Proposition 54K1881

Proposition de résolution sur le sommet des chefs d'État et de gouvernement des pays de l'OTAN qui se tiendra les 8 et 9 juillet 2016 à Varsovie.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Veli Yüksel
MR Denis Ducarme, Richard Miller
N-VA Peter Buysrogge, Karolien Grosemans
Open Vld Tim Vandenput

Submission date

June 8, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

NATO defence budget defence policy resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP

Abstained from voting

VB

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 29, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mrs Bellens. She told me that she refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the reason for my initiative is the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw.

On July 8 and 9, the two-year NATO summit of heads of state and government will take place. This summit is important because every two years NATO clearly focuses on current problems and challenges.

Today that NATO summit is incredibly important because the security situation in Europe is changing. On the one hand we have the Russian threat on the eastern flank and on the other side we have the new threats and threats in the south and central.

Every day there is an attack somewhere in the world. Yesterday it was in Turkey. Turkey was hit by a very severe terrorist attack. At Istanbul airport, dozens of people were killed and wounded. I would like to express our condolences to all those victims and their relatives. Of course, we condemn these cowardly and barbaric acts.

Colleagues, one of the reasons why NATO was born is to help allies ensure security. Turkey is a NATO ally and we will also, like the other countries, show our solidarity with the Turkish people.

I would like to briefly point out that the attacks are very similar to the attacks three months ago in our country. That means a lot.

This resolution, of course, also aims to sharpen the focus of Belgium and to clarify the role of our country in this changing security environment. What is needed for this?

First, I think it is important that before this summit, within a good week, the strategic plan for Defense, which is actually the compass of this and future governments, is finally laid down. As you all know, in diplomatic and military circles, this plan is looking forward to with great interest.

Secondly, in the present resolution, we also advocate that the defence budget should not be further reduced and gradually increased again. Colleagues, that is in accordance with the Christmas Agreement and in accordance with the agreements made in Wales two years ago. I will come back to that later.

This government is the first government in 25 years to break the negative spiral when it comes to financial resources and budgets, and again invest heavily in security instruments. Defence is a very good example of this.

Third, this resolution also calls for our commitment and the strengthening of our contribution to NATO operations. There is no need for argument to emphasize that we want to remain a credible partner at the international level and that we want and will play our role in that sense. We will deliver our fair share.

Therefore, colleagues, we advocate a good balance between the tasks for homeland security and the other. You all know that the military patroled the streets for the youngest one and a half years. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our military for the efforts of the past weeks and months. They perform a difficult task in difficult circumstances.

The balance between homeland security contracts and international missions and foreign operations should, of course, not be compromised. In the resolution, we give an example of our contributions in Afghanistan and in the Eastern European countries.

Fourth, when it comes to cyberspace, there have been a lot of cyber attacks in recent weeks and months. I think therefore that cyberspace should receive much more attention within the NATO alliance than is now the case.

The resolution that precedes puts the focus on a number of things, as I have just said.

Finally, we advocate a pragmatic approach to relations with Russia, a consensus position. On the one hand, we condemn the Russian violations. You know that these violations are accumulating in recent times. On the other hand, we naturally want to continue the dialogue with Russia, in order to come to a normalization of the relationship between the West and Russia.

In this spectrum, I find it important that our country, Belgium, fully plays its role as a bridge builder in diplomatic circles.

I come to my decision. We are a NATO partner, but of course we want, in addition to strengthening our presence, a strengthening of our role within NATO, of course, not to separate from a strengthened cooperation with the EU, the UN and of course also other regional organizations such as the OSCE.

I hope that this resolution, which was submitted by me and colleagues from other majority parties, will also enjoy the support of our colleagues from the opposition.

It is always a pleasure to speak in a plenary session!

It is a matter of quality!

Question of quality, you are right.

The resolution was adopted by a majority in the absence of the opposition. We wanted to protest the way debates are conducted within it under an increasingly limited committee presidency when it comes to applying and complying with the Rules. I am therefore compelled to intervene long enough to present the position of my group on this text and, more broadly, on the NATO summit, a position which, by force of things, is not included in the report.

This government, led by the N-VA, would revolutionize the Belgian National Defense. Belgium would become the best pupil of NATO, massive investments, atlanticism at all levels, defense budget increasing exponentially, priority given to operations abroad and last but not least, a strategic plan over 15 years in order to finally have a clear vision of the Belgian army of the future.

What balance can we draw today, ⁇ two years later? First of all, a military investment plan, for which it was decided to buy everything but also to postpone everything to the next government, while the coffers are empty and above all without European reflection that would have allowed indispensable synergies.

Then a budget in red. I had emphasized this from the first fiscal year, wondering how N-VA and MR would well be able to vote for such a budget shell accumulating ⁇ two billion historical cuts, while they themselves, before the elections, had pledged for an increase.

Since then, I have been joined in my analysis by many experts including Wally Struys, Defense Economist and emeritus professor at the Royal Military School, and I quote it briefly: “The Michel government had said it would do a lot for Defense, as NATO had requested. And then when the budget notifications came out, we saw that the budget was decreasing until 2019.”

In the ministry’s strategic plan, it can be seen that this actually decreases until this date.

And then it explodes. In ten years, the budget has more than doubled. For a long time, I have said that at least the budget should be indexed. There is no way to believe in Santa Claus. What is the next coalition that will have to accomplish all this? This is not credible. How can we be more explicit, dear colleagues? The number of troops deployed abroad has reached a historic low, between 300 and 400 troops against the ambition of 1,000 troops deployed under previous governments, and above all, we are witnessing a almost total withdrawal of UN missions.

