Proposition 54K2055

Proposition de résolution visant à reconsidérer la politique étrangère de la Belgique à l'égard du Royaume d'Arabie saoudite.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Muriel Gerkens, Georges Gilkinet, Benoît Hellings, Jean-Marc Nollet
Groen Kristof Calvo, Wouter De Vriendt, Anne Dedry, Evita Willaert

Submission date

Sept. 27, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Saudi Arabia foreign policy resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE DéFI Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

PS | SP ∉ PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Christian Brotcorne (LE) abstained from voting.
• Stéphanie Thoron (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 8, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

It is, of course, pure coincidence that we are discussing this proposal for a resolution today. There is no connection, but Amnesty International is currently taking action on social media over the fact that Ms. al-Hathloul was arrested on June 4 in Saudi Arabia. The crime she has committed is that she has driven the car. He entered the land, and it was costly for him. Apparently this is a reason for being arrested as a woman in Saudi Arabia. It illustrates the background against which we should look at the present text.

Fortunately, with the word Saudi Arabia, because of its natural resources, we do not mean material shortages but a number of other matters, which are rightly the source of the resolution proposal submitted by the colleagues.

I think first of all about human rights. This can be debated for a long time, but there are still a number of red lines that we do not want to cross from our conviction in connection with human dignity. I think of the death penalty, the torture, the freedom of the press, the freedom of religion, the rights of women, the sexual freedom and the way in which justice takes place. This is a case by case in which Saudi Arabia is an example, but then in the negative sense.

With the word Saudi Arabia, we also think of the financing of wahabism. The country then defends itself, technically correctly, by the announcement that it does not finance IS, because IS is just an opponent of the regime of Saudi Arabia, but the least that can be determined is that the country is striking firearms near a hook mite. One can say that you did not start the fire yourself, but that there is a fire, is a logical consequence of playing with the fireplaces.

Another element that emerges in Saudi Arabia is a geostrategic, geopolitical element, namely the stability in the region. Unlike many other regimes, the Saudi regime has indeed been a beacon of stability for a very long time. However, we have noticed in recent years, including through the active participation in the war in Yemen, that Saudi Arabia could become a threat or a guarantee in that regard today.

These are some of the arguments or reasons why the proposal has been pushed forward, a proposal that we will later support in amended form with our group. We do that because one cannot look at such manifest violations unemployed.

However, we must do more than squeeze our personal conscience by adding something to the already existing mountain of paper. We must dare to go beyond raising our fingers, because we are angry.

From that background, we are not in favour of any kind of automatic boycott of Saudi Arabia in trade relations, first, because trade is normally done not with a country, but with companies, and second, because it is important that, if we want to have any impact on the situation there, this is done through concrete relations with that country, for example through trade relations in addition to the obvious diplomacy. We need to give companies the courage to address their social responsibility and ⁇ the resolution can contribute to that. Furthermore, in our approach to the problem, we should not give the impression that one is sitting in Saudi Arabia waiting for what is happening in our hemisphere. Therefore, you also read in the text the explicit reference to the European Union and the United Nations. In this way, in fact, we can indirectly use our influence and through a broad front, a broad coalition with European allies and even globally, try to influence the situation in Saudi Arabia.

In the draft resolution, we also emphasized that respect for the division of powers in our country would be applied. Our committee, by the way, asked the state parliaments to give a response. It is a pity that only the Flemish Parliament has intervened on this, but the reasons why one was less enthusiastic about it on the other side of the language boundary may be suspicious. Our question has given rise to a broad debate in the Flemish Parliament and I think we can take what is said there very seriously. This has also inspired us in the treatment of the present text.

Furthermore, it is also good that those powers have been transferred to the subregions in a number of areas. If we were to reason in a Belgian framework, I fear that, for example, in the field of arms trade, the Flemish solution would not have been chosen, but that, as still in Belgium, the Wallish solution would lead the top. In any case, Flanders has been given the opportunity and has taken advantage of a much more progressive policy in this area.

We will undoubtedly hear high-minded words here today. I have nothing against that in myself. When it comes to the situation in Saudi Arabia, it is about concrete individuals.

Dear Minister, welcome to you. It is well known that in all contacts with Saudi Arabia and also in international institutions and meetings where that theme is addressed, you speak clear language every time, for example regarding the death penalty, and that you also harden the impact you can have. Human rights organizations acknowledge this even explicitly and explicitly. With this resolution, we would like to support you again. You not only have our support in this, we want to continue to encourage you in it. This is also one of the intentions of the proposed text.

I would also like to express my gratitude for the good cooperation with the Ecolo-Groen group during the discussion in the committee, which has taken up a lot of time.

I can hope that there will be a as unanimous signal from our Chamber as soon as possible at the vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my colleagues, allow me, at the beginning of our debate, to ask you a question. Would we consider this text today if Belgium had not supported Saudi Arabia’s candidacy for the UN Commission on Women’s Rights? I do not think I am mistaken or reductive in saying that in the eyes of the majority, the main merit of this resolution is ⁇ that it provides an opportunity to divert the attention of this ONUgate and try to catch up.

As a reminder, in an unnamed imbroglio between the discordant versions of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs, we learned that Belgium has supported the candidacy of Saudi Arabia in the UN Commission on the Rights of Women without the federal government, at least initially, seeing the slightest problem.

In the face of the collective indignation, my dear colleagues of the majority and, more specifically, Minister Reynders sought to light a counterfire to make this scandalous vote at the UN forget. My dear colleagues, you found this counterfire by voting for an Ecolo-Groen text, aimed at reconsidering foreign policy towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Before this vote, however, you have taken great care to sweeten the requests made to the federal government and have, at the same time, loaded as much as possible the requests falling within the competence of the Regions and, in particular, of Wallonia – I will return to it when I refer to the double-use links, terminology that you have systematically avoided in this text to not embarrass your Flemish partners of this majority.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome Mrs. Grovonius’ intervention, but I want to rename her!

We knew in its time the Countess of Ségur; we know today the Countess Grovonius. Indeed, she has the art of telling stories to make us take vessies for lanterns.

I recall that the Ecolo group deposited its text long before, in tempore non suspecto, and that we had already asked, in tempore non suspecto, long before the element it highlights, the opinion of the Regions, in particular that of the Walloon Region of which we all know how disappointing it is. We were in the continuity of a file.

I understand that after the Samusocial affair, Mrs. Grovonius is extremely bored, because she finds herself in the obligation to support the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia by Belgium and, as a result, she tells us a story of not even being able to sleep standing!

Thank you for this intervention of Mr. Flahaux who, as usual, increases our discussions!

You will have understood it, my colleagues, therefore several questions arise from the beginning on the real motivations of the majority in this case. Indeed, if the majority was fully convinced by the different requests found in this text, how can we explain that the PVs of the European Council of Foreign Affairs which are regularly sent to us by the administration seem very often silent on the question of Saudi Arabia and human rights in this country?

If the majority was fully convinced by the different requests of this text, how then to understand the mutism of the head of the Belgian diplomacy, when it came to relay, at the level of his European peers, the repeated wallon requests to establish a European arms embargo? If the majority was fully convinced by the various demands of this text, why did not the parties that make it subsequently deposit, in the regional parliaments where they sit, resolutions calling on their respective governments to stop, as is the case here, the import, export and transit with Saudi Arabia of military and dual-use equipment? Especially, if the majority was fully convinced by the different demands of this text, how to understand the vote that took place at the UN a few weeks ago?

Asking these questions, in the end, is already answering them. Indeed, this text of September 2016, Mr Flahaux, is far from new and has been in debate, for months, within the Committee on Foreign Relations. My group, on the other hand, has always been very constructive in this framework, unlike the majority, the same majority that, on the other hand, rejected the proposal that was formulated by my group, several months ago, to ask for an opinion in the Senate. Why ask the Senate for this opinion? Because it is the neighboring parliamentary assembly that is, since the sixth state reform, the most able to make a decision on this text, which looks very widely at regionalised or communityalised competences and on which the federal level, the House in this case, has no take-over or legitimacy.

In the meantime, an opinion has actually been requested from the parliaments of the federal entities. The Flemish Parliament has submitted a text that rejects the requests made in the resolution we are discussing today. The Parliament of Wallonia, on the other hand, found itself incompetent to look at a text from the House, which – and I have already said it many times – I obviously regret.

In the meantime, no one is fooled. The positive vote of Belgium that allowed the accession of Saudi Arabia to the UN Women’s Rights Commission cannot be eclipsed by this debate.

This conclusion comes back to the text that is presented to us today. In the committee, in the article-by-article vote, my group supported requests relating to federal powers and abstained from those relating to federal entities. Overall, we abstained and will repeat this vote, today, in the plenary session, for this reason.

However, it is not because we differ on the method that there is no agreement on the principle. In this context, the volunteer positions of my group on human rights and social and environmental standards are no longer to be demonstrated. It would be dishonest to claim the opposite. Without double standards, we are attentive to the human rights situation with all of our business partners regardless of the continent to which they belong.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Grovonius, you have blamed, rightly, our Minister of Foreign Affairs who, a few weeks ago from his office, was able to give a positive opinion for the vote of Belgium in favour of the participation of Saudi Arabia in the UN Commission on the Rights of Women.

But, in this case, why not show consistency by asking Mr. Magnette, prime minister-president of the Wallon government, who is the only competent, like Mr. Reynders, to decide, from his office, to grant a gun license to Saudi Arabia, to show the same commitment, the same conviction in human rights? It is just a matter of consistency.

It is true, Mrs. Grovonius, that if a murder had not been committed, this resolution would not be discussed here. But, the legitimate demand of citizens who have been, rightly, shocked by this decision must be answered by making strong actions by putting on the same line policies at the federal and regional level. This is what the resolution that is presented to us today requires.

In this sense, during the previous legislature, we voted for a text on Qatar. It is also for this reason that the PS co-signed a resolution concerning Saudi Arabia. It is therefore not the first time that we speak of Saudi Arabia here, since, already on 18 June 2015, we voted this resolution that called for "a thorough reflection on the diplomatic, military, economic, commercial and energy relations of Belgium with Saudi Arabia, in light of the terrible balance of this regime in matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the iconic case of Mr. Raif Badawi, but also the role of some Saudi officials in the financing of international terrorism."

I imagine that it was precisely this thorough reflection that led to Belgium’s vote in favour of the admission of Saudi Arabia into the UN Commission on Women’s Rights. We all know that human rights in Saudi Arabia are being violated on a large scale. It is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, where freedom of expression and freedom of association are broken. This is obviously unacceptable.

