of young people, the aging, the statutes, the transition from the public office, outsourcing and social consultation. We also want to strive for a better balance between personnel expenditure and investment on the one hand, and operation on the other.

Fourth, an important focus is cybersecurity. In the world of the future, there will be increasing threats in this area. Belgium must be able to arm itself against it, both in our civil society and in Defence. The Cybersecurity Centre, which the government establishes, plays an important coordinating role. The Minister of National Defence has also recently stated that he wants to make this a top priority. I hope, Mr. Minister, and I expect that the strategic note can provide an answer to this.

Fifth, the pursuit of a European security architecture is also a focus for us. We believe in far-reaching integration and cooperation with the Netherlands. We also believe in cooperation with other allies, neighboring countries and beyond.

It must be our ambition to reach nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I agree. In the committee we received the complaint that this resolution does not deviate from the government agreement and I just heard that complaint. The opposite would be surprising, right? Of course, we use the government agreement as a guide. This will not surprise anyone. Per ⁇ it is surprising that the government agreement is so visionary and that the statements we heard in the hearings are a confirmation of the content of the government agreement.

Defense should also work within budgetary contours that are tight, ⁇ even too tight. As far as this financial aspect is concerned, the budget control of last weekend supports us hopefully.

On Tuesday, the House Committee approved the resolution. The committee also accepted a number of amendments from the opposition, specifically to pay extra attention, on the one hand, to the industry and, on the other hand, to the gender diversity within personnel policy. I really hope – but maybe I’m a little naive – that all Chamber Members think about it so that that resolution can be approved across the chamber. In this way, we as Parliament make clear within what framework the Minister should shape its strategic note.

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. You will not be surprised that I have an international perspective. I would also like to explain, as asked several times by several colleagues, how we came to our resolution. There is a vision in our resolution. I agree with my colleagues in the Committee on Lands Defence who say that the current document of the majority has a total lack of vision.

Colleagues of the majority, you have all been able to submit a text and that could only be because you did not make choices. You have been sailed around the problems and that was the only way to be able to present a text here today. I will clarify this later.

I would like to start with what I call a paradox. The paradox is this: if you count all the troops of the 28 EU member states together, you get 1.5 million. It is the largest army in the world, even larger than that of the United States.

Together, the 28 member states spend €190 billion on defence. This is the second largest budget in the world. That’s three times as much as Russia spends on defense.

What is the outcome of that determination? Colleagues, some have not been here for so long, but when there were problems in the Balkans, we in Europe were not even able to ensure that we acted responsibly in our own region. Even if we unite our armies and armies, to which we give so much money, in Europe, we still fail to set up anything credible. How does that come? The answer to that question is very simple. This is because defense planning is still being carried out nationally, especially in view of NATO agreements. I will come back to that later.

So we conclude that enough money is being spent on defense in Europe. It only matters to use that money much better. That is, we need to put an end to the current situation where we have overlaps for certain capabilities in Europe, while we do not have other capabilities that are necessary for a modern defense. I think there is now a momentum in Europe that we should use to take the step toward that European defense.

We think with the Sp.a. that every decision we make with regard to the Belgian army must be made with regard to that European defence.

Why do I think there is momentum? My colleagues have already said it. We know it, in Belgian politics it is so, but ⁇ also in European politics: one very often needs crises to take certain difficult steps. There is no shortage of crises at the moment. I refer to the crisis at our eastern border. I refer to the crisis in the Middle East, with IS in Syria and Iraq and with a fall-out of so-called foreign fighters who are boys of us, who commit attacks here. There is also in the south of us the legacy of Libya. There is instability in Africa, from the Sahel lands to the Central African Republic. And, colleagues, there is the economic crisis with budget deficits. All European countries have a budgetary problem to get their defense funded. I repeat what some colleagues have already said: that is the momentum with which a founding member of the European Union must say that the Lisbon Treaty creates the opportunity to move forward towards a European defence.