Similarly, the number of new military engagements has reached a historic low. It is in fact with great interest that I read the chapter dedicated to Defence in the latest report of the Court of Auditors, while the boss of the Component Earth, General Deconinck, has explained many times that he could soon no longer do anything appropriate on the ground. This report teaches us that due to the deployment of military personnel on the streets, Defense needs to reduce its capacity for training.

The report also reminds us that Operation Vigilant Guardian weighs too much on the operation and budget of the army. The decrease in training threatens on the medium and long term, the international operational capacity of our country, the core business of our Defense, without unleashing new means for the police zones, of which this is the real profession. In short, we are weakening two royal functions of the state. Worse, the Court of Auditors report shows that the savings made in training for 3.2 million euros will be used to hire 200 additional military personnel to come to the record floor of commitments planned by this government: 700 military personnel.

All experts agree, however, that 700 commitments per year is far too little even to ⁇ the new target of 25,000 military personnel. How can this government fund them in the future without reducing training to ensure their excellence and training? In addition, who says 200 more military, also says more training. What about the budget?

Finally, I come to this famous strategic plan and especially to this resolution proposal which my group has welcomed with a spike of irony. This strategic plan was promised to us within six months. Despite this lack of strategic vision and all the uncertainties about jobs, neighborhoods and their future, our military continued to do a formidable job that I once again welcome.

Nearly two years later, we do not have any document, except the Minister’s statement published following the decisions taken by the kern on December 22, 2015 and the PowerPoint released in the Defense Committee on January 13, 2015. The atmosphere within the majority seems to be such that my colleagues from CD&V regularly question the minister to know when the strategic plan will be released.

Today, therefore, we have on the banks of our plenary session this proposal for a resolution that calls for its publication before the NATO Summit. Will the CD&V take advantage of parliament to dry the intercabinets? Should a draft resolution be needed to be heard about a timetable for the publication of the strategic plan? It is true that we must have seen many tensions within the government, with Deputy Prime Minister Alexander De Croo even going to call the decision of Minister Vandeput to acquire Patriot-type missiles an idiotic idea. I agree with this analysis.

Meanwhile, the defence budget reaches a floor. The reductions decided by this government bring Belgian military spending to 0.9% of GDP in 2015.

Yes, dear colleagues of the majority, I wish to see this government give birth to a strategic plan, but not in any way or at any price.

Mr Pirlot, Mr Buysrogge wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. Pirlot, you are not yet at the end of your speech. I apologize for interrupting you, but the government agreement is based on a strategic vision that needs to be formulated. This was translated into the Christmas Craft Agreement, which creates clarity about the capabilities to be invested in the future. I am glad that you have so much interest in raising the budgets. It is our intention to come to the strategic plan as soon as possible, which you look forward to. Let that be just one of the questions posed in this resolution. I therefore expect that you will pass this resolution with enthusiasm.

What do I retain from this possible strategic pre-plan, when questioned this morning by my care, Mr. Minister signaled to me that the negotiations were still taking place within the government? This has been going on for two years.

I remember from the presentation that we made in January that it is:

- a lacunary pre-plan relating to aid missions to the nation, support for internal security and medical and humanitarian missions, all sub-priorities;

- a plan that destroys our medical component, however in the front line, both during operations abroad and during the terrible attacks that our country has experienced, as the hearings in the commission of inquiry have demonstrated;

- a plan where memory work is not even cited, the MRA soon becoming an institution sometimes regionalized, sometimes privatized;

- of a plan where the training of our military is forgotten and where the threat noises on the ERM become increasingly heavy;

- a plan where Central Africa is only the slightest of your concerns;

- a plan where the search for European synergies, both military, strategic, human and industrial, seems to be forgotten while NATO’s option in terms of operations and areas of intervention is very strongly marked in relation to the EU and, in particular, the UN;

- a strategic plan that is not financed. That is the problem! This is a credit gift that will weigh heavily on the next government majorities, given the current budget package decided by the Michel government.

The presentation made to parliament only reminded of the terms of the government agreement on an amount of 9.2 billion by 2030, dedicated largely to the purchase of combat aircraft, purchases decided on the basis of a strategic vision that is still lacunar. Do these purchases meet real, determined, carefully studied needs? What types of missions are they intended for? For now, there are only questions.

Is it really with this possible strategic pre-plan that you want to represent our country at the next NATO summit? The current budget has never been so low. Only Luxembourg and Spain are still behind us, to such an extent that NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg struck our country in a speech and recently contacted Charles Michel. Another little effort, and we will be the last of the class!

Yes, I know, you will tell me about the conclusions of the NATO summit in Wales, during which the previous prime minister represented our country. I would like to recall this in this regard. Prior to this summit, on September 1, 2014, Prime Minister Di Rupo addressed NATO Secretary General in these words: "I inform you, as well as the Council and the Allies, that it is not possible for a government in ordinary affairs to take this type of commitment that binds the next governments."

It’s not me who says it, it’s Charles Michel, who showed intellectual honesty in his answer to an oral question I addressed him several months ago. No commitment has therefore been made by the previous government, then in ordinary affairs. For my group, increasing the defence budget is not an end in itself, but we regret the severe budget cuts decided by this government within this department. We are also convinced that the increase in the security budget cannot be offset by our social policies, for example. The defence budget solution must be European, and you know that. However, you rejected all my amendments on this subject. The problem is not the money spent by all Member States, but the mutuality and synergies on all levels: human, material and logistic.

