Proposition 54K1975

Proposition de résolution relative à la protection des minorités religieuses et philosophiques en Afrique du Nord, au Proche-Orient et au Moyen-Orient.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Peter Luykx, Vincent Van Peteghem
MR Jean-Jacques Flahaux, Richard Miller
N-VA Peter De Roover, Brecht Vermeulen
Open Vld Tim Vandenput

Submission date

July 13, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Middle East North Africa protection of minorities religious discrimination resolution of parliament rights of minorities religious fundamentalism

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Monica De Coninck (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Fatma Pehlivan (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Ann Vanheste (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to the written report.

Colleagues, I am pleased that today, after approximately a year of discussions in the committee and behind the scenes, we can again come up with a resolution for the day in which the government is asked to include it for the religious minorities in the Middle East and North Africa.

This resolution has a history. In 2014, as a member of the opposition, I launched a similar initiative. This was well received by the majority. Together with Mr de Donnea, former chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, we then proceeded to a joint resolution on majority and opposition to stand up for the protection of the aforementioned religious minorities.

Over the last few years, the situation in these regions has become increasingly harsh. The escalation of violence resulted in religious minorities and their cultural heritage threatening to be wiped out of the map. Therefore, we are also pleased with this new initiative, which again received the unanimous support and approval of the committee.

This resolution is not only a call, but has already been implemented in practice. This government, under the auspices of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Reynders, and State Secretary Theo Francken, provides the execution of what we ask them as Parliament.

Let me briefly summarize exactly what this resolution requires. We ask this government to make the protection of religious minorities a focus of foreign policy and to fully condemn the extermination, murders and attacks on these groups, without any reservation.

It should not only be a priority in our own foreign policy, we must also engage in it at European level and address this problem at European level.

We must actively ask the diplomatic corps in this country to act, to get in touch with representatives of that region.

It is not just about Christian minorities, but about various religious minorities. This is also the case, and this is also the case with this federal resolution, about minorities all over the world. We must keep in mind that Christianity is one of the most threatened religions in the world, with 200 million Christians worldwide at daily risk of being abused, kidnapped and murdered.

This problem occurs not only in the Middle East and North Africa, but also in North Korea, Turkey, Pakistan and Nigeria. It is a global problem, with geopolitical consequences, but also with consequences for the concerned groups on the ground.

I am therefore very pleased that we make this call from the majority, just as I did at that time as a member of the minority. Facta non verba. We carry out what we have requested, either from the opposition or from the majority.

I would like to thank you all for your support for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, my group has supported in the committee and will continue to support today in the plenary session this text that calls for the unreserved and with the greatest firmness to condemn the murder of Christians and other religious minorities in Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq, as well as the campaigns of persecution and targeted violence against Christian communities and all religious and philosophical minorities in North Africa, the Middle East and the Middle East.

In the current and regional context that we know, this text represents an important act for our assembly. However, I have made several comments on this text. I had submitted, in a committee, several amendments that wanted to be constructive, which did not minimize the objectives of this resolution but expanded its scope to freedom of expression, a notion too absent from this text.

Unfortunately, my arguments were rejected by the majority while they were often a copy-paste of positions taken by your groups during the previous legislature, when adopting a common text that the N-VA has largely plagiarized here.

For the part of the PS Group, I defended exactly the same position as in the previous legislature. We have always considered as absolute priorities of Belgian diplomacy, freedom of expression and more generally respect for fundamental freedoms – priorities that are inalienable and not negotiable, whether it is to address the situation in Belgium, in Europe or around the world.

This text indicates on page 4 of developments: "That is why we ask in this resolution the federal government to make the protection of religious minorities the lance iron of its foreign policy." In the committee, I heard Mr. Miller’s justification and I thank him for it, but, unfortunately, we cannot amend the developments.

For us, one of the priorities of our diplomacy must be the sacro-holy freedom of expression ...

Mr Miller wants to intervene.