Belgium must actively support international organizations, those of Saudi civil society, and those who defend the rights and freedoms in Saudi Arabia and who work in particular to improve the status of women in this country. Therefore, in Saudi Arabia as well as elsewhere, we must oppose and condemn the use of torture and corporal punishment as strongly as possible, as well as all violations of the rights of women, LGBTQI and minorities. That is why I spoke so vividly with the Prime Minister and Minister Reynders on the legitimate polemic arising from Belgium’s vote in the UN.

Of course, multilateralism is important and I think we need to maintain diplomatic relations with this country, taking into account the regional context. But, on the occasion of the individual and secret vote of Belgium, we missed a great opportunity to show our difference. Likewise, our federal government refuses to play a driving role in the Council of the European Union for the implementation of a European arms embargo and on dual-use goods for Saudi Arabia. This is what Wallonia has long sought. Such an embargo on arms exports as well as on dual-use goods to Saudi Arabia will, however, only have a significant impact if it is adopted at European level rather than at the only Belgian level. The Flemish Parliament does not say anything else in its opinion.

Did Minister Reynders need this resolution to adopt this position requested by Wallonia? Probably not, if he had the will.

Similarly, with regard to commercial relations in the broader sense, I would like to quote you a phrase from the opinion given by the Flemish Parliament which emphasizes “that it is not the authorities or governments who maintain commercial relations with foreign regimes and authorities, but that it is, on the contrary, the companies that export and undertake on the international level; that therefore it is necessary to make a clear distinction between state-to-state relations and relations between private companies; that, on the other hand, it can be expected from companies that they act within the framework of socially responsible entrepreneurship”.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that Mrs. Grovonius points out that public power and ⁇ must be separated. I would like to ask her if she knows, by chance, who owns 100% of the FN company. It is the same Walloon Region. So it is the same public power that you want to separate between public power and private enterprise.

Madame Grovonius, at the end of your exhibition, I imagine that there will be someone in the corridor who will award you the degree of Wallonia's best-seller of weapons!

Mr. Flahaux, I thank you for this intervention which, once again, is of a marked depth. [...] Let me finish! I simply quoted a phrase that was in the opinion given by the Flemish Parliament. No worries, Mr Flahaux.

With regard to this quote, we realize that, in this context, it would have been useful for the government to come and present to us the famous National Action Plan "Enterprises and Human Rights" which has been announced to us since the beginning of the legislature but which has not yet arrived, despite the contributions made by the Regions. Again, does Minister Reynders expect us to vote on this resolution to move forward on this point?

Wallonia did not wait for this text to legislate. The Wallon decree on weapons is one of the toughest at European level. It is not my role, as a federal deputy, because I am not competent in the matter, to recall these elements. But let me do this for the clarity of the debate.

The Wallonian Decree of 21 June 2012 incorporates the eight criteria of the Common Position of the European Union. These constitute a mandatory analysis basis for all export activities outside the European Union and NATO countries. In 2003, Belgium was the first EU country to incorporate the European Code of Conduct into its legislation, although it was not yet binding. The list of weapons covered by legislation, as set out in the Belgian law of 1991, is one of the most comprehensive in the European Union. It should also be remembered that the Walloon legislation on arms exports is one of the only ones that also applies to civilian weapons.

Of course, legislation is made up of criteria. As regards arms legislation, for sensitive and highly sensitive cases, the files are followed by rigorous analysis based, inter alia, on the eight criteria of the Common Position of 8 December 2008 and on the work carried out within the COARM Group on conventional arms exports.

In view of the evolving situation, Wallonia has repeatedly initiated specific table tours on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region. Currently, Saudi Arabia is considered a reliable customer by COARM partners – the same Saudi Arabia that is a member, like the Belgian Defence, of the international coalition to fight Daesh.

I also remind you that the resolution adopted by the House in the fight against Daesh emphasizes the need for sufficient regional political and military support. Even if it doesn’t please me, it’s hard to see that Saudi Arabia plays a central role in this, in one of the most complex regions in the world.

Therefore, as I have always done, I insist on the adoption of strict European criteria that the Member States and, in the Belgian case, the Regions, will be able to apply in full transparency and consistency.

Finally, you will not prevent me from emphasizing, as I did in a committee, the will of the federal majority to make the community again in this case and to make Wallonia wear the hat.

I would like to remind you first that almost 80% of Belgian exports to Saudi Arabia are made by Flanders. Flemish Prime Minister-President Geert Bourgeois has never been embarrassed to give his green light to the export of weapons pieces – targeters – to Saudi Arabia. Flanders would therefore have the advantage of sweeping in front of their door before giving lessons, which exports at least seven to eight times more dual-use equipment than Wallonia, according to the lowest estimates.

Regarding dual-use equipment, the MR, as a good defender of Flanders and wanting to point the finger to the FN, has done everything in commission so that these two words, though simple, understandable by all, do not appear anywhere in this text. You can search, you will not find them. All of my amendments in this regard have been rejected and today the Chamber’s legal services have confirmed the blurry of the text adopted by the majority. A mistake that ultimately makes the affairs of the Flemish Region good.

Sorry, but this point deserves clarification. I would like to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs about this.

For dual-use weapons technology, it is true that, unfortunately, the term has not been explicitly reprinted in the text of the resolution proposal. On the other hand, the lists referred to in Articles 6 and 12 of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of the European Council of 8 December 2008 are mentioned. In my view, the one mentioned in Article 6 concerns precisely dual-use technology.

In this case, my colleague is right. In fact, in the meantime, European references have changed. I would like to be clear and clear by asking for a clear answer from the Minister of Foreign Affairs as to the fact that the proposed resolution also applies to dual-use equipment. This is an important aspect of our discussions. In my opinion, yes, but the reference is no longer quite accurate. Therefore, I would like to give a formal confirmation.

Per ⁇ we will have this confirmation that we have not been able to get a vivid voice in commission.

Meanwhile, at the end of our committee work, a legal opinion was obviously requested on the proposed formulations. This opinion suggests a different one. In addition, I have submitted two amendments which repeat word for word.

The [...]

Just a moment, Mr Miller.

No, we are not doing this way. Ask for the word. Interruptions are always possible, but you must ask for the word.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but it is still difficult to accept listening to Mrs. Grovonius constantly saying things that are not accurate. I do not call her a liar. I will not go until then. But his way of reading things is really surprising.

Mrs. Grovonius, I will answer you soon about the Walloon Region. But I react on the specific point that you raise, on the note that has been transmitted to us, at your request, by the legal services. The Chairman of the Committee agreed to submit your request.

I ask you one thing, Mrs. Grovonius, before you start turning around the pot. According to the House services, are dual-use goods not covered by the text we have deposited? Please answer, Madame Grovonius! This is written black on white in the response of the Chamber services. Do not say that is not true! Do not say that this is not included! This is the beginning. This is the first paragraph of the note that was transmitted to us by the services of the Chamber.

Lord, if you had allowed me to continue, I would have with great pleasure continued to develop my thought. I could have recalled the elements that are actually contained in this legal advice that I requested. I would like to remind you that it took extensive discussions in the committee to get this request accepted. (Brouhaha) by

Listen to Mrs. Grovonius!

Let us return to the question that now concerns us, namely whether the text, as it is formulated today, covers, or does not cover, dual-use materials.

According to the legal services of the Chamber, as it is formulated today, the provision compels the reader to embark on a track game that does not facilitate its proper understanding. The text refers to Article 6 of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008, which refers to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000, which itself must be understood as Regulation (EC) No 428/2009.

The services indicate that, since the aim is to also target the dual-use goods listed in Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, this will be expressly mentioned in the text of the resolution, which is not the case today. The Legal Services of the Chamber further indicate that point 2/1 as amended, refers to the list mentioned in Articles 6 and 12 of the Common Position, which suggests that the two articles refer to the same list, which is not the case. Article 6 relates to dual-use goods, which is listed in Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, while Article 12 relates to the Common List of Military Equipment of the European Union.

On this point, Madame Grovonius, it is true that with the MR, we worked on a sub-amendment referring to Article 6 and Article 12 of Common Position 2008/944. This is a fundamental advance. And the Chamber Legal Service says on page 1, because there you read page 2, I quote: "We deduce from this that the expression, the export records of technology and military equipment contained in the list mentioned in articles 6 and 12 also refer to dual-use goods."

This is important because there is a precedent. Using Article 6 and Article 12 of the 2008 Common Position on Arms Sales is exactly what the European Parliament has done to include dual-use goods in a resolution adopted in February 2016, voted by the Socialist Parliamentarians, Mrs. Grovonius, and calling for a European arms embargo against Saudi Arabia.

Therefore, this resolution takes the right path, as it takes the same path that the Socialists took in the European Parliament to include dual-use goods in a resolution on the same subject.

Madame Grovonius, we must stop with this pathetic smoke screen!

Mr Grovonius, you asked in the committee to address the double use of certain materials. The majority did that too. We have referred to a list that is used European to designate those materials. You say that the list does not contain that. The legal advice of the Chamber states that it should be read this way. You are probably not the only one, I suspect that soon the other socialist party will look for the same problems, but you are looking for nails on low water. You refuse to read what is stated, and I suspect this is to create an alternative agenda that you may not want to stand up for.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the support that Ecolo-Groen provides to the amendments that have been submitted, although they remain ambiguous. I have read all the opinions given by the legal service. I will not repeat what I said. However, it is clearly stated that if one wishes to expressly speak of dual-use goods, the ideal would be to expressly mention it in the text of the resolution. However, this mention of dual-use equipment is not found – and it is ⁇ not a coincidence – anywhere in the text.

I, Mr. Hellings, the only thing I have done is to take back the proposed amendment that was formulated by the Chamber’s Legal Service, and I have filed it as it is. There are two amendments that are on your benches and that are purely and simply the whole proposal that has been submitted to us by the legal service of the House. I can’t see how it can be clearer than that.

If, nevertheless, there is no agreement on these amendments, you will allow me to continue to think that it is because there is a will, at some point, not to explicitly find this terminology in the text that is submitted to us today. In this context, I think that the problem of coherence ⁇ does not come from me or my group, but rather from that majority that continuously holds a double language on this issue and that makes two-franc communitarianism on this important issue.

I have no problem with consistency, Mr. Hellings. Since the beginning, my party’s position has been very clear: demand a European embargo on weapons and dual-use goods. I cannot see how it can be clearer than that. On the other hand, I hear here positions that vary depending on the level of power in which we find ourselves on the part of other groups. This is not our case. We have a position, which we have defended at all levels of power.