Belgium must continue and strengthen its commitment to a Defence Europe within NATO that would rationalize military spending, while gaining efficiency and making Europe a major and reliable diplomatic player on a global scale. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on developing targeted military capabilities, but consistent with our international, European and North Atlantic missions and commitments. 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.

For the PS, the establishment of our country in NATO is in no way questioned. NATO remains a primary alliance, located in Belgium, within which Belgium must remain active. However, on the international level, Belgium will need to continue and strengthen its commitment to a Defence Europe in order to enable the emergence of a real European strategy emancipated from NATO’s single strategy, including on the industrial level. It is for this purpose that I have presented today a series of amendments that transpose the positions I have just put forward and which also address the spinous issue of nuclear and NPT, absent from this text. This text is very weak. Not a word about how government funds, not a word about denuclearization, not a word about a defense Europe. My amendments are aimed at fixing what I hope to be simple forgetting, although you have already rejected them in committee. But it is never too late to change and redeem yourself.

Finally, I would like to know if it is in this type of text that it is up to us to decide on the strategy to be carried out in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan, which represents a specific and important debate.

My group will therefore oppose this resolution for the reasons I have just outlined and, reading your text, I can’t help but paraphrase the famous film by Victor Fleming with Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable in the respective roles of Scarlett O’Hara and the cynical Rhett Butler: NATO takes the wind!

I would like to emphasize three points. First, you missed the discussion of the important resolution proposal in your eyes. The fact that you fled, along with other colleagues, had in itself nothing to do with the proposal. I regret this and I want to make it formal here.

As far as the strategic plan is concerned, as you have just admitted, the government on December 22 announced the general lines of the strategic plan in the Christmas Agreement. You talked about a certain amount and you asked what the choices were. Well, if you had taken the effort to look at that Christmas agreement and the Minister’s presentation in the committee in detail, you would have found that the components are being discussed, that there are investments being anticipated and that our horizon 2030 is very clear.

Colleagues, let it be clear: the Minister and the Government have worked hard in the last few weeks to complete the plan. There will be an agreement if there is an agreement on everything. The final details, on which the government is currently working, will also be completed before the summit.

Colleague Dallemagne, I would rather have a good agreement than a quick agreement that is half sad and does not include all the elements. We are talking about the horizon 2030. So it’s not just about the choices and priorities of the current government, but also those for the upcoming legislatures.

Finally, you say that Europe is missing. Europe is missing. For us, foreign policy and defence policy are based on three principles, namely the EU, the UN and NATO. This is also in accordance with the government agreement. All our initiatives and choices will therefore take into account these three principles.

At the beginning of my speech I explained the reasons why we left. This is the first thing. The second is that there is still no agreement on the level of the strategic plan since this morning even the minister did not provide any answer to my question on this point.

I ⁇ ’t want to be in your place, Mr. Gillette. The problem with the CD&V, your party, is that you never know if you are in the majority or in the opposition.

Today and tomorrow, there are several issues on the agenda related to defence. Now the important proposal for a resolution on the Warsaw Summit is being discussed and soon the amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber is being discussed, in which the Army Purchases Committee will now also be able to turn over the army sales. Tomorrow there will be a proposal for a resolution to further support the actions against IS. There is, therefore, a lot of willingness to act in Parliament to address Defence. I can therefore hope that the federal government will demonstrate the same readiness for action in the coming hours and days.

Ladies and gentlemen, in Warsaw, in addition to NATO’s response to new challenges in the field of security and defence, a balance of the efforts of the Member States in the field of defence will also be drawn up. I do not need to remind you of the promises made by the previous government in this regard – Mr Pirlot has just mentioned – at the summit in Wales.

Our government has embedded ambitious intentions in its government agreement to bend the downward trend in defense investment in the last three decades. The present proposal emphasizes these investment intentions. We welcome this and will gladly approve the proposal.

Even this morning, in the committee for Land Defense, there was a little criticism here and there from the opposition for the lack of concrete steps that should initiate the implementation of the strategic plan for Defense, which was announced on 22 December. I know that hard work is being done. Here I can only press the government and also the colleagues of the other majority parties on the heart to not fail now, at the moment of truth.

In Warsaw, the government must pack out an ambitious future-oriented plan with investments, which brings us back into the peloton of NATO member states. That is the essence of the government agreement, but also what society expects from us to secure the future of our children. This has been shown many times during the hearings and in reactions from broad layers of the population. The draft resolution therefore requires no less than a clear signal from our government in Warsaw.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, first of all, I thank Mr. Pirlot for welcoming the intellectual honesty of Prime Minister Charles Michel. It was a pleasure to hear you, Mr. Pirlot.

The [...]

Yes Yes Yes! I insist again. I’ll give you a piece, Mr. Pirlot.

Dear colleagues, I thank Mr. Yüksel and Buysrogge who are the first signatories of this important text. I will focus my speech on the Warsaw Summit and I will talk less, Mr. Pirlot, about the topics you have addressed. The next summit of the heads of state and government of the Atlantic Alliance will take place in Warsaw at the end of next week. Our Prime Minister, Charles Michel, will go to this summit with a very clear, very ambitious Belgian position, as has just been reminded. This position is reflected in our resolution.

This NATO summit is ⁇ important since, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the Atlantic Alliance must reflect not on the management of diffuse or distant threats or, as during the 2000s, on the transformation of the military tools of new member countries, but it must reflect on the best military means to use to respond to real direct attacks on our security environment, which involves a duty of political coherence and military solidarity between the member countries, a unity of transatlantic view that we share in order to strengthen the security alliance between Europe and the United States.