I would like to respond to what my colleague, the chairman of the committee for the Defense of the Land, has said somewhat narrowly and challengingly: “We know the plan of the SPAA, they want to abolish the army or degrade it.” Here is a beautiful document on which we base our resolution and our vision. This document was prepared by a working group, chaired by Mr. Solana. The advisor was Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. We do not belong to the parties who say that we do not need an army or defense. What is stated in this document? The document states that we must now try to take steps towards a deeper, more comprehensive cooperation. We even talk about integration and call for more interoperability, more standardization in training and equipment, more unified command structures, more task agreements and more full, deep, broad integration.

I will not overlook all points. I will now switch to your resolution. Again, that resolution lacks vision.

Mr Van der Maelen, Mr Yüksel wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. Van der Maelen, your vision is based on a document on which two NATO leaders, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer and Solana, have collaborated.

I will return to NATO.

In your speech you reject every time we link ourselves to the NATO history and that we as a faithful ally assume our role. That is contradictory.

Mr. Yüksel, you will soon hear what I will tell you about NATO.

What I blame you, colleagues of the majority, is that, as I said, you do not dare to make the difficult, courageous choices.

I will serve you on your tips and talk about NATO.

Do you hear the signals from Washington? These are signs that indicate that they, Americans, will focus their attention on Asia in the future. They ask those dear Europeans to note that Europe will not always and everywhere be able to count on American support. They call on Europe to ensure that it can stand on its own feet. That is the message. Anyone who denies that the message exists is someone who puts his head in the sand.

Well — and that is the choice you want to avoid — with the current resources available in Belgium and in Europe, it is inexpensive to both fulfill the NATO wishes and do what is necessary to develop a credible European defence. This cannot!

Mr. Minister, this has not been achieved, when the budget was still 3 or 4 billion euros. After all, you know better than I know that even to this day there are large gaps, if the major European countries wanted to act alone. They cannot do this without the support of the Americans in certain domains.

So don’t come to say that it is possible, if it couldn’t even when the budget was higher than it is now. Do not tell us that in the future it will be possible to both fulfill all NATO wishes and do the necessary to stand on our own feet. You just nodded when I said we should try to stand on our own feet. Well, it can’t; both things can’t be financed.

You keep saying that, but even with larger budgets it was not possible. Show me the money. I have read that your military suggests doubling the budget. Even with that double budget, Mr. Minister, you do not yet have the resources to both respond to NATO’s wishes and do what is needed to set up a credible and independent European defense. You do not have those resources.

What should we do with NATO? I’m in favor of keeping NATO, I’m not a naïve, but we should move toward a LAT relationship, living apart together. Some things will be done alone. If it depends on me, we will not participate if the Americans decide to start a conflict in Asia within three, five or ten years. The Americans do that alone. If there is a problem in Africa, we must have the capacity to act there alone. However, no one can rule out the possibility that a problem will ever arise in which the United States and Europe believe it should be addressed jointly. We need to do that in NATO. After all, it would be too crazy to abolish an organization that has proven its services — even though it was not always assessed as positive by me. However, there have been moments when it has been positive.

That is the first point, and I note that this majority does not dare to draw consequences from the fact that there is no money to fund both NATO’s wishes and what is needed for a European defense.

Secondly, the SP has chosen European defence. Then, in any future investment decision we make regarding our reformed army, we must avoid investing in something that we already have an overcapacity in Europe. That is how it is formulated negatively. To put it positively, if we make a decision to invest in the future army, then we invest best where there is a gap.

That is our line. In that regard, I think of an actual item, in particular the replacement of the F-16. Colleagues, we are not walking around the hot, but you are doing so and yet through a non-suggesting resolution. We also deal with the difficult problems.

What is the current situation? The 28 European member states together have 1,600 fighter aircraft at least of the level of the best Russian aircraft. The Russians have 1,300 of them, of which their best aircraft match our low-level aircraft. For the next five years, EU member states have ordered 500 fighter jets, Russia 300. My conclusion is the following.

Supposing that there will ever be a conflict with Russia, that it needs to be fought militarily — I think that is unlikely, but one can never rule it out, and God save us from it — then my conclusion is that we are not only numerically overwhelmed, but also qualitatively. With the aircraft we now have, we have a predominance over Russia and these aircraft are ⁇ good enough to carry out assignments in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere.