I am a little surprised because I have always loved the PS, in addition partner in my municipality, the fairness and respect for commitments. I have always appreciated that. But here it is a bit painful to see the circles of my dear colleague. It really feels like she’s learning the language that was very popular in another political party that I won’t mention, the language of “yes but no.” This is extremely regrettable.

Indeed, to say that we will advance when all Europe advances, is actually to say that we will never advance. Why Why ?

and interruptions

But I did not interrupt you. Mr President, please please!

Mr Laaouej is! What I said to Mr. Miller also applies to you, Mr. Laaouej.

In fact, frankly, as a good small arms ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Ms. Grovonius makes a proposal that is not one. And she knows it well, in addition! Because fundamentally, it must be for her an extraordinary calvary to do all that exhibition that she does not believe a second! thank you .

So, Mrs. Grovonius, you say that this is a question of coherence between the different levels of power. I just pointed out to you that in the European Parliament, in February 2016, when European parliamentarians, including socialists, wanted to propose a European arms embargo, the one you call your wishes, and at the same time to register the dual-use goods – which are dear to you as well as to us – they used the flow of articles 6 and 12 of the Common Position 2008/944, which is exactly what we just did.

Thus, the consistency between the European positioning, the federal positioning and the regional positioning goes through the mention of these articles, of this common position of 2008, and not by the explicit mention of dual-use goods. If you want to submit your amendment, submit it. We will vote for more clarity. But it is only in the resolution that we will vote just now that dual-use goods are mentioned, as your European Socialist colleagues did in 2016 in the European Parliament.

I will continue my speech because I think we will never agree on this point. I only notice one thing: we all received the final version. A search by keyword is not complicated to do in a text. If you find me a single place where, in this text, it is mentioned "double use", where a member of the majority indicates, in the report, that this covers well the dual-use equipment (...). Do your own research in the report and you will see if you find it as it is. It was not clear to me that we heard well about dual-use equipment as well. But I hope the Minister will bring all the necessary clarity.

In conclusion, I would like to clarify that it is human rights as well as social and environmental standards that must prevail in all our economic relations. To do this, each entity in the country must do its work within the limits of its competence, so that its actions, decisions and exports are consistent with objective and quantifiable criteria and this, in a necessary European coherence.

Should I recall that the sanctions rightly decided against Russia, in the context of the annexation of Crimea by this country, have been in a European framework? This text has the merit of having launched an essential debate and affirmed the importance of human rights. But I must admit that the hypocrisy and the mixture of the genres underlying it have disturbed me throughout the debate and continue to do so. This annoys me because, in the meantime, the federal government remains silent in European and international forums when it comes to opposing Saudi theories on women’s rights, for example, or defending a European embargo.

Therefore, my group will abstain from this text.

Mrs Grovonius, I do not hide that I am ⁇ disappointed by the lack of support for this resolution due to the PS group. I have the impression that you have been conducting a false debate, in fact all the time. After all, as some colleagues have already said, the Chamber’s legal service cannot be clearer than it has been. His legal advice is that the arms embargo to which this text calls and – which has not yet been addressed – the ban imposed on Delcredere-Credendo to ensure further arms exports to Saudi Arabia also apply to the so-called dual-use goods. This is stated black on white in the legal advice of the Chamber.

But what this debate really is about is, of course, that you are not willing to support that arms embargo of our country against Saudi Arabia. Point on the line. You are for arms exports from Belgium to Saudi Arabia. You have not at any time agreed to an arms embargo of our country against Saudi Arabia, because the amendments you do not submit today have been submitted to the committee. I don’t know if you are too embarrassed today to submit them again, which is very possible. These are amendments 3 and 5.

Colleagues, those amendments were aimed at nothing less than removing the Belgian arms embargo from the text and replacing it with a much vague, more general European arms embargo. That is the reality. Thus, all that time it has been nothing more than an illusory manoeuvre from you to not, however, especially the Belgian arms exports to Saudi Arabia. You have then just opened your umbrella to refer to some European arms embargo.

Colleagues, the reality is that 70% of European arms exports to Saudi Arabia come from Belgium, in fact mostly from Wallonia. This is what you do not dare to touch. This is evidenced by amendments 3 and 5. Only today you no longer have the courage to submit those amendments again. That is the reality, that is what this debate is about. This debate is therefore not about dual use, the legal service of the Chamber is very clear about this, it is about your reluctance to impose that embargo on the Belgian industry and the Waal weapons industry.

We are in favour of a European arms embargo. I don’t know how to be clearer than that. You can deduce everything you want and draw all the conclusions you want on that basis. The position that is ours is this. It is known to everyone for a long time. There has never been any change or variation compared to this position that has been defended from the beginning.

Why have amendments been or have not been submitted? We are not going to repeat the debate continuously. I expressed my position. Is it worth coming here to submit amendments that have been rejected in the committee anyway? I don’t think that would make reading the debates easier. Two new amendments were submitted today. They have never been discussed in commission before and are now on your banks. They just repeat, word for word, the suggestion that is the one formulated by the legal services of the House to clarify the text that is now subject to our votes and which effectively allows to have, in a very clear way, the mention of dual-use goods, without going through a series of circularities concerning this issue.

Both of these amendments are on your banks. The easiest way would ⁇ be to vote on them and incorporate them into the text. In this way, we would respond to the opinion delivered by the Chamber’s legal services.

I hear Mrs. Grovonius highlight the contradictions we would have. Every human being is full of contradictions. We can assume some of them. But I find Mrs. Grovonius paradoxical on one point. I remember the debates, not so long ago, on the unilateral recognition of Palestine. We argue and we do not share the same attitude. We said that Palestine must meet a series of conditions, and that a common European attitude must be adopted. At this point, Mrs. Grovonius was overwhelmed by saying, “No! and no! We can work alone. We, the only Belgium, can recognize Palestine.” Here, she adopts a completely different language. He should explain his own logic.

I continue to say and think that we should actually recognize the State of Palestine. Other European states have already done so, Mr. Flahaux. Therefore, we would only take the footsteps of other European states that have made gestures. But I don’t have any difficulties with the coarse arguments you’re trying to put on the table to justify the inconsistency of your position on human rights, Mr. Flahaux.

By the way, if you want to talk about Palestine and Israel, I strongly invite you to add that you are also asking for an arms embargo against Israel. An Amnesty International petition is currently circulating. The reasons that motivate the text you are going to vote today could apply in the same way to Israel.

Mr. President, Mrs. Grovonius asked me.

Madame Grovonius, it is enough that the Walloon Region stops selling weapons to the state you just mentioned. But she does.

The [...]

As I said, we are asking for the word.

The floor is given to Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, this debate on the Belgian-Saudi relations is essential. It is so first for geopolitical reasons, then for economic reasons, and finally it is also – we hear several groups speak in this regard – on the ethical level.

I would like to begin my speech by placing the subject of our discussion in a more general context. I think, in this case, of the debate we will have in September with the Minister of Foreign Affairs on all aspects of this relationship. The role of Saudi Arabia as a regional power in the Middle East is to religiously oppose Iran in a destructive way. We see this in the war that is currently going on in Yemen.

In contrast, this state may have a more positive role as a sponsor of the Israeli-Arab peace process. However, Saudi Arabia is involved in the spread of a rigorous Islam – wahhabite – in the region, but also on our continent. External influences weigh on the development of a modern Islam, which embodies the implementation of a democratic Islam, which would fully integrate into our law and the secular philosophy underlying it: that of the separation of the Church and the State, that of the freedom to believe or not to believe, that where religion has no place in the structures of the State, that of the freedom of worship, that of the primacy of the civil law over any law claiming God.

We will also discuss with Minister Reynders his role as a trade power, as a financial power investing in overseas sectors; finally, the role of Saudi Arabia in an important sector: the arms market. We will also have to address the role of our diplomatic representation in Riyadh, with the Saudi authorities and with our federated entities on the commercial level. Beyond the debate we will have, at the beginning of September, on all these elements with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, there is, of course, the actual application of fundamental human rights and freedoms: sexual right, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, etc.

The debate we will have must also be brought back into the legal and constitutional rules of our foreign policy, that is, within the framework of our federal state, with its realities and imperfections. But a framework based on cooperative federalism, which respects both the autonomy of the federated entities and their responsibilities, but which also highlights the intelligent collaboration between the federal state and the federated entities.

In this case, we can only have an overview of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, a overpassed and serene view, if we are able, as many as we are, to be coherent. We will do so if we rely on a number of intangible principles, the first of which is the defense of human rights. We will be consistent if we rely on the principle of responsibility within a rule of law, where each level of power must make decisions within its competence and must be able to assume the consequences of its choices.

As men and women politicians, we are facing an exercise of rigour. Let us make the choices we make, each at our level of power and according to the skills that are ours! But let us also collectively carry an obligation of coherence between the levels of power of this country!

Mr. Speaker, this coherence and this responsibility, we will have to, after the vote of this resolution, which I hope positive, preserve, with a single speech at the federal level and in the federal entities.

Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, our political group fully supports you when you want, through bilateral or multilateral channels, to foster the dialogue between the two great powers of the Middle East that are Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Everything must be done to stop the infernal process of which we are currently witnessing the preliminary: the Daesh attack in Tehran and the isolation of Qatar in the region.

We must maintain the best possible relationships with all actors in the region, Shiite and Sunni, with a discourse of truth, a constructive discourse but also a critical discourse. We must maintain a multilateral policy with the Gulf countries, talk to all countries that count in the region. This dialogue will focus primarily on international conflicts, the peace process between Israel and Palestine fifty years after the 1967 war, the future of Syria and Iraq at a time when the war against Daesh seems to have its final chapters, the solidity of Lebanon, the war in Yemen and the increasingly chaotic security situation in Afghanistan.

On all these subjects, that of war and peace, that of development, that of the reconstruction of states, that of multicultural and multiconvictional coexistence, we have modestly an expertise to make known and a help to provide.

We have interests in development cooperation in this region, in Palestine. We have military presence in Iraq and Syria, but also in Afghanistan. We have been in Lebanon for a long time. I could mention other examples through the international instance of the francophonie.

Diplomatic solutions are needed in this region. Our country, with others and through the channel of the European Union, is available to draw the paths of understanding and dialogue, to weave the conditions of possibilities for the coexistence of populations in this region of the world.