This constant involvement of Washington in the security of the European continent was, in 1949, the basis for the founding of the Atlantic Alliance. This American commitment is and remains fundamental. However, I acknowledge, Mr. Pirlot, that you have raised one or the other important point. I do not understand that you said that our resolution lacked considerations relating to the European Union. Just read point 11, where this is extensively detailed. That said, you are right, it should not be that this US commitment will deduct Europe from the efforts to be made in defence. We are in favor of ⁇ ining a strong and united alliance. But, at the same time, we advocate for the consolidation of a European Pillar of Defence within NATO.

The [...]

Mr. Cheron, did you come to listen to me? It is kind. Given the time it is, I am pleased.

Especially if you are short.

This time, I am long. I was given a text. So I am long. and laughing)

The [...]

Don’t make me laugh, Madame Onkelinx!

What is our analysis of the security situation we are facing? An arc of crisis and instability surrounds the majority of European countries and affects, by solidarity, each member of the Alliance, from the north to the coast of the Maghreb. Since 2008 and the war in Georgia, but especially since 2014, the events in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine, it is clear that Russia is questioning. It has re-adopted an attitude that threatens our interests and our security. I am sorry, but it is up to us to make the conclusion. A few examples have already been cited. Russia’s military role and political discourse in Crimea and eastern Ukraine are problematic. The strengthening of its naval presence in the Barents Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea poses problems. Its air presence around and sometimes above the European airspace is also problematic.

A Russian submarine was intercepted by the British Royal Navy not far from Dover and not far from the Belgian coast!

Through this resolution, Parliament calls for an increase in the government.

We participate in the work of the Defense Commission where we heard official representatives of the weapons industry come in closed doors to defend the files related to the replacement of the F-16. I will not betray the closed door. Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear how much the Swedish manufacturer expressed concerns about the presence and development of Russian activities near the Swedish coast near the Baltic. It wasn’t just a handle effect; it was really fears.

Russia wishes to restore its status as a world power by adopting a foreign policy in which, unfortunately, the short but decisive use of military instruments has all its place. Of course, Russia does not act without achieving results. In Syria, the Russians have achieved political effect through military means.

Over the past five years, the Kremlin has developed new military tools. Frequency and size of exercises, increase in long-range aviation activities, advances in missile defense, increased maritime capacity to meet its needs. Russia has the means to ⁇ its political objectives. Over the past few years, the country has modernized about 70 percent of its military equipment, including in the field of cyber defense.

The Russian threat is a mixture of capacity and intention, but it is placed in our immediate neighborhood.

Therefore, within the Atlantic Alliance, we must develop a coherent strategy, talk with one voice with Moscow. The Atlantic Alliance must also, in a non-aggressive but naive manner, dialogue with Russia on certain international matters where it has a role to play. We must also use all the means at our disposal, diplomatic, military and economic, especially within the European Union, to respond to a force ratio that Moscow wants to exercise in its immediate neighborhood.

Mr. Miller, I largely agree with you on what you said about Russia. I would simply say that having attended the NATO Interparliamentary Assembly, it appears anyway that we have Eastern countries that make a relative fixation on the Russian threat, which I can understand given the Communist yoke, etc. But I also believe, you know, that we will still have to play with Russia, which is one of the keys to a European security architecture. We cannot act as if Russia was not frequentable.

That is why, Mr. Pirlot, but I may have said it too quickly, we advocate that at the level of the Atlantic Alliance but also at the European level, we speak with one voice with Moscow. We need to dialogue with Russia – I repeat what I said recently – which, in some international matters, has a role to play. We could not go without Russia. So it is both on the diplomatic, military and economic levels that it is necessary to succeed in finding the ways of understanding with this inevitable but important neighbor who develops a rather disturbing activity.

But in parallel with the Russian problem, there are – this has also been mentioned by my colleagues – threats coming from the South. They have evolved considerably in recent months, from the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Brussels attacks and, of course, the terrifying drama that took place at Istanbul airport.

The fight against Daesh needed to strengthen our cooperation with all coalition countries. Our colleague, Mr. Buysrogge, spoke about it recently or mentioned it very quickly. Tomorrow we will have an extremely important debate on this subject to show how we support the action of our government in the struggle that must be carried out against Daesh.

I used the term “struggle” because, as I said, I am based on a prepared text. I think we should not be afraid to use the term “war”. We are in a context of war against international Islamist terrorism. This is not a war of the classical type of course, but we are in such a context.

The rules established within NATO have enabled our F-16 pilots, our trainers, the special forces of a number of countries, to collaborate together in perfect harmony, to fully justify the indispensable role of NATO in bringing together the military of the different member countries. In particular, the exchange of information also proved useful.

Dear colleagues, in Warsaw, the government will have to address these two types of challenges that require a battery of answers. NATO must be able to adapt its analytical grid to the strategic situation we are facing. In this regard, the Alliance has not engaged in a broad theoretical debate to renew its strategic concept; it has taken concrete and proportionate decisions that have a military weight and a strong political value, in order to strengthen our security environment.

In the East, we must deter Russia from any new aggression in its region. Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter. “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them occurring in Europe or North America shall be regarded as a targeted attack against all Parties, and consequently they agree that if such an attack occurs, each of them, in the exercise of the legitimate right of individual and collective defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, shall assist the Party or Parties thus attacked by taking immediately, individually and in agreement with the other Parties, any action it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

The borders of NATO are inviolable. This foundation dating from the Atlantic Alliance, must be put forward as it has been the foundation of our common security throughout the Cold War.