Colleagues, we are consistent and say that it makes no sense to invest billions in the purchase of new combat aircraft. The prices swing out the bread. I don’t know who followed the debates in the Land Defense Committee, but according to the Dutch Court of Auditors, a F-35 in the Netherlands costs 124 million euros. Well, only by changing the rate of the euro that aircraft would now cost 146 million euros, and the Dutch get their aircraft at a lower price than us because they have entered the development phase. If I can believe the military, 40 aircraft would cost at least 6 billion euros.

I think it is lost money. Those who are involved with the Belgian and European defense should know that if Belgium buys those aircraft, that has a displacement effect, because our resources are very finite. Investing in something that is already overcapacity in Europe means that other business, modern challenges such as cybersecurity, will require even more money.

If you think that we should do everything we did in the past and that we can do new things with less budget than we had before, you make yourself somewhat wise. Show me the money!

I will not follow you because I think we should not spend more money than we now spend. If you want to spend more money, please tell where you want to get that money. You do not have it!

Third and last, the majority does not dare to choose and puts their head in the sand. In fact, the resolution proposal speaks about both the land force, the air force, and the naval force. I also hear signals from the military that they want to continue doing as much as possible as they did before.

You want to do it in a creative but transparent way. You make the decisions, but the invoice is for the government after 2019. You have to be a little fair and a little honest. Please take the financial consequences of your own decisions.

What you cannot avoid is that when you choose European defense and invest in capacities that are needed at the European level, you will not be able to maintain both land, air and naval forces as before. You will need to specialize. We also find nothing about this in the text.

I have been in the majority for a long time. What really disturbs me about you is that many members of Parliament among you – and some I know for many years as people who had an independent opinion – have started in the new majority under the motto: mind at zero, look at infinity and the finger on the green button to vote on the order of the government.

It is a shame, colleagues, that we are organising weeks of hearings, that we have listened to various, very interesting presentations and that you do not even dare to indicate a beginning of conclusion or direction! That is why it took so long for the draft resolution to come into being. You’ve tried to sit together, and like so many domains, there’s been no agreement in the majority. That’s why, ladies and gentlemen of the majority, you are now putting a non-singing note to the vote in which no choices are made, and that’s really a very regrettable thing, because an army is ⁇ a matter of Parliament and not just of the government. Stop subjecting you slaves to choices made elsewhere, outside of our home. Stand up for your own opinion and beliefs. Let’s lead the democratic debate here about what the army of the 21st century should be.

Our vision is clear. It has to be a European army. We need to start with more cooperation. If we do not use that courage, we will get bric-à-brac from the government.

I will be very short. I don’t know if I should feel personally addressed, but I want to respond in every way.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you say that we, as Members of Parliament, have absolutely no opinion and we blindly push a button. We had an interesting exchange of ideas last Tuesday. You could not be there. I understand this, but we had an interesting exchange of ideas, with the resolution proposal as a result. We have adjusted the text based on that good discussion.

We will not blindly push the green button. I will carefully push the catch button.

Mr Buysrogge, if your draft resolution is approved later – I have no doubt that you will press the green button – you are not really putting the threshold high as a member of Parliament.

I consider the reform of the army a very important issue and as a member of Parliament, I would like to have a talk about it, together with my colleagues. You have abdicated. You have refused to settle the prevailing choices. The first choice is between NATO and the European Union. The second, resolute choice is one for a European defence where we do not buy what is already available in the European Union.

The third choice, which you also do not dare to make, is to take into account the limited resources, to specialise and to make the specialisations available to a credible European defense.

None of these three choices dare you make. Does anyone dare to say that these are not fundamental choices that we will have to make? You do not want to make them. The government will do it for you.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I have listened attentively to your presentation. You come here to preach the revolution. You become impatient and nervous.

In your resolution you have three concrete points including specialization and the overlap of materials. Work is already being done on this today. We are continuing to do this. So do not come here to preach the revolution. We are for a feasible exercise, especially the gradual change.

You just have to wait for the strategic vision note, in which the government will make decisions that will largely meet your and our questions.