Iran just voted and the elections strengthened the progressive clan. Saudi Arabia is a decisive player in this region and it is fundamental to understand the interests and vision that each of them defends.

Mr. Minister, the MR supports you when you list the defence and promotion of human rights as priority axes of our foreign policy. This is noted black on white in all the general policy notes of the Minister since he took office. As with all countries, human rights are an integral part of our bilateral relations with Saudi Arabia. Belgium systematically addresses the subject of human rights, in particular rights and freedoms and the question of the death penalty, in all bilateral contacts that the Minister has with these countries.

The Reform Movement will return in the coming days on a very important issue with the submission of proposals concerning the universal abolition of the death penalty. We will submit a text that will be open to co-signature.

Individual cases are also discussed in bilateral contacts, as was the case for Raif Badawi.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has repeated several times in the plenary session and in the committee, dialogue and commitment must be prioritized before closing all doors and preventing any progress. This is the only way to ⁇ bilateral or multilateral progress in concrete cases.

Finally, I come to the economic aspect. We have commercial relations with Saudi Arabia – it is true – without exclusive and without dependence. Such commercial relationships should not be considered solely on the basis of economic interests. We must also go beyond this vision; bear in mind the responsibility we have in the preservation of human rights and freedoms.

We support the position of the federal government to stop participating in economic missions in Saudi Arabia as long as the human rights situation in this country remains as it is.

The neuralgic point of all these economic relations concerns the arms trade. We have already discussed this issue quite well today. We discussed this in the committee a long time. Each party was able to present its views, as was the case in the plenary session.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, a position must be consistent. The position that the MR defends at the federal level is the same as that which our political groups defend at the federal entity level.

We all know that in 2003, following the record of arms sales to Nepal, the parliament entrusted the competence to the Regions with regard to arms export licenses. Regions decide on this. Mr. Flahaux just reminded him about the arms export case to Israel. The federal retains only the sale of surplus military equipment from the National Defense or police.

Furthermore, Foreign Affairs regularly gives regional executives – which is also provided in the licensing process – a comprehensive presentation of the human rights situation in the countries and regions where weapons are being exported. On this basis, those Regions shall make their own decisions on whether or not to grant export licences. In this regard, therefore, it is the Regions that are competent and who must assume the decisions they take.

The economic and political costs of these trade relations must also be borne by the Regions. If one or more regions want to export weapons to Saudi Arabia, they must assume the political consequences. If this is the choice of your political formation, Mrs. Grovonius, you must assume the political consequences. We should not try here to turn around the pot with circularities and doing a kind of exercise of balance that, in the end, becomes magic, or even witchcraft.

You have stated that the Wallonian Region was the most progressive in this matter, because the Wallonian executive demanded an embargo and that the federal did not follow. You really surprised me, because what you said is completely the opposite of what is happening today in public session and what is in the work that the majority has carried out in commission.

I would like to come to one comment that I have already addressed to Mr. Miller and to the other groups of the majority. Just tell me, Mr. Miller, that you are ready to take this text and deposit it at the level of the Walloon Parliament. I do not see any difficulty. It surprises me, on the other hand, that there is no trace in the Walloon Parliament of a text deposited by the MR recalling the requests that are found in the text we are discussing today.

Madame Grovonius, I will answer you very wisely and very serenely. Just recently, I said you were making balancing numbers that approached magic, or even witchcraft. And I keep my words.

You blame me and you blame the MR group of the Walloon Parliament for not yet submitting a text on what we are discussing today. We are busy, at the federal level, working on a text and approval of an extremely important draft resolution, which concerns our level of responsibility and the defense of human rights. This is where the federal can make its opinion, and it communicates this opinion to the political groups. I just said that the position of the MR is consistent and that we defend it in the federal as well as in the Regions.

I’m just answering you this so as not to engage in a somewhat too hard dialogue with you.

I don’t think the question of Saudi Arabia has suddenly emerged in the last four weeks.

Mr Miller, I repeat what I just said and what I said in my speech: this text, contrary to what you say, contains a series of requests addressed to the Regions. That is why we abstain from a whole series of elements contained in this text. As we have said from the beginning, we abstain from these requests as it is useless to ask the federal government to do things that are not within its competence.

On the other hand, Mr Miller, the MR political group could quite directly address these requests in a proposal for a resolution to the Walloon Parliament. The N-VA, or other Flemish parties, could do so in the Flemish Parliament. I do not understand why you do not; unless, obviously, you want to avoid bringing to the Wallon Parliament a request, clearly identified as a MR request, which very clearly offends Wallon workers. You tell me that is not the case: the better. I am reassured. However, you allow me to point my finger to what I consider a form of hypocrisy.

Mr Flahaux, you have the word.

Mr. Flahaux, I will answer, if you allow me to. First, I repeat a third time what I have already said twice. You are reversing the chronology. From what we are discussing today, you tell us that we have not submitted a text to the Walloon Region.

I stated that consistency would be complete at the level of the MR group, whether here, at the federal level or in the Walloon Region. Let things go their course. We are currently discussing an extremely important text. I hope that what I say is actually a little demonstration. We will wait for the Minister’s answers, in particular to the question asked by our excellent colleague, Mr. Dallemagne.

Madame Grovonius, you say, “You suddenly discovered the problem of Saudi Arabia. I am referring to the very text of our colleagues Ecolo-Groen. In the draft resolution submitted, it is stated “10 December 2015, ...”. I look behind you and I see the calendar that displays June 8, 2017. In 2015, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Didier Reynders, made the following statement: “All Regions should ask themselves whether it is still appropriate to export weapons to Saudi Arabia. I’m asking the Regions to talk about it.”It was in December 2015. So, stop coming to say we discovered the problem all of a sudden! With the competence of the Regions, the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Reynders, says to the Regions: "Attention! There is a problem with human rights.” he said in December 2015 and asked the Regions to discuss it.

Following this courageous position of your minister, as a political group present in the Walloon Parliament, you could have, as of December 2015, ...

Madame Grovonius, you will try several times ... We will try not to be cruel. I understand the difficulty.

Mr. Miller, you will have the word in a few moments.

Mr Miller, you are asking me. I wish I could answer you. You rework the calendar and I tell you then that you could have long since, as MR, submitted a text at the level of the Wallon Parliament. You confirm it here again. Why, as of December 2015, did you not support this courageous position of your federal minister calling on federal entities to take action? Why did you not support this with all the strength of your political group at the level of the Walloon Parliament, by submitting a text defending this position? You could have done this for a long time.

Moreover, Mr. Miller, since we are discussing here primarily federal powers, why does the majority reject a socialist proposal aiming in particular at a federal powers in the field of weapons, namely the control of the re-sale of weapons by the police? Why does the majority refuse to support a text specifically dealing with a federal matter? This is what I want to point with my finger, Mr. Miller. We are here at the federal level. Let’s discuss elements that relate to federal powers, and vote on them. Let us leave to the regional level the things that belong to this level. In this context, let us be consistent.

I will answer you, but I will not be cruel, because I realize that the speech you hold must not be easy to carry. What you are busy saying is that a group of opposition might not have done its job in the Walloon Region. Okay, but the problem is not that, Mrs. Grovonius. The problem is that you belong to a party that, for twenty years, has been sending arms unceasingly to a country that, for many years, has been violating human rights unceasingly and everywhere. So, Mrs. Grovonius, you call us to consistency, but where is it when Mr. Magnette says, "No apples for Canada, but yes to weapons for Saudi Arabia"? Where is your consistency? Let us stay on the subject.

You claim that we say things to the Walloon Region, but that we do not have the right to say them. This is completely false! It is the responsibility of the federal government to say what it is about the human rights situation. It is the responsibility of the federal, in the discussion with the Regions, to draw attention to a human rights issue. That’s what we are doing, and that’s what the Federal Minister’s services have done continuously. But you and the Region have still decided, despite all the opinions given by the federal, to continue arms exports. Just assume and don’t try to turn around the pot by saying it’s us who haven’t done certain things.

Then I stop! I think other colleagues would like to intervene, but it is true that it is a bit irritating to see yourself being taught this way. We cannot remain silent in the face of the considerations presented today by Mr.

I just wanted to put things in context because, moreover, I’ve heard numbers that have been quoted and that don’t fully reflect reality. As I said from the beginning, both on the principle, we all agree, both on the modalities and on how to ⁇ this goal that means that weapons are no longer sold to Saudi Arabia, the views diverged.

I would like to remind you, this is our European embargo. I would like to support this element by the fact that Wallonia accounts for only 2.95% of the total European arms exports. This is all I will say in response to your remarks, Mr. Miller, to put things back in their context and to support the position that is our from the beginning and that has not varied a iota, as opposed to yours that continually varies according to the levels of power where you are and the allies of history or circumstances that have been those of the last months.

That being said, I’ll give you just one item and then I’ll continue my presentation. Madame Grovonius, I never said that it was Wallonia alone that supplied weapons to Saudi Arabia. I simply said that since the PS has been in charge of the Walloon Region – and in my opinion it has been a very long time – since, in any case, the regionalization of the competence, the PS has never issued a single license for the export of weapons to Saudi Arabia. That is all I said.

This is the role of the federal government. That is why we are talking about it.

Because, dear colleagues, we ⁇ ’t even talk about it if the competence was purely regionalized; we ⁇ ’t have this debate. It is planned that the federal, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, informs the Regions of the state of the situation of human rights and freedoms in these countries, when there is a reflection on granting or not a license.

So I said: Let the regions assume. If one or more Regions, on the contrary, want a Belgian embargo on the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, they make it known; they discuss with each other and then they transfer the decision to the Minister of Foreign Affairs unanimously, and this will be the position that will be held. Whether one or more Regions want the European Union, OSCE or the United Nations to impose an arms embargo on the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, it again depends on the Regions. The Regions can inform the Federal Government of this and this will be the position taken.

In the management of this matter, we must respect the division of competences within our federal state. There is politics, of course, and we realize that it is not easy for everyone. However, depending on circumstances or levels of power, reality should not be changed. There is the right. This should be discussed in parliaments and regional governments. And then, and then, Mrs. Grovonius, finally I will not address you because you will still answer me! I address everyone.

Dear colleagues, from the first committee work, when – and I thank them – the authors of the Ecolo-Groen resolution proposal submitted their proposal, Mr Flahaux and I, in committee, we immediately expressed our interest in the subject by requesting that the Regions be asked for an opinion. Without the opinions of the regions, we cannot move forward.