Nevertheless, the Alliance must be able to deter Russia from continuing to carry out the type of actions it has undertaken since 2008. Our wish is to restore a period of calm in our relations with Moscow, a relationship made of transparency and predictability. We must therefore engage in dialogue with the Russians in order to avoid errors of judgment and to rebuild step by step a constructive military cooperation, a relationship of trust for the benefit of both partners.

Dear colleagues, I will conclude: in Warsaw, NATO will therefore focus on this balance between deterrence, defense and dialogue. It is necessary that every member of NATO declare its commitment to Article 5 which I have just recalled. To ⁇ this goal, member countries must continue to stop the decrease in their defense budget and they must, Mr. Pirlot, reinvest, as they have done since 2015, in their military tool. Therefore, it is necessary to find the adequacy, the right balance between political objectives and defence budgets to enable these objectives to be achieved. In any case, this is the position we defend, which my political formation also defends within this majority.

NATO must maintain and justify its role as a guardian of European security and a bridge between Americans and Europeans. NATO is the framework in which Americans are involved. We also advocate the consolidation of a European defence pillar within NATO. The resolution we are going to adopt, colleagues, reflects this political position. The MR supports this text as it supports Prime Minister Charles Michel in the action he will take in Warsaw. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues of the majority, I must courageously confess that I cannot follow anymore. The ways of this government in the field of defence and the ways of the minister are indeed impenetrable.

I read in the government agreement of October 2014 that a long-term strategic vision would be established within six months. This was meant to be about Easter. In addition, I have a press release from the Minister of Defence of 22 December 2015, entitled "Agreement on the Strategic Plan for Defence 2030". The first sentence of the press release reads: “Today a historic decision was made.”

Today I read in point 1 of the present resolution that this majority asks the government to “propose a strategic plan”. Colleagues, what is it now? You play with words, but in the government agreement we were promised within six months – I now give another word – a future vision of this majority on Defence. We’ve been working for almost two years now and we’re still struggling in the dark. Now you say that this majority asks the government for a strategic plan for the summit of 8 and 9 July. Does that mean that tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday in the Council of Ministers will come to a decision on the strategic plan for Defence? I would like to hear what it is. Why did it take almost two years?

How strong is your promise that we will see the strategic plan before 8 or 9 July? Can we believe that now?

Second point, and I will discuss only three...

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

Mr. Van der Maelen, it is not the Parliament that has to formulate the strategic plan. You ask us for when it is. We ask the government to do so within this time frame. We can’t do more, but we insist. Indeed, time has passed. The government has taken the time for it, but it is also important that time is taken for it. However, it is now important that the timing of the Warsaw summit is used to reach an agreement to present the strategic plan.

You come with a resolution on June 29. The NATO summit is in eight days and you are asking the minister to propose a strategic plan before the summit! The question is very clear. Will the Minister come to present his strategic plan before the summit? Is this the question we all ask ourselves? Do we still have a chance? Because I saw the defense committee’s agenda next week: there is nothing on the agenda next week. Therefore, I do not see very well when he will present us his strategic plan! He will not present his strategic plan.

Circulations are used. If there is no plan, it is not because the government gives itself time, but simply because there is no agreement between the parties of the government majority. I will use this metaphor to say that we are in the gestation phase of an elephant, because we have been waiting for more than 15 months and that it will give birth to a mouse!

Mr. Speaker, colleague Van der Maelen, colleague Dallemagne, with words you can do a lot, but the Christmas Agreement has set the general strengths. It is based on those strengths that the government, and the minister in particular, is working on a refinement of the strategic plan. Today is June 29, and the summit will take place on July 8 and 9. You are well informed, Mr. Van der Maelen, and you also follow the press well. There will be an agreement if there is an agreement on everything. As I said earlier, the details are being worked hard and thoroughly. I am confident that the government will come out against the summit with a plan.

Now I am reassured, because I suspect that you attach the condition that if that is not the case, Minister Vandeput must resign.

Colleagues of the majority, I would be very happy if you now undertake that, if there is no plan, you will explain to us before the recession where it is stuck and what the cramps are, the so-called details of which you are talking. We would like to know that. Why has this government, after twenty months, not yet succeeded, despite the fact that it is ready and clearly stated in the government agreement, to present us here, in the terminology of the government agreement, a long-term strategic vision?

So let us agree on the following: if it does not happen before 8 or 9 July, we will discuss it publicly with each other before the summer holiday. Agree to?

Mr. Van der Maelen, I understand that you are concerned about the situation in Gent, but I do not understand that colleague Calvo is also concerned about his cartel partner. We will discuss this in Gent.

Mr. Van der Maelen, again, there will only be an agreement if there is an agreement on everything. You have been here for a long time and you will know that. Second, the strength lines of the Christmas covenant remain standing. Third, the budgetary context is very difficult and you know that better than anyone. We would like to take our time to present an agreement that is well-designed, well-balanced and that provides a response to the needs of today and tomorrow. I repeat it, I make myself strong that we have an agreement with the summit and a plan that is fully elaborated.

The problem is that it is not the opposition that demands a precise calendar, even if we have demanded it for a long time, but in this case, it is you who imposes a date. It is you who say that you will present it before the Warsaw Summit. And when you say this, we imagine that it is a presentation to parliament, not to the press. I looked at the defence committee’s agenda again and saw nothing. Are you announcing us that there will be a special Defense Committee next week, in addition to the agenda? You set yourself a timing. We are happy with this timing but we would just like to receive confirmation and you are not bringing us real confirmation. You tell us that there will be an agreement when everyone will agree, which has been told us for two years, which is not what is in your resolution. We would like to know if your resolution makes sense or if it is absurd, as we think.