This was not an amendment on my part. My comment did not require an amendment to the text. There is a translation error in the text and therefore a technical correction to be made. That is the meaning of my comment. There is a translation error with regard to the original text of our colleague Peter Luykx who did not speak of "the iron of the lance". So I asked – and I’m sorry to learn that this has not been corrected – that it’s just “a strong axis of foreign policy” but not the only axis. This was granted to me in the committee. I wanted to emphasize this: this is not an amendment and I have not amended the text of developments. I pointed out a lack of translation between the original text and the French text.

Unfortunately, the text presented today still corresponds to these terms, "the iron of the lance"!

I remember the debate very well. This is a linguistic refinement. Our French-speaking colleagues can find the difference but also the similarities between the Dutch and the French language. It is about “the spear point” versus “a spear point”. As Mr. Miller says, I also understood from the discussion in the committee that it was approved that it was a “peak point”. So, not the only spearhead of foreign policy, but “a spearhead.”

Mr. Speaker, we all agree. It must indeed be one of the lance threads but not “the” lance iron. I suggest, therefore, if it is still possible, that the text be amended in this direction. In the parliamentary work, there will be, in any case, a trace of this version.

One of the priorities of our diplomacy must absolutely be the sacro-sacred freedom of expression which, I said, is not included in this text, as it did not appear in the original text of the MR before the PS amendments under the previous legislature. At that time, they were adopted.

A freedom of expression that, however, de facto, strongly condemns any initiative aimed at incriminating freedom of expression, in particular concerning religious issues, such as blasphemy laws. A freedom of expression that de facto guarantees the freedom to believe or not to believe.

It is also in this sense that we have always preferred to talk about freedom of expression and religion and the struggle against all forms of discrimination, rather than to highlight one or another group of the population or to oppose it to such another group, such as a clash of civilization.

The future of the countries of the region to which this text is aimed lies in the post-community where a true society can emerge politically and socially and organize itself beyond belonging to one or another group. In the face of the dramatic situation that prevails in this region of the world and which illustrates the powerlessness of the international community and in the face of the thousands of dead only in Syria, every death of a civilian is a death of too much.

A non-religious political approach to conflict must be preferred because, as we know, religion is often only a pretext for seizing or justifying well-political decisions. However, don’t make me say what I haven’t said! It is a matter of acknowledging that it is unacceptable that the Christian communities of the countries covered by the text are intimidated, chased out or killed. Ethnic destruction by Daesh or other terrorist groups must be combated and condemned.

International justice should be able to carry out its work in this area. We therefore fully support the text, as in the previous legislature, among other things the request 1 of this text that is submitted to us.

I would also like to denounce, nonetheless, the cynicism of the N-VA which appeared in the basic text and which took for example the policy of Secretary of State, Theo Francken, on asylum, as if the majority already knew that he would, for the second time, make this week new insulting and scandalous statements with regard to migrants in distress in the Mediterranean and for the excellent work of our military and NGOs, demanding the end of the Belgian participation in the Sophia mission. It itself amended this point to remove this reference.

I will conclude by saying that the protection of religious minorities is a problem that deserves all the attention of our assembly and the 3D action of Belgium, but the latter must be understood in the broadest concept of defense of human rights and freedom of expression. And above all, this question cannot in any way be limited to a declaratory, dear colleagues of the majority.

It is up to Belgium and more broadly to the European Union to join action with speech and to conduct an asylum policy consistent with human rights and humanitarian rights.

Mr. Crusnière had left his seat slightly too soon, while I briefly asked for the word for a response.

Mr Crusnière, on behalf of my group, I would like to thank you for your support for this resolution. We have had good debates on this.

However, I have to comment on the fact that you accuse Mr. Theo Francken and the N-VA of cynicism. If there is a linearity in this file, then it is the linearity of State Secretary Theo Francken. As a member of the opposition, he defended these views in the committee by fire and by sword. Today, he implements them in his policy. Therefore, you can absolutely not blame us for cynicism.