Dear colleagues, I have repeated this often in this tribune, I have some pride in being a Wallon regionalist, but still! The response provided by the Flemish Region is comprehensive and well structured. For the reply of the Wallon Parliament, Mr. André Antoine, on such an important case, refers to an article of the Rules of Procedure. He said, “No, no forgiveness, move around, there is nothing to see.” and finished . It is shameful anyway! It is shameful that on such an important topic there is such a difference. And this difference is all the more shameful, Madame Grovonius, dear colleagues, that exists in Wallonia, given the competence in the export of weapons, an organization called the GRIP. Grip is partly subsidized by the Walloon Region.

What did the influenza do about this? He organized debates. The director of GRIP, a reference in the matter, tells us: “It should be emphasized that as a result of the regionalization of the competence of arms exports, regional governments and parliamentarians have become important actors in foreign policy. It is therefore essential that they are well aware of the evolution of the global context in this matter in order to contribute to the improvement of the control of the arms trade and to properly evaluate the consequences of the decisions that may be taken.”

Are you aware? It is a specialist who declares it and the Walloon Parliament answers: "There is an article X of the Rules ...". It’s over and we don’t talk about it anymore. This is what we regret. In the Commission, we also regretted the lack of dialogue with the Regions. He will remain consistent. We have a position and we will defend it.

One point in the Ecolo-Groen resolution was related to the problem of financing mosques in Belgium and the training of imams. We unanimously decided not to short-circuit the work of the Investigative Commission Attacks. I will briefly recall one extremely important aspect on which my colleague, Mr. Dallemagne, has long insisted in the committee: the financing of places of worship internally or externally is extremely important to us. The training of preachers and imams as well. The questions concerning salafism, radicalism and the role played by Saudi Arabia in us and in other European countries will require a debate starting from our fundamental values. We must reject this kind of influence. We will have to hold a debate as soon as the committee’s report is made public.

To conclude, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, the Reform Movement and the majority wanted, within the Foreign Affairs Committee, to work on this proposal coming from the ranks of the Ecolo-Groen opposition, for which I thank them. This testifies to a certain will for political openness and inclusion that has marked all of our work but not for everyone. Note Minister of Foreign Affairs has long expressed on this topic and - it is true, I recognized it in committee when we discussed the subject - taking the position of Minister Reynders represents a formidable opportunity to have this debate finally, debate of geopolitical, economic and ethical importance, not the least.

Today, we adopt this draft resolution and support the government in its willingness to maintain a critical dialogue with Saudi Arabia. It is essential and must continue on major international and human rights issues.

In terms of business relations, we respect the division of competence within our federal state. We must encourage the debate where it is legally relevant.

We have discussed dual-use goods. My excellent colleague Flahaux responded abundantly, as well as colleagues Ecolo. I come back briefly, not to revive the background of the discussion, but because you mentioned something inaccurate, Mrs. Grovonius. I really address you. You have thus stated that it had been so difficult to obtain a rating from the Chamber’s legal services. This is completely false. I was present. You turned to Mr. Chairman of the Commission, asking him if we could get it. You looked at me. I answered “Yes.” The President immediately did the same, as did the other members. This note was available in a moment. So don’t come and tell that you had to run mechanics, scream, scream, beat you, etc., to get it!

The point in question is very clear, my colleagues. On the first page, it is stated: "We infer that the expression 'export records, technology and military equipment' contained in the list referred to the articles of the position to which we refer also refers to goods of double use." It was the services of the Chamber that gave us this note. Therefore, your two amendments, Mrs. Grovonius, are useless. In fact, you take back some remarks that have been added to this basic finding.

We hold on to an extremely important text, which will probably gather a lot of votes in this assembly. I am deeply grounded to hear that the Socialist Party, which is really a formation that likes to give lessons, let’s admit it – “no apples in Canada,” for example – will not vote for it. How will you explain it and still claim that you are carrying ethical values or that, for you, what matters is the defense of human rights?

We call on the Regions to show coherence, to show political maturity. Whether it manifests itself in Wallonia, Flanders or Brussels, we fully support the approach undertaken by our Minister of Foreign Affairs for the government, on the basis of the resolution proposal submitted by our colleagues Ecolo. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, our group has made no secret in the discussions in the committee that we support all provisions of this resolution. But we believe that it can be clearer and stronger.

More clearly, in points 4, 9 and 10, where it was about dual use. I have the report with me. The first version that was presented to us was about: military goods and for military use useful equipment. The amendments of myself and other colleagues asked whether those goods, serving for military use, are about dual use. There was no response from the majority. The majority then changed its text to: military goods and technologies. Again, the question arose, both from several colleagues and from myself, whether this includes dual use. Again, we received no unambiguous answer from the majority.

Ultimately, the majority came with the text that precedes today. One does not need to sit long in Parliament to understand that when there is an amendment on the table that says that the embargo mentioned in the resolution targets military and dual-use goods, but if the words dual-use are not included, some suspicion arises. Especially because the text that was eventually proposed to us and which is still in the resolution now refers to a European text that no longer exists. In 2009 it was abolished. The colleagues of the majority are right when they say that the legal service draws the conclusion from the text: we believe that it is the intention of the applicants to also target dual-use goods. That is true, it is stated in the report. However, the Legal Service also suggests that for the sake of comprehensiveness and clarity we would rather propose a different text, a text that refers to the European regulation currently in force. I assume that the majority does not want that.

I now refer to the Dutch-speaking members.

The debate in the Flemish Parliament is closely followed. Jan Peumans, the President of the Flemish Parliament, has requested an opinion from the Flemish Peace Institute. The Flemish Peace Institute is widely accepted in Flanders for its expertise in this field.

I read what is stated in the opinion of the Flemish Peace Institute. There is, and I quote, “There is uncertainty about the material scope of this arms embargo. This uncertainty has direct consequences for the policies of the regional authorities and therefore also for the Flemish government and the Flemish Parliament. The Flemish Peace Institute advises the people’s representatives of the House to remove the current uncertainty in the present resolution on the material scope of the arms embargo, by carrying out one of the following adjustments, irrespective of the objectives pursued by them.”

This also includes the proposal made by our legal service.

Colleagues, Mr. Peter De Roover; I now ask the largest Flemish group. For me, the text of the resolution is sufficient, which we will approve later – my group will also approve the text; I am already giving it – but not.

Mr. the group leader of the N-VA, I ask you now whether it is your interpretation of the resolution that it also includes dual goods. I ask you as a colleague.

I have heard several presentations here, Mr. Van der Maelen. You have read what is in the advice. Is that the answer to your question?

So the answer is yes. Can you tell me that?

On the day I become a minister, you can ask me questions. This is not the case today. I have told you that the text, as it is by you and on request to the service...

You won’t get a yes over your lips.

Again, I do not allow myself by you to dictate what I should or should not say.

I don’t dictate anything, I just ask a question. Yes or No?

Mr. Van der Maelen, if you can read, read. If you can’t read, stop speaking.

Colleagues from CD&V and Open Vld, we will approve this resolution later, and my group will do so. It is not a fantasy of me, but the own legal service says: "The text would win concisions and clarity (...)" Then follows their proposal, that you do not want. I ask for that clarity and that insightfulness.

Colleagues of CD&V, does this embargo in your head also include dual-use goods?

We are at the same wavelength as N-VA. This is a new fact. and laughing)

What about the members of Open Vld?

( ... ) Also on the same line.

At the same wavelength.

The question is, if we approve the resolution later, does this mean in your mind that the embargo also covers dual-use goods.

I am asking this to my colleagues. If we approve this resolution, will it include dual-use goods?

( ... ) Yes Yes.

We have a yes and three unknown.

There is clarity. The party of the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken and that means that the resolution will be interpreted and applied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We know him well enough for that. He always listens to his group.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that our colleagues from CD&V, N-VA and Open Vld did not consider it necessary to fully clarify their views. I appreciate the intervention of our colleagues. I heard the interpretation and explanation given by Benoit Hellings.

On such an important and fundamental question, we would have preferred to have something else than a response from Normandy.

I adhere to the legal services of the Chamber and I adhere to the explanation of MR. I think we would have won, in the interest of this debate, rather than systematically sending the sparadrap or the hot potato, that what our legal services and the MR have said is explicitly taken up by all the majority parties.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around.

I said that the resolution could have been clearer and I also said that it could have been stronger.

In order to prevent the fate of the present resolution from being equal to the fate of the many other resolutions we approve here, namely that, once they have been approved, there is little or no more discussion about it, we had in the committee submitted an amendment which we now submit again to the plenary session. In this text, we ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to submit each year to the Chamber a report containing, firstly, a general evaluation of the FOD Foreign Affairs on the evolution of human rights in Saudi Arabia and, secondly, a summary of the positions taken by the Belgian diplomacy and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in bilateral contacts and in multilateral organizations whenever the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia is discussed. If this amendment is accepted, we are confident that in 2018, on the basis of a Foreign Affairs report, a solid debate on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia would be possible and then we could also draw policy conclusions there.

I regret that our amendment was rejected in the committee. In my opinion, accepting it would make it clear that we do not consider the present resolution as the many other resolutions that are approved, that the House insists that the government makes a report and that the House is committed to follow up on those resolutions. I hope that our amendment will be approved soon.

Mr. Van der Maelen, Mr. De Vriendt wants to interrupt you.

Mr Van der Maelen, I am first and foremost pleased with the support of the SP.A. group for the resolution. This was not the case in the committee. Then the SP and the PS abstained, hence there was some doubt about the final voting behavior in this plenary meeting, but that will be positive and that is a good thing.

I think you are a little dismissive about the breakthrough that the present resolution means in the revision of our relations with Saudi Arabia. First, the opinion of the Chamber’s legal service is very clear. Even without this debate, the Chamber’s legal service says that the text could ⁇ gain clarity, but that there is indeed an arms embargo on dual-use goods. It is written literally, black on white, on paper.

I just accused the PS of conducting a false debate, in order not to allow the weapons embargo to apply to our Belgian weapons industry. I do not blame you, for all clarity, because I know that you are in favour of a Belgian arms embargo, but do not underestimate the breakthrough of this resolution in a number of other areas. I hear you say nothing about it.

If this resolution is adopted, colleague Van der Maelen, it will no longer be possible for the Credendo Group, Delcredere, to ensure the arms exports to Saudi Arabia. It will no longer be possible for our defense attachments to maintain the commercial contacts between our weapons industry and our customers in Saudi Arabia. We are also evolving into a fundamental debate about our strategic vision towards Saudi Arabia. That debate, which will be held in the coming months, will require a little more time. For example, I think of the sale of military equipment. You know that Defense occasionally sells military equipment to interested countries. Well, we will decide here that this can no longer be done to Saudi Arabia. I mean this is a revision; this is a breakthrough in our attitude towards that country. I am sorry that you do not acknowledge this.