Mr Dallemagne, you can read what is stated in point 1 of the resolution. We ask that the government come out against this summit with a fully elaborated plan. I do not set the agenda of the Committee for the Defence of the Land and we are flexible in this House. So do not worry! If the plan is completed and if the minister comes out with it, then you will have the opportunity to discuss it. We have already had an extensive discussion on this in January. You will have the opportunity to discuss the other points with us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the words of Mr. Yüksel.

I also think that this is a new Rules, in which the opposition can question the majority members, because we must be accountable here. At least it was not quite clear to me.

I think it is intended that the government be questioned, but this was not quite clear to me. In any case, I assume that it is about questions to the government.

I am confident that this government can send a positive message to Warsaw. If that is not the case, I don’t think we should meet next week, because then the summit in Warsaw has not yet passed. On Wednesday morning, July 13th, there is normally a meeting of the Committee for Lands Defence.

I am not a committee chairman, but I think it is logical that then in some way can be linked back on what was discussed.

Mr. Buysrogge, I give you right on this point: it is not up to you to answer these questions, it is up to the government. But the least one can say is that the government is not so interested in your resolution. He was not in the committee. You’re fighting the opposition, but the minister wasn’t present in the commission. Do not say the opposite. Was he there? He was not in the committee.

The second thing is that the Minister of Defence is still not present in the plenary session. We have another member of the government but who is not interested in our discussions at all. It is in another debate. We would like to question the government, but the government is not interested in your resolution!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dallemagne, the Cabinet of Defence was present in the committee during the discussion.

You asked a question to the Minister of Defence last week. The Minister of Defence has very explicitly referred to this resolution and called on you to support that resolution.

The Minister of Defence is therefore aware of the content of the resolution. So do not worry about this.

The minister was present this morning. I asked him if the strategic plan was completed and if we could have a date.

This morning today. There was a meeting of the Defence Committee. We talked about the strategic plan. He was asked if he would be ready. The minister responded that it was still undergoing negotiations within the government. But you weren’t in the committee this morning. You could not know it.

Colleague Pirlot, I know it’s late, but that’s exactly what I’ve told you three times.

The [...]

Mr. Calvo, I know you are in your head with Gent.

I have already said three times that there is a lot of work being done on this plan. Do not worry. If you ask me today if there is a plan, I tell you that there is no plan yet, because it is being worked on. There will be a plan if there is an agreement on everything.

I promised to keep it short. I have not said much myself yet, but I suggest that I continue and I note the commitment of the colleagues that, if there is nothing before 8-9 July, on 13 July, together with the colleagues of the majority of the minister, we will learn more about why the plan, which was announced for April 2015, is still not there today 29 June. We’ll see if it’s on 8 or 9 July.

I come to my second point. I ask questions to determine my voting behavior. Sub-paragraph 2 of the text reads: “Defense budget should not be further reduced in the short term.” Can you clarify that? Does this mean that you will not reduce the budget even more than you have already done? Or does it mean that you will make an exception for the Defense spending item, unlike all other posts for which you decided to linearly save at the beginning of the government? Will you return to your original decision to treat Defense in the same way as other departments? If so, by how many percent will you not reduce the budget? Is it 100%, is it 50%? I would like to hear from the colleagues of the majority, who themselves write that in their text, about what amounts or what percentages it is about.

Colleague Van der Maelen, colleagues interested, the engagement at the 2014 Wales summit speaks about two things.

There is the hard pledge, the hard promise that we will not let the budget down, and there is the soft pledge that we will ideally perform at 2%.

We have taken those commitments. If you are aware of the commitments made in Wales, you will not be surprised, because we have taken the wording.

You ask how many percent that is. That is just the question. I can only answer it when the Minister has completed his work in full.

This is also unclear.

No, this is not a question of uncertainty. Paragraph 1 of the resolution states that the plan must be there to clarify our commitments in Warsaw. The next point is about the budget.

If the plan is there, it will be clear what the commitment will become. In the past few months, driven by the actuality and the regrettable events, we have already made a number of efforts for Defense. You know that very well. There are 100 million and of the 400 million for terror is one part for security, one part for Defense. We also agreed that we will extract 200 million in this legislature.

All these efforts show that we do not allow the budget to be further reduced.

As colleague Miller just said, for the first time in 25 years, the negative spiral, where every budget and every budget amendment for savings first looks at Defense, is broken. We are investing in defense.

I cannot ignore the words of the government spokesman. There are counter-truths in what you say. If you look at the documents at the level of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, it is written black on white that they were not promises but simply pious wishes in relation to the commitments of the Wales summit. Prime Minister Charles Michel himself acknowledged that there was no commitment from the previous government because we were in ordinary affairs.

When you say that you have increased the defence budget, it is false! You’re making dark cuts for almost €2 billion until 2019 and you’re mitigating those €2 billion by simply not even taking back €100 million – contrary to what you say, it’s a little over €60 million – for current spending. You should stop saying that you are increasing the budget. You diminish it.

Asked this morning about what he intended to propose at the level of the next summit in Warsaw, the minister replied that he would negotiate the status quo. Let’s stop saying that we will increase the defence budget. It is not true!