Don’t tell us that we don’t do our job as Members of Parliament. You have been working with us in the committee. We have an opinion and we have put it on paper in our resolution. It is now up to the government, to the minister, to come to Parliament with a note.

Mr. Yüksel, for whom do you take me?

In the government agreement, which was approved here seven months ago, the minister took on the commitment that within six months there would be a future plan for the army. Today we are seven months away and we still know nothing.

I had hoped – I acknowledge this – that in the Committee for Land Defense some members of the new majority would have been sitting with parliamentary balls, members of Parliament who, after hearing all the specialists, would have declared themselves to have an opinion, a vision and would have wanted to discuss this with the opposition and the minister. In a democracy, the best solutions come from the clash of ideas, colleagues.

But you abdicate. You present us today with a resolution in which no essential choices are made. This is unworthy of Parliament.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you know I have a lot of respect for you. We sit almost as long as you, you even sit a few years longer than me.

This is mutual, my colleague.

However, what I cannot appreciate, even as an experienced MP, is that you are trying to stigmatize young MPs. Because they disagree with you, you say that they have no balls on their bodies and apparently cannot resist a majority reflex.

No, that is not true.

You have been in government for 25 years, two years in ongoing affairs after. You have been in the room for 23 years. You approved all defense budgets, including under Minister Flahaut and in the 1990s. Have you been so critical?

Yes yes, my colleague.

Do you have the policy...

Just ask Peter De Crem. Ask Pieter De Crem how critical I was about defense, both when we were together in the majority and when we were together in the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, I take you as a witness. He was also a very active member of the Defence Committee.

Mr Van Rompuy, you have misinterpreted my words. I didn’t tell my colleagues that they didn’t; if they didn’t agree with me, they were wrong. I said they have no opinion. Their opinions may differ from mine. Let us then debate this. I have said. I do not ask that the other 149 members of the House agree with me, but that everyone has the political courage to have their own opinion and come out for it. I find that the majority does not dare to form an opinion on the reform of the army, one of the most important subjects. We are being presented with a non-sanctioning resolution, which opens the way for a unilateral government decision.

Even if you are in the majority, you have a duty to do your control. I regret that I have to conclude that the control task was not carried out in this file today.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, given that the discussions have been long in the committee and also tonight. This is a strange evening for discussing or fighting on this important issue.

I wanted to say from the beginning of the game that this debate on the future of Defense had begun under the best auspices. The budget adjustment, however, provides for an additional 100 million. Although I have searched, I do not remember a previous budget control that has flooded the national defence funds to this height. This in itself is an encouraging element.

Mr. Dallemagne, even though I wasn’t there, I heard you. This Tuesday in the commission, I obviously did not question the 1.7 billion. I just indicated – and this is a collective responsibility – that during the two fiscal years of the Di Rupo government, we had reduced the defense budget by more than 10 percent. I did not question these facts. Proportionally, there are no more savings in this area than during other legislatures.

A lot of criticism is issued.

You are trying to make us believe that with 100 million, you will be able to absorb the dark cuts of 1.7 billion. In fact, with those 100 million, we only pay the bills of the past. We do not pay for investment, operation; we do not guarantee the future of Defence. You must be able to say that, Mr. Ducarme.

One thing has surprised me since the beginning of this legislature. I expected you to defend the defence a little more. You have done so much in the previous legislature. I expected you not to deny the serious difficulties of Defense. I’ve heard you, at the beginning of the legislature, say, “Finally, with this government, we will be able to do what we want in defence.”

You were contradicted by your own minister who himself had the good sense to remind us that in reality things were totally opposite to what you presented; that in reality he was facing extremely serious difficulties, unprecedented; that Defense was going straight into the wall, that it was in a state of clinical death. He told us, the Minister of Defense, while you denied this reality.

I think that the least of things, compared to the serious issues, to the state of Defense today, to what the CHOD and many experts have told us, is to admit the reality of things. If we begin to admit the reality of things, then maybe together we can start finding solutions for the future of Defense.