The debate has clearly come to a acceleration following our country’s voting behavior for the seat of Saudi Arabia in the UN Commission on Women’s Rights. Thanks to that debate and the public outrage, we have been able to ⁇ a number of things here, which we, frankly, had not thought. You probably not, but it is there. It is the result of a compromise, of cooperation across party boundaries, between majority and opposition. You should actually welcome this. Could this go on? and yes. Could this be even clearer? and yes. But we have achieved a lot here.

I agree with your last point, in particular that this still needs to be implemented now. This is not in our hands, it is in the government and first of all in the Minister of Foreign Affairs. But Parliament does not need your amendment to be a guard dog in that process. It is sufficient to submit questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the implementation of this resolution after a certain period. So simple is it. We have almost every week the opportunity to question the government. You can be suspicious about this and I even give you the right, but then it is up to Parliament to follow the line we have now drawn with this resolution. Then it is not only the members of the opposition parliament, but also the members of the majority to question the minister about it. If we are principled, if we are satisfied with the outcome of our process, then we will do so. I see colleagues of the majority cheating. We will do it and you can do it too.

be positive . We have taken an important first step that should result in a different policy towards Saudi Arabia. This is now made possible with this text. and before! Let us move forward together.

Colleagues, maybe it was a short moment of inattention from colleague De Vriendt, but I have not started my presentation by repeating the story that I have already heard here and that we have been heard extensively in the committee. I have said that we agree with all the points of the resolution, even more, that we are pleased with it.

There was one point of dispute — that was the reason for the abstinence — specifically the scope. And in that regard, I confirm that I was right to doubt. Our own legal service proposes a different text than the one we are going to approve. I am referring to the Flemish Peace Institute, which also proposes another text. However, I have the commitment of the colleagues of Mr. I hope that the Minister will soon fulfill this commitment. Therefore, dual use is used. Well, I would be angry if I would say that we will not approve the resolution because our amendment was not approved.

I am pleased with the resolution, but I am here a little longer. I know governments and foreign ministers maybe a little better than you. Trust is good, but control is even better. We would have a much stronger control over the fate of this resolution if we inscribed in the resolution with all of us – the resolution will be approved almost across the chamber – that the government should report to us each year on the evolution of human rights in Saudi Arabia and the positions adopted by our Belgian diplomacy on the international stage.

You have confidence in it. I hope that this confidence is not shamed. If it is embarrassed, you will find me on your side. If that trust is not shameless, I would like to fully participate in the regular review of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.

Now I have to leave you because I have a sudden, urgent obligation outdoors.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, everyone knows what has been the catalyst of this discussion and the upcoming resolution that will be adopted today. That catalyst was our country’s approval to allow Saudi Arabia to become a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Of course, we all know that the catalyst came after a certain situation in the country itself, a country where human rights are violated every day.

In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to work, they are not allowed to attend education, they are not allowed to undergo medical procedures without the consent or guidance of their husband, just mention it. My colleague Els Van Hoof expressed it a few weeks ago in the plenary session literally as follows: “A dog has more rights in our country than a woman in Saudi Arabia.” The death penalty is still applied in the country. It is even the country that is most active in this area. Last year, 154 people were executed. Religious minorities also have far fewer rights than in many other countries. There is limited freedom of expression for human rights defenders and civil society. Saudi Arabia is not closely concerned with human rights even outside its borders. The United Nations estimates that in Yemen, a country where there is a military conflict, between 8,000 and 10,000 civilian casualties were caused by Saudi missions. In addition, there is also the story of the highly conservative Islam which is actively supported by Saudi Arabia. Wahabism stands straight against our values and the values expressed by our country and the European Union.

That attitude of Saudi Arabia in various fields brings us today to the question of critically reviewing and re-evaluating our foreign policy towards the country. However, we must seek a balanced attitude between, on the one hand, safeguarding our interests and our security and, on the other hand, spreading our values to the world.

Whoever wants to take human rights into account and whoever wants to follow as the only guide in his economic relations will, of course, have to stop with many countries that have economic relations. In the story of Saudi Arabia, of course, we cannot simply transition to the agenda and business as usual.

Therefore, my group is of the opinion that some elements of our foreign policy with respect to Saudi Arabia must be changed so that we can indeed, as the resolution promotes today, incorporate some elements that will dramatically change our relationship with the country. There are, therefore, a number of points that we can strongly support, such as the cessation of economic missions to Saudi Arabia, the plea to no longer deliver weapons to the country, the inclusion of an enforceable human rights clause, the desire to conclude a double taxation treaty, the defense ataché that no longer has commercial contacts and of course also that human rights should remain a priority in our foreign policy, in particular that we must continue to pay attention to the abolition of the death penalty and to the improvement of women’s rights.

In the debate, however, we must of course also pay attention to isolation. Therefore, our group cannot be found in favour of a complete freeze of our relations with Saudi Arabia. After all, this would only mean that Belgium would no longer have the leverage to deal with the situation in Saudi Arabia. We therefore choose to work with targeted actions, such as stopping economic missions and arms exports.

In addition, our policy must protect Saudi Arabia from bilateral and multilateral forums. After all, it is in these forums that dialogue remains possible, including on difficult issues such as human rights in Saudi Arabia. When a country is banned from these forums, as, for example, has happened with Iran in the past, it only means that the human rights situation could just become even more penible, which we must avoid.

The fact that Saudi Arabia has just become a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women should therefore be used to address the equal rights of women and men with even more sharpness and even more conviction.

In isolation, our group sees no solution to progress. In isolation, a country can no longer be addressed and encouraged to improve.

First of all, our group would like to thank the authors of the present resolution. Indeed, a breakthrough has been made and important steps have been taken forward in the economic relations we will have with the country in the future.

Of course, our group will therefore support the present resolution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, also my group would like to thank the Ecolo-Greens Group for the merit of putting this resolution on the agenda.

On the basis of their original text, we have come to the present resolution which, in our view, is a strong impetus to develop a new Belgian strategy with respect to Saudi Arabia. Clearly, we need such a new strategy. With a country that is taking on human rights on a large scale, there can no longer be business as usual.

The following are important to us in this resolution.

First, we cannot accept the arms trade with Saudi Arabia. This must stop as soon as possible, first from Belgium and also as soon as possible from the EU and the UN. To this end, we look closely to the Regions, for they are competent in this matter, and especially to the Welsh Region, which hides behind the absence of a European embargo. In Flanders, they do a job of doing it by making on a decretal basis an on hold list on which we can place Saudi Arabia.

We cannot suspend all trade with Saudi Arabia. This would affect companies that have nothing to do with human rights violations. Trade is also an exclusive competence of the European Union. We can stop organizing economic trade missions by ourselves. Free trade can be used positively to promote human rights if we put strong and suspensive human rights clauses into European free trade agreements. For this we submitted an amendment. Mordicus’s refusal to talk about such a treaty, as originally stated in the resolution, helps no one any further.

The Belgian diplomats need to make additional efforts within the UN to put international pressure on Saudi Arabia to structurally improve their human rights policies. We also regret the vote that took place in the Committee on the Status of Women. We believe that we must correct this by working in that committee twice as hard for human rights in that country.

In the future, of course, we must also talk about closer involvement of Parliament in our multilateral diplomacy and Belgian human rights policy. This, however, is something for the broader discussion that will soon come with Minister Reynders. Let us now focus on this resolution and the specific case of Saudi Arabia.

Finally, I regret that the sp.a and the PS hid themselves in the committee behind a technical discussion on whether or not dual-use goods are included in this resolution. It is especially regrettable that the SPAA used this to support their comrades of the PS in their resistance to an end to the arms trade with that country. That was the reality in the commission. You are on the wrong side of history.

I am pleased to have just heard from your colleague Van der Maelen here that this has yet become clear through, among other things, the legal advice of the Chamber and that there will be a positive vote by the sp.a. group. For us, however, this is clear enough. The legal service is clear. The Flemish Peace Institute then says again that the current wording can include either all dual goods, or those dual goods that can be used for military use. I think that the government of this country must then choose which interpretation seems most feasible to defend. However, no one says that dual use would not be included. This is a shortage for my group.

Finally, I would like to invite the colleagues of the sp.a to talk to the colleagues of the PS for a moment.

Dear colleagues of the PS, you are living a difficult day both in Parliament and in the city of Brussels.

There is yet another possibility to close this day well, namely by approving this resolution, dear colleagues of the PS. It would be a strong signal from your group that you approve this here.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today we will normally, with the House, approve the present draft resolution by a fairly large majority.

The proposal was submitted by my group to review the Belgian policy towards Saudi Arabia. If we approve the text and the Minister of Foreign Affairs implements its provisions, then our relations with Saudi Arabia will fundamentally change. There can finally be a stricter, more critical and more ethical policy towards that country. It depends on that, of course, and we should not be embarrassed about this. Mr. De Roover said that we might better not add any extra field of paper to the paper mountain to collect resolutions, which lie in one or another basement in the Chamber dust. But that is of course up to us, it is up to the members of Parliament who must oversee the implementation of resolutions across party borders. We will and must do that too.

We have been able to work together in a good atmosphere and we have been able to ⁇ a result we can be proud of. We therefore welcome the fact that the majority supported our initiative and sought to reflect on this issue. I would like to thank the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations of CD&V, Open Vld, N-VA and MR for this.

The ball, of course, went steadily rolling following our country’s vote behavior for Saudi Arabia in the UN Women’s Rights Commission of ECOSOC. The vote took place on April 22. Shortly thereafter, questions were asked in Parliament. I also asked the Minister how our country voted. The Minister remembers this question very well. It soon turned out that our country had voted for Saudi Arabia, which, of course, cannot be explained. That is a complete aberration given our country’s attachment to human rights and women’s rights in particular. There was something difficult done about it. Where was the cause of this voting behavior? Was the cause in our diplomacy or in some officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs? Following several e-mails, which our group has brought to light, it became clear that the cabinet gave green light to the positive voting behavior of our country. The ball was really rolling.

That is one more reason to take a different stance on it and to fundamentally revise the relations with and the policy towards Saudi Arabia.