I would also like to express my astonishment over such a false truth. Being able to tell such big lies, it’s very big shit! I will discuss this in detail in my speech. I would just like to read the excerpt from the Court of Auditors’ report on the Defence Budget. It is not the study center of the CDH but the Court of Auditors who says: “By 2019, the reduction in the funds allocated to the Department of Defense will correspond to 20 % of the commitment appropriations and 17.6 % of the liquidation appropriations that had been approved by the legislator for the 2014 budget. This reduction is equivalent to that observed for the same credits in the years 2000 to 2013.”

So, in a single legislature, you will have reduced the defense budget as much as in the last fourteen years. No one had ever done it! To come and say that you are going to break the negative spiral is frankly scandalous! We are accustomed to a certain dose of lies in politics, but not at this point, not at this level. However, some limits must be set. The budget will continue to decrease until 2019. This is the sad reality of the Defense budget and it will decrease in all – it is again the Court of Auditors who says it – by 1.5 billion euros over the entire legislature. This is the reality!

Mr Van der Maelen, I am pleased that you are looking at this resolution unrestricted and are open to a positive vote, for which I thank you.

In addition, I assume that we have scored good points in our defense regarding your first point. We have said that the backlink after Warsaw must surely come. So I think we have won even more votes to work your positive voting behavior in hand.

You disappoint me a little — but you can — with your question about what it is about now, budgetary. I think the answer of Veli Yüksel in that regard was ⁇ OK. This is also stated in the explanation. I assume that you have read the explanation to the resolution, I dare not suspect anything else. It is about the objectives agreed by the heads of state. I think that clarity is there and it needs to go even further in the strategic plan. For this I refer to our previous answer.

It is also stated, under point 2: “...and to increase gradually in the long term”.

My first question is the following. In terms of defence spending per capita, Belgium ranks ninth among the twenty-eight countries. This is in the first third. Can you give me an account of why this majority considers that Belgium should get even higher in the ranking if the calculation is made on the basis of defence spending per capita of the population?

I come to my second question. These are the figures of the SIPRI regarding defense spending in 2014, with a fixed rate of the dollar: Russia 91 billion, the European Union 288 billion, the United States 900 billion. This is actually a ratio of 1 to 10. I have just heard Mr. Miller here talk about the threat from Russia and so on.

What rational arguments do you give me, with a ratio of 1 to 10, to increase the ratio towards Russia? I would like to know that. The ninth place in the ranking is not good enough for you, and with a ratio of 1 in 10 between NATO and Russia in terms of defense spending, the gap is not big enough. That gap should be even bigger.

Mr. Van der Maelen, there are, of course, a lot of calculations. The calculation that is common is made on the basis of GDP, not the population figure. That is so.

You wonder what is gradual.

The figures come from the NATO report. The Nato itself gives these figures. They come from the NATO report.

The numbers used are, as you know, ideally 2%. There are only one or two countries that reach that figure. All other countries are below that figure.

However, the average of nuclear capacities is 1.6 %. For non-nuclear capacities, that is 1.3 %.

Mr. Pirlot, I just noted that at the Wales Summit a commitment to NATO countries was expressed. I didn’t say that your Prime Minister made a commitment at that time. I only pointed out what was agreed between NATO member states. We now link back to those agreements, to that hard pledge not to let the budget fall further. We also add that we are also looking at what we can do in the coming period.

Mr. Buysrogge does not attempt.

Mr. Buysrogge, you have lost my vote.

The third and last point I would like to discuss is the following. At the end of point 3, it is stated: “...which allows our country to contribute in the full spectrum through its various dimensions (land, air, marine and cyberspace)”.

Colleagues, you do not have to answer me, but I tell you that it is impossible to pay. Even for that reason, we will not support this resolution. I don’t want you to tell me or my party colleagues later that my group has taken that commitment. Colleagues, it is impossible, only because of the increasing cost of military equipment. Take for example the fighter aircraft. While we previously bought 160, you may now buy 34 new ones. I don’t know what you’re going to decide, but those 34 new devices cost a lot more than those 160. With the budgets you’re talking about, you’ll never be able to pay all the powers and cyberspace.

I promise to be brief, because I have already spoken in the discussion. As you know, dear colleagues of the majority, I can sometimes be constructive in some of the proposals but I have to admit that this text is – I will be a bit severe – a real fraud.

It is incredible that you have dared to come to present such a text. It highlights how significant the gap is between the content of the resolution and the reality of the figures and policies that are being carried out today by the government.

I do not understand how you dared to come up with such a text that highlights the flow, all the insufficiencies, all the absurdities in defense.

I will repeat two or three points. I think the best – and the discussion just highlighted it now – is ⁇ removing this text. I don’t think you will be able, for example, to present a strategic plan. There is a belief in the existence of a strategic plan. Colleague Van der Maelen also noted this. I have the same press release of the minister, which proudly announces "Strategic Defense Agreement in 2030". and Agreement! It was the famous Christmas agreement, placed under the tree of the Minister of Defense.

He came to the committee, I think on 13 January, to present him to us. This point was included on the agenda of our commission under the title “Defense Strategic Plan”. As he went through his slides, I heard colleagues from the majority around me say, “But finally, what does it come with? What is this? But no, there is no agreement!” I discovered this in the committee. And indeed, it was copiously and quickly torpedoed by Alexandre De Croo, Wouter Beke, Gwendolyn Rutten, which is not the small machine gun.

It was a heavy gun that was served in the Defence Commission. I had never seen a minister be disguised so quickly by all parties, except the MR, it is true, it must be emphasized. We were told that on December 22, an agreement would be reached. He was waiting for a good time, 18 months, but finally not for nothing. We arrive on the 13th of January in commission and we settle there comfortably. We are watching slides. It sounds awesome, awesome. And then we get out of that: we repackage everything, there is no agreement with the government. The deal has been treated as a stupid idea.