You are taking the margin of a debate that still needs to be held – which, in my opinion, is completely separate from this debate – about the role of Louise-Marie and the discussions that are being held about it. This is about a group of people who were evacuated under very special, precarious conditions. This resolution supports government intervention in this area. This intervention was necessary, if not, Mr. Crusnière, those people were no longer there today.

Mixing one with the other is sorry. Despite the good debate, I would like to keep both issues separate. The resolution will get your and our support. Let us be allies in this story, let us strengthen this story, but above all let us not fall into a political discourse. I know politics is more than this alone. Please keep these two things apart.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for Mr. Luykx.

Mr. Luykx, the dimension you are touching, the refugee dimension, is not insignificant, not even in your text. In your request 16 you refer to the government for the relocation. As we all know, the resettlement of war refugees is an important instrument and a legal route to provide protection to, for example, people who live in war zones and are there threatened.

I want to ask you a question and our voting behavior will depend on your answer to it. Your petition 16 aims at asking Parliament for the government to give lasting priority to the resettlement of the most vulnerable religious minorities under the immediate threat of persecution and eradication and also to cooperate with their countries of origin on sustainable resettlement. If we approve your resolution, does this mean that we ask the government to give priority to the resettlement of religious minorities, over the resettlement of refugees who do not belong to a religious minority? Your answer is important because we believe that vulnerability should be almost the only criterion in deciding whether or not people should be transferred. After all, we have questions when selecting people based on their religion.

Ms. De Coninck also asked for the word.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Luykx makes strange statements.

Mr. Luykx, you are calling for no political games here. We are in Parliament to conduct political discussions. For all clarity, we have not started playing political games.

Following your statements, I would like to present to you the following. I don’t know if you realize it, but in the committee several parties have long been advocating for humanitarian visas. These humanitarian visas must be combined with a number of criteria. In the course of what colleague De Vriendt recently asked, I would like to suggest that you apparently make a distinction between religious minorities and other minorities, for example political minorities, who are persecuted or vulnerable or towards whom human rights are not respected.

I don’t want to stop this resolution, but since you are quite advocating straightforwardness, clarity and logic, I think you should think through and that you should not just focus on religious minorities, whatever you mean by “religious”, because even there I have questions, but I will remain polite.

Every human life is equally valuable. It is not about that. With this resolution, we do not seek to provide a universal, global solution to complete migration. For those who have attended the committee debates, this will be clear. We have a specific problem for this region. According to the co-signers of the opposition and the majority, that issue is important enough to bring this resolution into practice.

A similar resolution, adopted in the Flemish Parliament, was supported by all Flemish parties. You are now throwing too much on one pile; that was what I meant when I said that political games should be avoided. The problem and objectives are very clearly outlined in this resolution. I expect you to acknowledge and support them, as evidenced by the words of your colleagues.

Our group could not be present during the discussion in the committee because it was a very busy committee week, but I read the report of the various presentations and the submitted amendments.

It is a resolution that we really want to support, because protecting religious minorities is important. However, I fall a little over the word “priority”. For us, the protection of religious minorities is not a priority, not more important than, or – if you wish – not superior to, for example, the protection of political refugees or war refugees.

I am still talking about request 16 to the government. If the text, instead of “giving priority,” stated that it is “important” or “essential”, or that it is “a spear point” – not “the spear point”, as in another discussion point about the text – then we could go into it.

I just asked you a question about the word “priority”. Does this mean that the resettlement of religious minorities is a priority, therefore more important, than the resettlement of, for example, political refugees or war refugees, in short, of those who do not belong to a religious minority?

Mr. De Vriendt, I always appreciate you, because the benefit of a good debate, a good clarification of the points of view, usually leads to a common point of view.