Why is this necessary, colleagues? Look at the actuality and you will immediately know why it is needed. Saudi Arabia plays a negative role in a number of conflicts in the Middle East, including in Syria. Saudi Arabia indirectly supports extremist groups. We also see that tensions with Iran are unnecessarily driven to the top. Saudi Arabia is also largely responsible for the thousands of civilian deaths in the conflict in Yemen, which began in 2015. With weapons that Saudi Arabia has purchased in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, and also in Europe in general, civilians are being bombed there. That would actually be enough to no longer export weapons to that country. It is, among other things, because of that war, with which Saudi Arabia is engaged, that 12 million people in Yemen are threatened by hunger. The images and pictures we see in the news are horrible. The famine in that part of the world is one of the biggest humanitarian disasters since World War II. This is recognized by human rights organizations, by the NGOs, by the aid organizations. We must do everything we can to mitigate that and counter the role played by Saudi Arabia there.

Seventy percent of European arms exports to Saudi Arabia come from our country, from Belgium, largely from the Wallon arms industry.

Saudi Arabia’s human rights report remains sad. Saudi Arabia has the third highest number of executions in the world, after China and Iran. Recently, at the end of last month, 14 Shiite opponents were sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia, following a false trial and using the excuse of terrorism, of course. This excuse is regularly invoked by a number of dictatorial regimes to condemn people after false trials, people who merely expressed a democratic protest against those dictatorial regimes.

There are also women’s rights. Women in Saudi Arabia – the colleagues already claimed it – can only make certain decisions in their lives after the consent of their male guardian. This involves, for example, the decision to study, work, and get married. Women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.

Another element that we should consider is that Saudi Arabia plays a role in the spread of wahabism to Europe, to Western Europe, to our mosques.

The necessary revision of our relations with Saudi Arabia is in the interest of stability in the Middle East, in the interest of human rights and women’s rights, as well as in our own interest.

What are the fundamental elements, the core elements of this proposal for a resolution?

In the text, we call on the regions to stop exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia. That is important. It was just described that the Wallish weapons industry actually leads the majority of European weapons exports to Saudi Arabia.

Additionally, the Credendo Group, the former Delcredere, will no longer be allowed to provide arms exports to Saudi Arabia. This is a very important step, colleagues, because it is still happening today. Today, the state agency Delcredere-Credendo still insures this risky export.

The federal government has also withdrawn from all trade missions to Saudi Arabia. In the recent past there have been three: 2014, 2009 and 1993. The federal government, which normally has to coordinate those trade missions, will no longer do so, after we have approved the draft resolution here today with the House.

Also, our country’s defense attachments, which are active in connection with Saudi Arabia, will no longer be allowed to secure the commercial contacts between our weapons companies and the customer Saudi Arabia. They still do this today, as Minister Vandeput and Minister De Crem have admitted.

Belgium will also put pressure on Saudi Arabia to better respect human rights and to ratify the relevant conventions in that regard.

The proposal also calls on our country to develop a new strategy towards Saudi Arabia on diplomatic, military, economic and commercial levels and on our energy dependence on that country.

In addition, after today’s vote, it will no longer be possible for Belgium to sell military equipment to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Defence still sells military equipment to third countries quite regularly. This will no longer be the case for Saudi Arabia.

In conclusion, given the core elements of the draft resolution, this is the type of draft resolution that human rights organizations and NGOs in our country have been waiting for for years. Today we can take that important step. It is a first step to come to a different foreign policy with respect to Saudi Arabia.

The call in the text for an arms embargo and the ban on Delcredere to ensure arms exports to Saudi Arabia also applies to the so-called dual-use goods. We have already debated it, but the text several times very explicitly refers to Article 6 of the Common Position of 8 December 2008, no. and 944. That article refers to a list of dual-use goods. This list is kept permanently up-to-date. The opinion of the Legal Service of the Chamber also confirms that. The legal service derives from this that the phrase ‘export files of military goods and technology (...) as referred to in the list referred to in Articles 6 and 12 of the Common Position no. 944 of 8 December 2008’, also refers to dual-use goods.

As my colleague Benoit Hellings just pointed out, the European Parliament, including the Socialist Group, agreed to an arms embargo at European level and also referred to that same article and thus to the same list of dual-use goods.

I think we are clear in our text. Moreover, we do not have a message of false debates conducted ⁇ by the colleagues of the Socialist Party in order to safeguard the Belgian arms exports to a country such as Saudi Arabia. That is the shame over, if we know what is going on with the weapons in Saudi Arabia, if we know that the civilians in Yemen are being shot and bombed with it right now.

I go around.

We are pleased with the widespread support for our proposed resolution and we dare to hope that it will be a precedent for human rights and ethics to play a greater role in our foreign policy and to finally work on a more self-conscious attitude of our country in foreign policy. We cut our neck out of this. We will change things, we are not conservative, but innovative and progressive. We are in defiance of the status quo and that is good.

We can also do this in a number of other files. So let us not open the umbrella to the European level, as the PS wants when it comes to arms exports, but let us try in a reasonable, non-naive and effective way to incorporate more ethics and human rights in our foreign policy. The above-mentioned text is a powerful first step for this. The resolution must be implemented by the government. We will play our role as a guard dog, so that is effectively the case.

I would like to thank all the colleagues who made this initiative possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, Saudi Arabia is the champion of all categories in human rights violations. A series of indicators show this and my colleagues have repeated some absolutely terrifying figures in this matter.

I think it’s a country out of category in terms of violations of women’s rights. Saudi Arabia is an open-air prison for women. They are completely under guardianship. They have absolutely not the same rights as men in a whole range of fields, whether in matters of marriage, in matters of mobility, in matters of family law. There are a whole range of subjects in which they are fully under tutelage. It is unbearable.

Then, and you won’t be surprised that I mention it because I come back very often on this topic, Saudi Arabia is not only the worst country in terms of human rights but it is also a country that has clearly threatened international stability for decades. I insist on this because there is little talk about it in the resolution, not to say at all. This should also encourage us to act firmly towards this country.

Through the oil manna, this country has developed, in particular with the help of instruments such as the World Islamic League, a strategy of expansion of Wahhabism and Salafism, a strategy of antagonizing societies, whether it be Muslim societies or our own societies. And we know how much this is a very clear threat to social cohesion, to living together, to the future of social stability in Belgium. This is also one of the elements for which we believe that we need to act firmly with respect to Saudi Arabia.

That is why we have voted and will vote in favour of this resolution. Indeed, we believe that the latter is a clear message, an important step forward in our country’s reflection on Saudi Arabia and the relations to be ⁇ ined or no longer ⁇ ined with this country that poses this double and serious problem with regard to the standards and values we defend here in Europe, but that many other countries are also trying to defend.

Although we would like to support this resolution proposal, which, as I just said, is a step forward, we are not entirely fooled by the little game that has been played in our Parliament in recent weeks.

I would like to congratulate our colleague, Benoit Hellings, who submitted the text for examination. But we must be careful; it is likely that this resolution proposal would not have seen such a favorable, so rapid fate if there had not been the disastrous vote of Belgium in favour of Saudi Arabia’s participation in the Commission on Women’s Rights. A competition of circumstances has thus enabled your resolution proposal, Mr. Hellings, to advance at great lengths while it was slowly crumbling in the outlets of procedures, questions, requests for opinion, etc.

In any case, suddenly, this resolution was put back on the table by a majority. I will not go as far as to say that you have been instrumentalized by the majority, but it must be acknowledged that a competition of circumstances has favored the evolution of this resolution proposal.

I can’t help but say that this resolution proposal served as a firewall to the majority, in any case, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was in very bad clothes. The prime minister himself stated everything he thought of this disastrous vote of Belgium at the UN. It is therefore not to hide the fact that, in a certain way, we repainted the hot potato, we gave the sparadrap to others while our diplomacy was shown by the finger.

I also consider as proof of this suddenly significant interest of the majority in Saudi Arabia that the first paragraph of our resolution, the one that in principle indicates what will be the political scope granted to the text and to the subject treated, is the paragraph that I had proposed two years ago as part of a resolution on Saudi Arabia.

It is word for word the same text, which had been adopted by an immense majority by the House. This shows that there has not been much work on the subject since then. Writing exactly the same thing two years later, with the same terms, shows that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not – and it is an euphemism – taken this subject arm-to-body, standing session, to try to make sure that our relations with Saudi Arabia are substantially changed.

I am delighted that a little bit of reminder is made and that, two years later, the same approach, the same initiatives, the same reflection are proposed again. I hope that this time, as our colleague Dirk Van der Maelen called for, we will regularly receive a progress report on the implementation of this paragraph from the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

There is another element that I would like to emphasize, because it is not possible to pass by. The resolution is above all firm and clear as regards the powers of federal entities. It is significantly less in terms of what falls within the competence of the federal state.

There was very little talk about our oil purchases in Saudi Arabia during these discussions. I searched for information. These purchases have decreased since 1973, but they remain extremely substantial. Saudi Arabia is our second oil supplier. We buy him no less than 8.5 million tons of oil per year.

I tried to find out how much money it represented, but these numbers are hidden. So I calculated, taking the price of the barrel of oil, which is about 45 dollars. Every year, Belgian citizens pay to the Treasury of Saudi Arabia between 2 billion and 2,5 billion euros by supplying themselves in Saudi Arabia. And, here, it is a federal jurisdiction: we could, in the law governing our strategic stock of petroleum products, decide that we no longer supply ourselves in Saudi Arabia. I think that would be an important step.

I ask the government to include this when buying oil products. Let us be honest: as long as we continue to spill billions of euros, through the purchase of oil products, into the Saudi Treasury, Saudi Arabia will continue to have the means not only to supply itself with weapons where it wants, but also – I think it is fundamental to remind – to disrupt our social cohesion, to interfere in our internal affairs, to instrumentalize the Belgian Muslim population, to make this population increasingly sensitive to the wahhabite creed. There is, of course, an emergency. This important element is fundamentally lacking in the resolution that is on our table today. I thought it was important to remind him.

In conclusion, I would also like to say that we are not fooled by the little game Saudi Arabia plays today by pointing out Qatar’s responsibility in spreading extremist ideas that could influence terrorism. This posture of Saudi Arabia comes at the same time as, in the United Kingdom, a report of the British intelligence services arouses debate. This report makes clear the link between Saudi Arabia, the spread of wahhabism and terrorism, ⁇ in the UK.