The [...]

Since then, Back on track – this was the article in L’Echo last June 15 – informed us that the kern was finally going to reach an agreement. This was no luck, as no agreement was reached at the Kern. Come today with a resolution proposal stating that you will present a strategic plan, sorry, but we don’t believe it anymore!

On the second point, it is still much stronger. You take the terminology of the Cardiff Summit, which commits to no longer cutting its defence budgets. These language elements date back to 2 years ago, and in 2 years we have reduced the defence budget. I look at the figures of the Court of Auditors. We have never seen such a significant decrease.

In 2015, if we compare the liquidation appropriations of 2014 with the adjusted budget, including the 100 million of which you talked just about the interdepartmental provision, Mr. Yüksel, the budget drops by 164 million, i.e. 6.25% in a year. That was for 2015. If we look at the budget that is registered for 2016, we are rebounding again by 121 million, i.e. an additional 5%. This is the reality of the numbers. So, come up with a proposal for a resolution to declare that decisively, we will not reduce the defence budget, while at the same time, we will demolish it completely. We do what we have never done in Defense, we break this budget, we demoralize the army, we don’t even invest in infrastructure or maintenance, we don’t even allow troops to train. You really have to be squeezed! At that level, I had never seen that!

I'm not going to go back to the figures of the Court of Auditors but it's 1.5 billion in the legislature. With 1.5 billion, you can do a lot. We can — Mr. Ducarme will ⁇ agree — buy about twenty fighter jets. You can buy frogs. You can also maintain, recruit, perform additional operations abroad. I point out that during the previous legislature, there was an ambition to put 1,200 men at the disposal of the international community for its peacekeeping operations. Today, we are no longer able to put 400 men at the disposal of the international community. In terms of capacity for participation in international operations, we are at a point that has never been reached, never, in the history of Belgium! But we have the means. We have the GDP that allows it. We have the expertise that allows it. Under this government, we have managed to have a level of contribution to military operations abroad that is completely ridiculous and never reached before. This is the reality of the numbers. This is the reality of this government’s policy. So, coming up with a resolution proposal like this, definitely, it needs to be inflated!

Since my colleagues are a bit impatient, which I can understand at this time of the evening, I would like to finish on two or three points. You commit Belgium in Afghanistan for the time when our presence will be necessary. I think it deserves a separate discussion – other colleagues have said so. This should not subreptically slide into point 9 of a resolution on the Warsaw Summit. I want to discuss it, I am not opposed to a presence in Afghanistan, but I think that is not where it should be. This should be discussed in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense. It is important.

When it comes to cybersecurity, my colleague Mr. Van der Maelen pointed out, you are once again giving the lesson by saying: we will impose on all Member States that they have the means to ensure their own cybersecurity, their own cybersecurity, while we know that again, in cybersecurity, the government has given our services, in particular the new cybersecurity center, completely ridiculous and incompatible with a real cybersecurity capacity. Again, it is quite bloated to come up with such proposals in this resolution.

You will understand, I will not support this resolution, and I would be surprised that some colleagues in my group support it. More seriously, I find it also a totally paradoxical and unacceptable message at the time of Brexit. If there is one topic on which Europeans could mobilize, on which we could have a European ambition, it is really the ability to defend ourselves collectively. This is the European Pillar of Defence. By presenting such a ridiculous budget, by making the defence minister’s budget not of the next government, nor of the next one, but of the next one, because it is that, 2030, but being unable to make a credible budget today, I find that we are not a serious partner in building European Defence.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister of Defence, this resolution is in line with the general vision of Defence, or the general vision of War, one could say, which has been carried by this government, and also elsewhere by previous governments, for years.

The PTB has regularly denounced this policy based on a logic of intervention somewhere around the world within the framework of NATO and its disastrous consequences.

In its memorandum on the upcoming NATO summit, the CNAPD (National Coordination of Action for Peace and Democracy) stated: “By mobilizing an extensive definition of the defense of the territory and security of the Euro-Atlantic zone, NATO is advancing increasingly diverse reasons to justify its a priori global military presence. We believe that by doing so, it arouses conflict and strengthens the threats it claims to combat, threats that Belgium intends to face in its new strategic plan and the means to respond to them are exactly the same as those presented in the texts of the Atlantic Alliance." CNAPD adds: "If the goal, as the NATO stresses, is to work for the security of the Euro-Atlantic zone, then we must assume the fact that our security has been diminished."

Indeed, the current intervention policy has not reduced insecurity. On the contrary, it increased it. This is the balance of our foreign policy that we have been asking for years to look face-to-face. With the increase of the military budget to 2% of GDP, even though there is a lot of discussion about the reality of this increase, and the new investments planned, especially for these new fighter jets out of price, the majority wants to stick closer to this NATO policy.

For the PTB, we must do the opposite, that is, invest in a policy of peace and disarmament. This means that we need a policy that avoids destabilizing war interventions. This means that we need a policy that favours diplomacy and negotiations. Finally, we need a policy in which any foreign peacekeeping mission is carried out within the strict framework of the United Nations Charter and international law with respect for sovereignty.

We will vote against this resolution.

I have a question of pure form. Allow a young member, in the number of years of presence on these banks, to ask a question. Is it normal to repeat a debate that has already taken place in the committee? If someone tells me that it’s tradition, I’ll gladly accept it, but it’s a bit exaggerated.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, there was no discussion in the committee. Hence the debate in plenary.

This is the explanation, Mr. Carcaci.