Without wanting to send in too semantic discussions, but the expression “giving priority” does not indeed imply a hierarchical order between who is and who is not, who is more and who is less. “Priority” means, in my opinion, that it is a problem that deserves attention and, like many spearheads — the text is adapted to that, so in mind we are completely on the same track — this is one of the many possible spearheads in foreign policy, but one that we would like to see. There is no hierarchy, no subordination, no domination. This is an important point that we want to emphasize with this resolution.

I would like to start by saying a few words about the debate that has just begun. For our group, the issues that have been raised have their importance. That is why I allowed myself to interrupt our excellent colleague, Mr. Crusnière, while he was at the tribune. I wanted to remind you that from the beginning, we had estimated that there was a translation error in the French text compared to the Dutch original text. It is therefore not about speaking of the lance iron of foreign affairs policy but of a lance iron, of a priority.

One day, a member of this Assembly ironized about the fact that I was a philosopher, but sometimes it turns out to be very useful. To answer Mr. De Vriendt’s question about the meaning of the term priority, I can say that what is designated by this text is what is called in philosophy a priority in itself. This is not a priority over other important policies. This is a fundamental element in itself that we are trying to answer.

It is true that through this text we have targeted the problem of the terrible situation of people who, together, constitute a minority community on a defined territory. We felt that it was necessary to mark the blow and get a text voted in the direction of a support to be provided to these religious and philosophical minorities, as indicated in the text.

At the end of the previous legislature, a resolution put forward by our group leader Denis Ducarme had been debated and adopted just before the dissolution of the chambers. Three years later, we must unfortunately find that the fate of religious minorities in this region has not evolved favourably and we wanted, with the resolution proposal submitted by our colleague Peter Luykx, to insist on this topic, to which I know our Minister of Foreign Affairs is also attentive.

Dear colleagues, while Daesh is living its last weeks, we want, with this resolution, to send a clear message to the current Iraqi government and the future Syrian authorities. In the territories liberated from Daesh, Christians, people of other beliefs, in short, religious minorities, must be able to return home safely and rebuild their religious buildings, their churches.

More directly, we wish to respect Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I like to read this article because it introduces an important notion regarding the public exercise of religion: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right implies the freedom to change religion or conviction, as well as the freedom to manifest one’s religion or conviction alone or in common, both in public and in private, through teaching, practices, worship and the fulfillment of rites.”

This principle of freedom of worship, of freedom to believe or not to believe, is fundamental for every human being, (men and women) – it is worth emphasizing in this context – and it is extremely important in the eyes of our political formation. We know that Belgium is attached to this.

If the Reform Movement is attached to this principle for every Belgian citizen, we are also attached to it for all other citizens of the planet. However, we find — and we are not the only ones who make this finding — that the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are currently at risk in much of the Middle and Middle East. Eastern Christians were the first to disperse in the Eastern Mediterranean basin. Now, with the exception of Israel and Lebanon, they live within states whose dominant religion is Islam. We must be careful to ensure that the safety of property and persons is preserved and that offences against them are punished.

Persecution is not only acts of physical violence, but also pressures, prohibitions, discriminations related to their beliefs. Copts in Egypt demand access to high positions in the administration or the army, in a society that denies them equal treatment. Iraqi Christians had to flee the advance of Daesh, leaving the plain of Nineveh to take refuge in the autonomous region of Kurdistan. Now they have no hope of returning to their towns and villages of origin. Most sell their land and houses and consider leaving either to Europe or to Canada or Australia.

Syria had about one million Christians at the beginning of the conflict, or 4.6% of the population. They would be only half, gathered not far from Homs, a valley of Christians, where many have fled, fleeing areas controlled by Daesh.

Palestine is not left. The city of Bethlehem was 90% Christian until the 1960s. At present, the percentage of Christians is only 30%. Only Christians in Lebanon have political power, to which adds a demographic weight: 39-40% of the total population. But the fragility of the Lebanese balance prevents us from thinking that the rest that Lebanese religious communities experience is guaranteed in the future.