Mr. Dallemagne, what I have indicated had no other purpose than to emphasize – because you’re talking a lot about the savings planned for this legislature in the field of defence – that the responsibility in relation to these savings is collective. And it has lasted for a while! And you have your part! This was ⁇ the case in terms of reduction: less 10% over two fiscal years with the Di Rupo government! I did not say any more. I repeat that an additional €100 million for defence as part of a budget adjustment is simply unprecedented!

The text was heavily criticized. However, the debate was positive in the committee. You could see, Mr. Dallemagne, that the majority has shown openness to a number of amendment proposals from the opposition.

Mr. Schumacher is a bit upset with the figures. I have already said that it was not the only member of the MR who, apparently, had problems with the numbers. But I just want to quote the Court of Auditors, which is still a neutral and undeniable source. She said that the reduction in the defence budget, during this legislature, means “that in less than five years, this budget reduction will be equivalent to that which was observed in thirteen years, from 2000 to 2013”. This is two and a half times faster than previously observed. You can continue to deny it, but that’s the Court of Auditors’ observation at the time of delivering the government budget.

We’re going to cut short! I indicated that I would attach the table, which was produced in terms of comparison by ERM experts. Experts from the ERM who had also produced a number of extremely tough reports on the budget issue. I’m not angry with the numbers and I hope you’ll be reconciled with them.

As for this motion for a resolution, I said: we have been quite open, Mr. Dallemagne, despite all the evils you have been able to tell us. Because you made interesting proposals, we adopted one of your amendments. This was also the case with amendments to the sp.a quite close to what can be found in the government agreement, in the Defence chapter.

The debate with the PS was a little harder, didn’t it, Mr. Pirlot? I also have a lot of appreciation for you, you know, but it is clear that I do not understand this form of aggression that you show in relation to this text, at the level of the chosen vocabulary: "the nothing", "the void" ... Is this really necessary? I think you had, in your proposal – I may be surprised to say it publicly – some interesting elements. If you had approached us in a more nuanced way, ⁇ , indeed – and that was Mr. Trump’s wish. De Vriendt, who unfortunately also had not submitted a resolution on the subject – could we have done something more global, more collective?

This text is not empty. Waiting for the strategic plan that will be produced by the minister and that we will be able to discuss, there is one element that is in itself a real revolution in terms of the organization of our defense. This revolution is the programmatic law. We will be able to have a longer-term vision for investment, a vision that will allow us to replace major equipment.

In the government agreement, which remains the fundamental roadmap for this majority in the matter, it is stated that we will replace the F-16, that there will be work also at the level of the fregates.

This long-term vision will allow us to no longer encounter a number of previously known shortages, for example, investments in IVA, MPPV. Today, the logic of the sufficient minimum is problematic: not enough has been acquired. The phenomenon of wear is problematic. There is not enough training, given the lack of vehicles. There are also questions regarding the choices made for the NH90 (Research and Rescue). Did he make the right choices? A longer-term vision may allow us to have a stronger investment strategy.

I’ve also heard a number of criticisms – I’m not aiming at Mr. Clinton’s criticisms here. Van Hees; I was anti-NATO and I respect them – claiming that we weren’t European enough. The Belgian defence tradition is fully respected. We continue to move forward on two legs: on the one hand, NATO, on the other, the European Union and European defence construction. Beyond that, there are also a number of cooperations across the Benelux and bilateral cooperations.

I would like to make a small comment and react to Mr. Ducarme to replace the F-16.

During the various meetings of the Defence Committee we attended, Mr. The minister told us that nothing was decided. So I would like to know what it is. Will they be replaced or not?

This is stated in the Government Agreement.

I prefer the government agreement. It is even weaker than the resolution of the majority.

Mr. Pirlot, for your Easter, I send you the government agreement!

The F-16 will be replaced. The question is what and how much. This question remains quite open today. I heard a number of parliamentarians say that the games were made. It is not true. We are a little intoxicated with this.

Another element that has been criticized is that we would not sufficiently defend our ability to act outside. No to No! Both at the level of the government agreement and at the level of this resolution, it is clear that OPEX (external operations) remains central to our device. This is the case now in Syria, in Iraq, more specifically.