Dear colleagues, the Christians of the East live in fear of not being able to stay on their millennial lands, this land where this great monotheistic religion, Christianity, was born. Often announced, the disappearance of entire communities becomes a reality. The Arab Middle East is losing the assets of pluralism and its human, cultural and spiritual diversity.

In this sense, Mr. Speaker, the message that the President of the Moroccan Parliament recently delivered to us on your invitation, regarding the resumption of the Euro-Mediterranean space, is an interesting message that we must absolutely hear.

As everywhere else in the world, we must defend freedom of religion and belief, the protection of the free exercise of cults, in coherence with our commitment to human rights. The MP will vote this text with enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the right to freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right, but today we find that some religious communities and religious minorities are victims of human rights violations.

Since the 2003 Iraq War, religious minorities in the Middle East and North Africa have been victims of this. The Arab Spring accelerated this. Since the arrival of IS in 2014, a true religious war has been waged against religious and life-thinking minorities.

Where in 2003 there were 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, today there are only 275 000, a great loss of human lives, a great loss also of cultural heritage that mortgages the future of the religious minorities in the region, despite their deep roots.

This Parliament has already adopted a resolution on this topic during the previous legislation. However, the continuing deterioration of the situation of religious minorities in the Middle East and North Africa, especially since the rise of the extremist jihadist groups, urges us to recapture this problem and to demand and take further steps.

Therefore, our group will fully support and approve this resolution.

The persecution of religious and philosophical minorities in the Middle East has a long history. This was the case before the arrival of IS, and unfortunately it will continue to exist after IS. I fear that this is the reality.

Although the many minorities have just shaped the rich history of this part of the world, the tension about this has grown dramatically in recent decades.

Therefore, it is just as important that the rest of the world, and therefore also Belgium, take a position in defense of the rights of all religious and life-conscious minorities in the world. The defense of the rights of religious and philosophical minorities should be a focal point of Belgian international politics, as proposed by this resolution.

Urging UN agencies to develop tailored programs to promote tolerance and rehabilitation of victims is necessary for peace in the Middle East. Justice for the victims and the persecution of ISIS are also a prerequisite for a lasting peace. Without justice, it is impossible for victims of persecution to coexist with other communities. Belgium must therefore, as stated in the resolution, urge politicians in those countries, regardless of their background, to work on the conditions for a peaceful society, with the strengthening of the rule of law.

Colleagues, the present resolution recognises the many complex challenges in this matter and also proposes a number of consistent, realistic steps that we can take from Belgium. We have approved the resolution in the committee, but following the discussion between the colleagues, we will also submit an amendment. I hope that the majority can support our amendment so that we can unanimously adopt the resolution also in the plenary session. Our amendment aims to clarify the word “priority” so that it also corresponds with the statements of a number of colleagues, in the continuation of the discussion we have held on this subject.

First, I would like to congratulate the main authors of this resolution, including Mr. Luykx.

On the question of whether this is a priority or not, the answer is yes. This is a priority, it is a matter of major concern. We see the evolution of an increasingly intolerant world in which certain groups, in this case the Islamic State (IS) and other Islamist groups, consider it unbearable and intolerable to live with other groups that would have different religious convictions and consider these to be unacceptable or even Satanic (which is the case of Yezidis considered by the IS as worshippers of Satan). This is a major priority in international relations.

I would like to make a few observations. First of all, it is not only the update of a resolution of 2014, in particular deposited by colleague Ducarme, but which was already the update of a resolution that I had deposited in 2009, adopted in the plenary session in January 2010, reposted as it was in 2014 and which contained such plagiarism of my resolution that Mr. Ducarme had, at first, removed it to adapt it somewhat.