I have a question about the position of the PS on this issue. Yes, a number of men were sent to the ground to train the Iraqi army. Naturally, these commitments are intended to be assumed in a longer term. It is well known that the presence of this coalition in this area is essential to bringing back Daesh. Mr. Crusiniere, you talked about this recently. I don’t understand why you stay so stuck on the fact that we can act outside and train the Iraqi army with men on the ground. All this philosophy is found within the framework of the government agreement and at the level of resolution proposals.

Mr. Minister, another fundamental and expected element in the framework of the strategic plan that you will submit is personnel and their well-being, social dialogue within the defence, the possibility for military personnel to be able to develop their careers with real flexibility and join if necessary, if such is their choice, other departments of the public service.

It’s about making the lives of the military easier but also holding a truth speech with them and drawing them a perspective by telling them what Defense will be for them tomorrow. I think you are aware of this. It is therefore necessary to try to disconnect the National Defense in the work it could accomplish in conjunction with other services. This is part of this resolution. I think of a closer collaboration with the State Security and with other bodies.

In respect for the profession of the military, we must also make sure to tighten it further on the tasks of the Defense. Therefore, outsourcing makes sense. However, it is not new. Under the Di Rupo government, several missions were outsourced without taboo, simply by pragmatism and in the interest of recentralizing Defense on its tasks.

In addition, for a long time, several of us have tried to answer a question, which is found in point 8 of the proposal. We are talking a lot about funds and budget for defence. Proposing the establishment of a fund for the reuse of revenues from the alienation of superfluous equipment and infrastructures of the heritage of the National Defense for a part of the investment expenditure, this represents a solid step forward. However, it had not yet been passed. Indeed, so far, several infrastructures in which Defence had sometimes heavily invested continued to be resold. The proceeds from the sale were not returned to the defence budget. We ask for this very clearly. This is an important element.

It is clear that in this text, we could ⁇ have done more in terms of international vision. This has been criticized. This text, it seems to me, rests for the most part on a will regarding the Belgian National Defense. Regarding a more international vision, a European vision, I would like discussions to be held in committees ahead of the European Defence Summit this summer, with proposals focusing more on the European construction in defence, and the ties with NATO. In fact, a new construction can be undertaken in perspective of this summit.

Mr. Pirlo, to be honest. You said that I had made a declaration of love to N-VA. This is a bit exaggerated. What I was saying was that although the government agreement and this resolution proposal indicate that language balance recommendations must be followed, it has been necessary to wait for a N-VA Defense Minister to improve language balance among the generals. It’s quite extraordinary and I’m almost scandalized. We now tend to 60-40, which hadn’t happened in many years. There is a clear agreement at that level and in the future I will be, I hope you believe it, vigilant for the minister to continue in this direction.

I called Mr. Di Rupo, repeatedly during the last legislature, attempted to move the lines in this matter. This was not the case, so simply and without controversy.

In conclusion, we expect from this majority that it can not produce a new small defence reform, but that it can finally install National Defence in its century. This will be our challenge in relation to the issue of both specialization and international cooperation. You will judge by piece: either we are reproducing a new small reform, which will have to be followed by new small reforms in the field of National Defense, or we are taking the necessary step so that the Defense can continue to be fully operational through its components, but also to engage in its missions of aid to the Nation.

I have a good and a bad news. The good thing is that I am the last speaker and my speech will be very short unlike Mr. Ducarme; the bad thing is that this debate will be discussed within fifteen days, when the minister will present his note.

I will make two general comments and make two clarifications, given the amendments we have submitted. The first is in the right line of the statements made by Mr. by Friend. It would have been preferable, speaking of the army, namely a Regal function, but also a function that, with the police in our federal state, has the right of life and death over other citizens, to have a resolution drafted and constructed together. This was not possible. This is a missed opportunity.

Another general comment. This resolution, as well as the plan of the Minister, will be an opportunity to make choices. As environmentalists, we advocate a clear choice in favour of niches of excellence, unlike the choice you make, namely cheese ripper. I’m not going to repeat what our niches of excellence are, but they obviously have to do with demining, intelligence, and cybersecurity. You have to choose, as opposed to an army that always wants to do everything, all the time.