I do not speak of this in order to reopen the debate on the origin and original author of these resolutions and concerns, but simply to demonstrate that since 2010 and despite resolutions adopted unanimously each time, the situation of Eastern Christians and other minorities has deteriorated considerably. Where, in 2010, there were still half a million Christians in Iraq, there are probably now between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand. They did not suffer from any problems in Syria; they are now on the verge of disappearance. The question of the Yezidis did not even arise at that time! We were not aware of the situations in Burma with the Rohingya, nor those in Indonesia, the Philippines or in other countries where these problems have become crucial today and which cause human losses, each year, because of their philosophical or religious convictions.

It is very good to adopt proposals for resolutions unanimously and to put them on the agenda every three or four years.

For me, I would like this to go beyond pure gesture. In fact, I sometimes have the impression that it is primarily about flattering our electorate. In any case, today, efficiency is completely absent, zero. And it is time to realize how crucial and urgent this problem is, that, in a number of cases, the situation is already irreversible and that, in others, one can hardly hope that one can protect certain populations. I find, for example, that the next populations that are likely to be seriously endangered are probably the Copts of Egypt who are already subject to very significant harassment.

Dear colleagues, I would like to have a government report on the initiatives that are being taken, on the situation, on the populations that are in danger country by country, conviction by conviction as well as on the initiatives taken by Belgium, by Europe and the international community to finally stop the threat that weighs on these populations. This request is not included in the text of the proposal for a resolution. Since my presence was required in other committees, I was unfortunately not able to participate in these works.

In my opinion, it is urgent that we seek, finally, beyond words, beyond resolutions, to be effective on the subject and to make sure that the serious threat that weighs on the international community is lifted. Let us not be foolish! When the Middle East is completely religiously homogeneous, other regions of the world will follow. Moreover, Europe is also threatened by religious intolerance, tensions, misunderstandings, misunderstandings that could completely degenerate into a sense known in other parts of the world.

This is a priority problem that would deserve much more than a resolution. It would be worthy that we have the opportunity to verify whether our actions are effective or whether these are just words with no consequences for the populations they are supposed to protect.

Mr Dallemagne, thank you for your support for the resolution and for your intervention. I know you are very busy in this area too. I share your view that a resolution is, of course, a step, a question, or a request, and that we as Parliament should also ensure that it is followed. Action must be linked to this question to the government, to the resolution. So I advocate with you for a kind of progress report, a kind of follow-up that is formally requested in the committee. You will get the support of our group.

Mr Luykx, thank you for your intervention. If we have the support of your group, I hope that we will have that of other groups to make a point on these issues through an annual evaluation report. This would allow to verify the evolution – degradation or improvement – of the condition of persons harassed because of their religious or philosophical convictions. This would also allow a look at the political initiatives that have been taken to try to improve their fate.

I will not be much longer. The last time we adopted a similar resolution was in April 2014, if I have a good memory. That was a few weeks before the establishment of al-Baghdadi’s caliphate in June 2014. We can see how much the situation has worsened in the meantime, especially in this part of the world.

It has already been discussed in paragraph 16 of the resolution. I have no problem with this point 16. But I would like to add one point that I think is important, and that is missing in our resolution. What these populations demand is, above all, to be able to live in the regions and countries where they have always lived. I have seen and seen it several times in Syria and Iraq.

What these populations demand is first and foremost protection on the ground, that local, national and international protection arrangements be set up so that they can continue to live there. I feel that these people will not return to their homes. This is not true. Many of them are already returning home and need to be accompanied. Some of these populations, for example, return to Qaraqosh, in a large Syrian Christian city in northern Iraq.

These people are returning to towns that are devastated. They ask for help in reconstruction and protection in order to live there. I think that’s what we should try to bring. I am concerned that there is currently no serious and credible scenario for protecting these long-term populations in the countries where they live.

It seems to me essential, for the future of these populations, that we can, together with the local populations, with the national governments, Iraq in particular, and with the United Nations Security Council, set up arrangements for these populations to be better protected through protective mechanisms on the ground. I think it is very important that we also keep this in mind.