Military spending in Europe remains extremely high. After what Mr. Van der Maelen gave as figures just the Military Balance 2015 was presented at a meeting at Egmont Palace last week. It turns out that, in current global military spending, the U.S. spends $580 billion, China $129 billion, and the four largest countries in Europe (Britain, France, Germany and Italy) spend together $183 billion. So that means that Europe of Twenty-Eight spends enough money on military, Mr. Dallemagne, to get second. So there is pooling and sharing to be done and Belgium must participate.

To return to what has been said in the place of NATO, clearly, this majority is choosing NATO. It’s not so explicit, but it’s between the lines. For the environmentalists, it is the European Union first, the United Nations of course with it and, if necessary, NATO. This is very different from your view.

Compared to the two amendments we want to defend, the first concerns point 6, namely the idea that the military intelligence service can collaborate, from a cybersecurity point of view, with foreign intelligence services. We propose that there be a no-spy clause, that is, if we can obviously exchange information, the Allies – I think in particular the Americans – must commit to not spying on us. There have been precedents where the secret services, the prime minister’s services, foreign affairs have been spied on by Allies – Britain and the United States. If we undertake to go further in this collaboration with these secret services, they will have to undertake to ban all Allied espionage.

The second amendment concerns the atomic bomb, a subject that is dear to us. It is known that the renewal of U.S. nuclear weapons is related to the replacement of the F-16. We are in favor of the abolition of atomic weapons on Belgian soil and, in accordance with the bill, that Mr. From Vriendt and myself we have filed, we want to prohibit the handling, storage and transport of nuclear weapons. This is the meaning of the amendment 37 that we have submitted. If you vote on them, we will vote on the resolution. Otherwise, we will of course vote against.

Does anyone ask for the word in the general discussion? Mr. Minister, you have the word.

Thank you to the members of the Defence Committee who have done a good job!

The effort made by the Parliament to establish a strategic vision on defence in Belgium, the effort made in a number of hearings, the effort made to reach a resolution already supported by the majority, are efforts such as belong to parliamentary work. In terms of content, this will ⁇ contribute to the vision that I will present soon.

The resolution as accepted and some elements, as mentioned by Mr. Ducarme, in the opposition resolutions, as well as points quoted today by the opposition on the level of analysis, are valuable and contribute to the creation of a coherent vision on Defence for our country. Points as a reliable partner remain within our international ties as the European Union, NATO and the United Nations, are obligations that we have as host country of numerous international organisations. We will need to continue to contribute to that framework.

The emphasis placed in the resolution on the need to ⁇ a more balanced ratio between personnel costs, operating costs and investment costs is very important. It will also be in such a way that in the future we will be able to effectively create a healthy structure of Defense, which also shows the necessary respect for our employees and which can ensure the necessary well-being.

I also share in large part the elements presented today in connection with a European defence, but I would like to remind the great advocates of it that it is difficult to sell your car first and then go carpool. If we enter into a European story, our European partners will expect us to make the necessary contribution, both on the input side and on the output side.

I am grateful to all of you for an entertaining debate and I look forward to having a first discussion on the strategic vision regarding the future of Defence in the committee soon.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you, first of all, if you can give more explanation on the timing of your strategic plan. Was it during the Easter holiday or just after? What is the procedure? Will the plan first come to the table of the Council of Ministers and then go to Parliament?

Second, I think important is the question on the basis of which budget you will come up with that strategic plan. I assume that a multiannual forecast will be the basis of the strategic plan. The strategic plan will also include investment choices.

Which budget options are you looking for?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Vriendt, for the answer to your first question, I can say that I do not know the numbers of the parliamentary questions that I have already answered on that subject in the committee, also in your presence.

I would like to reiterate that the government agreement stipulates that I will step into the government with a strategic vision within six months of the government agreement. Contrary to what is claimed here today, the period from October to April today is not six months, and ⁇ not seven months.

Therefore, I will submit a strategic vision to the Government after the Easter holidays, in which I will propose a number of options and link a budget.

It is at the moment I get a clear direction from the government and a clear framework in which I can continue, that I will initiate the discussion with the Parliament and, as, by the way, requested in the resolution, the future will also be discussed with the other stakeholders, the representatives of the military.