Based on all these remarks, our group will of course support the resolution under consideration. I thank you.

Since the establishment of the Islamic State caliphate by the terrorist organization Daesh in 2014, religious and philosophical minorities in Iraq and Syria and more recently in Egypt and Libya have been living a real nightmare. Amnesty International is talking about ethnic cleansing in the region.

In its resolution of 4 February 2016, the European Parliament recognized the systematic massacre and persecution of religious minorities by Daesh as genocide. Families are tortured and murdered if they refuse to commit allegiance to the terrorist group. Women and children are captured to become sex slaves. The Islamic State openly boasts that once these women are made slaves, they are sold to the organization’s soldiers. Young girls are forcibly married to fighters.

Minorities in the region are persecuted for their religion, which constitutes a crime against humanity under the statutes of the International Criminal Court. Some families succeed in escaping these persecutions and escaping the grip of the Islamic State and seeking refuge in neighboring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan or in Europe, with all the difficulties we know. In Lebanon, there are almost 1.5 million refugees in a country of only 6 million inhabitants, which significantly increases tensions between the different communities on the ground.

In Europe, shipwrecks in the Mediterranean are legion and have increased since the closure of the Balkan route. This exodus requires our government to take its responsibilities, which has not always been the case, as I regret having to remind you today.

While the text highlights the actions undertaken by the government in favour of the religious minorities in the region, I cannot forget the same government’s refusal to execute a judicial ruling ordering it to host a Syrian family from Aleppo. I also can’t endorse the clash of this weekend around the Louise-Marie frigate in the Mediterranean and its rescue mission.

This exodus threatens human lives and also the cultural heritage of this region, the birthplace of civilization.

Similarly, the movable and immovable property of people who could have fled is directly confiscated by the Islamic State, sometimes for resale, which hypothesizes their chances of returning to the country once the war is over.

The situation we know today is not without reminding the horror of the three recognized genocides of the 20th century, one of which took place at the gates of the Middle East: the Armenian Genocide.

This reminder is important because, during this genocide, Eastern Christians were also already persecuted – Armenians, but also Arameans and Pontic Greeks. This genocide targeted each of the distinct groups of victims, but within the framework of one and the same global approach planned and executed by one of the Ottoman governments, in the same will to ⁇ an ethnic unification of the Ottoman Empire, by eradicating the Christian populations that inhabited it.

The government agreement provides for special attention to those oppressed because of their religion. It is therefore time for the government to commit to condemn without reservation and with the greatest firmness the murder of Christians and other religious minorities in North Africa, the Middle East and the Middle East, as well as all forms of discrimination and intolerance. In its bilateral contacts with the authorities of these countries, the Government must also and constantly draw attention to the precarious situation of religious and philosophical minorities and to the need to protect them.

Certainly, the liberation of Mosul marks a turning point in the ongoing persecution and constitutes a small glow of hope. The Islamic State is losing ground. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Daesh still controls sectors in Iraq, in eastern and central Syria. He still has a lot to fight for. The liberation of Mosul could even trigger a reaction among the jihadists, calling for greater vigilance in the face of the ongoing violence in the region, ⁇ against minorities.

In this regard, I am very satisfied with the evolution of the text in commission. Initially, it was intended to ask the government to condemn the massacre of Christians in Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq, thus excluding other religious minorities also victims of persecution. The text presented to us today is aimed at all religious and philosophical minorities in North Africa, the Middle East and the Middle East, and more exclusively at Christians. It was crucial to condemn all violence against all civilian victims, regardless of their convictions. This requirement arises from my group’s attachment to secularism, which implies our duty to protect all philosophical convictions and thus put them on an equal footing.

For these reasons, it is obvious that our group will support this resolution proposal. And I agree with Mr. Dallemagne’s comments when he asks what, in the end, resolutions are being made. It is important to be aware of this and to work more intensely, not only in Belgium, but with all our European neighbors.