A similar report exists in Belgium. This report, conducted by the OCAM less than three months ago, makes the same conclusion on the links between Saudi Arabia, the Great Mosque, the expansion of Wahhabism in Belgium and terrorism. Like the British report, this OCCAM report has not been published. I ask that it be. Just as the British want to see this report published in the UK following recent attacks, the Belgian population has the right that information of the same nature be made public in Belgium. I thought it was very important to tell you. I will ask the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice to publish this report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, it is true, it has taken six sessions of the Committee on Foreign Relations to adopt this resolution. But she is!

Mr Dallemagne, I am happy to acknowledge that the circumstances and the diplomatic mess of a few weeks ago contributed to the adoption of this resolution. I am confident that it has been profoundly amended. But all Democrats would grow up by recognizing that part of a victory is also due to the circumstances and the work of colleagues, majority and opposition together.

Today, by voting this resolution almost unanimously, from what I have understood, our country makes a strong political act that is exactly the counter foot of the one put by the President of the United States two weeks ago in Riyadh. It is important.

This resolution has led to an unprecedented debate in its duration as well as in the substance on Saudi Arabia and the ties our country has with it, which has also allowed to create a debate in the Belgian society. I think of the various associations that listen to us and have long dreamed of leading this debate in civil society. This is what this resolution has enabled them to do.

I will soon return to the five main advances that this resolution materializes.

The majority agreed to “submit Belgium’s diplomatic, military, economic, commercial and energy relations with Saudi Arabia to a deep analysis.” This means that each of us in this parliament now has a point of support to remind the federal government and federal entities of our responsibility by saying, in the essence, that our relationship with Saudi Arabia must profoundly change. This is a real paradigm shift.

Secondly, the majority accepted, and the House as a whole, the end of the assurance that, until now, the Ducroire (partly federal jurisdiction) offered to Belgian companies that exported weapons to Saudi Arabia. This is important because the Ducroire, which is the only competence of the Secretary of State De Crem - it is a pity that he is not there - it is over.

The federal jurisdiction (the Ducroire) to offer this capacity to be able to secure the Belgian companies that export weapons to Saudi Arabia is over. This is a real advance. This therefore means that the federal had a jurisdiction in the export of weapons, since it materially enabled our companies to export them. It is finished. I welcome here the ⁇ serious parliamentary work on this subject that my colleague Mr. De Vriendt has assured during these two years to make transparency on these arms exports.

A third point is that today, the federal will no longer cover the economic missions that the Regions have conducted in Saudi Arabia over the last five years. Obviously, the federal carried the prestige, yours, Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, but also the prestige of members of the royal family, in particular Princess Astrid. It is finished. Regions must now understand that they should no longer send ministers, ⁇ trade ministers, to this country.

The fourth important point is that the federal, our level of power, which is why we exercise responsibilities, ends the negotiation of tax treaties that were being negotiated.

Finally, the fifth and most important part, we insist, in point 9 of the resolution, that federal entities no longer grant licenses for arms exports to Saudi Arabia. We fully respect the strong, strict competences of the Regions but we must also acknowledge – Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs knows it well – that a 2007 Cooperation Agreement, in particular its Article 7, allows the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is aware of the geopolitical and humanitarian situation of our positions in these countries, to keep the Regions informed and ask them, given this situation, to stop granting weapons licenses.

There is this obvious role already cited by several colleagues, this troubled role played by Saudi Arabia. I would like to quote Algerian writer Kamel Daoud who, following the November 13 attacks in Paris, wrote a tribune that was published in the New York Times: “Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq by the United States. But he also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its ideological industry. While Western intervention gave reasons to the desperate in the Arab world, the Saudi kingdom gave them beliefs and convictions.

If you don’t understand this, you lose the war, even if you win battles. Jihadists will be killed, but others will be reborn for future generations, fed by the same books.”

It is important here to recognize the role of Saudi Arabia in the constitution of a radical Islam which is now tragically embodied by the Islamic State.

I would like to conclude with a much broader reflection. The main reason why we, environmentalists, have entered politics is this: make us less dependent on fossil fuels.

Let us realize today that we will finally be able to take the breadth of this problematic, dangerous, violent, discriminatory country when we are no longer dependent on the hydrocarbons it sells us, or in any case much less. Energy independence is also political independence, and that is what we will try to ⁇ . Rely on environmentalists to do this.

Mr. Speaker, it is good that this resolution is now ahead and, as far as this plan is concerned, Saudi Arabia is drawn to the debate on women’s rights.

It was already made clear by several speakers here that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country, where camels are treated better than women. Several speakers have already referred to the fact that a woman should not do anything there without the permission of a male guardian: they must not drive and not even walk on the street without fully covering their hair and body.

I will not repeat all the arguments on the violation of women’s rights, on the massive violation of human rights in general, on the arms trade – which was rightly cited today –. Not because they would be insignificant, colleagues. On the contrary, they are very important elements and that is why our group will approve this resolution.

However, there is one essential element that is missing in this resolution, and it was rightly justified by colleague Dallemagne. An essential missing element is precisely the link between Muslim extremism and Saudi Arabia. Today we have had a very painful illustration of this in an ordinary football match. Not only this meeting began today with a minute of silence in memory of the victims of last week’s attacks. The World Cup qualifying match between Saudi Arabia and Australia began with a minute of silence in memory of the victims of the London attack. Well, it was very painful to see the team of Saudi Arabia disturbed this minute of silence by unwaveringly continuing the warming for the football match. I fear that this is somewhat the true face of Saudi Arabia regarding Muslim extremism.

A number of speakers have already stated this today, and rightly. Collega Dallemagne, colleague Miller, also colleague De Roover with the image saying that it is the fireworks with which one plays next to the hook mountain. I also read it in the resolution during the considerations, more specifically in consideration M, where it is rightly stated that Saudi Arabia has made an enormous contribution to the spread of salafism and wahabism in the form of religious literature, financing mosques and the establishment of Islamic organizations.

It is therefore very unfortunate, colleagues, that nothing of this can be found in the available part of this resolution. From this Parliament one may apparently simply continue playing with the fireworks next to the hook mountain.

We would, of course, have preferred to see that this work would also be done in the available part of the resolution. That it would include that the inheritance lease for the Great Mosque in Brussels would be broken and that any material or financial support from religious organizations or institutions such as mosques, Koran schools, import of religious literature and let alone mention, would be prohibited in this country. This would prevent worship servants from Saudi Arabia from being sent to this country or being financed by Saudi Arabia to carry out religious activities in that country. These essential elements should have been included in this resolution and therefore it was ⁇ not necessary to wait for the report of an investigative committee.

Our group sought to fill these gaps by amending the resolution in that sense, an amendment on which you all will soon be able to speak. It will ⁇ not prevent us from honouring the legitimate concerns that have already been extensively addressed today by approving this resolution on behalf of our group.

I will not repeat what has been said here and in the committee. I am referring to my detailed interventions in the committee and the amendments I had submitted at the committee and which I am also presenting today.

I will, however, return quickly on a few points.

For years, we have been demanding a debate about our relations with Saudi Arabia. We asked for it the day after the attacks in France in November 2015 and it was an integral part of the resolution for an effective fight against terrorism that we filed in January 2016 already. But it is essential that these are genuine debates and not a maneuver of misleading Minister Reynders embroiled in the case of the vote at the UN.

As the editorialist of a vesperal daily titled, we are witnessing, I quote, “a bad political game around Saudi Arabia.” This editorialist added in this debate on the Belgian-Saudi relations: “The Minister of Foreign Affairs Didier Reynders aims just to move the target pointed at him since the case of the Commission on the Rights of Women at the UN by designating him another target, while the Flemish nationalist side, we see here a good way to put the Wallons and the PS in particular in a big embarrassment.”

So the majority decided to communityize and instrumentalize a debate that should have been important. This is demonstrated by the fact that the resolution has been empty from its content on a number of points, notably on Yemen. This is proved by the refusal to explicitly mention dual-use technologies in the amendments. I will not return to the entire debate that has taken place so far. The Chamber’s legal service emphasizes this because it explicitly requires that the text gains in clarity and precision “to avoid,” I quote again, “that the reader has to embark on a track game that does not facilitate its proper understanding.”

Finally, this little game is proved by the rejection of the many amendments introduced, including those calling for the cessation of our particular ties and alliances with Saudi Arabia in relation to its violations of international law and its links to terrorism.

We therefore submitted several amendments in the committee aimed at breaking the effective bonds of alliance that we have as a state at the federal level with Saudi Arabia, amendments to take steps, investigate and condemn, if necessary, the war crimes of this country in Yemen, amendments to take steps to raise the question of the embargo at the European level, amendments to defend compensation for workers in order to avoid losses for them, amendments to denounce also the pharmaceutical weapons contracts that are being concluded by Saudi Arabia with its American and French allies.

Furthermore, we are strongly attached to the principles of the United Nations Charter, including its articles dealing with the sovereignty of all States and the international order based on peace and equality among nations.

If we want to review the policy towards Saudi Arabia, it is in view of its violations of the rules of international law and the principles of the UN Charter. In this sense, we have proposed these basic measures through our amendments.

All these amendments were rejected in the committee. The commission debate was clearly a misleading manoeuvre to save the skin of soldier Reynders. We regret this instrumentalization and we cannot walk in there!

Even though we no longer have many illusions, we hope that in the plenary we witness something else. That is why we re-submit the amendments we had submitted in the committee, hoping to have a different vote.

Belgium is a small country, which makes it a very large country. Therefore, it is normal that when debates are held here about abroad, those debates last a very long time. It is evident that debates on topics in the Committee on Foreign Relations always take much longer, which you have also pointed to me, Mr. Calvo.

The fact that we are so concerned with that foreign country sometimes makes us forget the domestic one. However, there are a number of issues in that resolution that actually contradict the developments we have known since 1970 in state law.

We agree with the overall objective of this resolution. I really have no problem with that. I have a problem with the fact that there are a number of provisions that suddenly give the government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs some sort of advisory power over the states. That is very strange.

I just heard Mr. Miller say that he is a convinced Welsh regionalist and that the discussions on this issue should take place in the parliaments of the states. It is therefore very strange that an advisory power from the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs is added to it. These resolutions should also be submitted to the relevant state parliament.

I find it very strange that the Flemish nationalists will approve of this, applaud it, and think it is fantastic that the French-speaking Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs now has an advisory power over the regions. I really do not think – with all respect for Mr Reynders – that this is a gain for Flanders. I don’t think that Flanders is finishing that way. Per ⁇ you are more concerned with creating new forms of unionist federalism, something you have always opposed in the past, but apparently much less in recent years.

I just want to answer Mr. Vuye.

In fact, we are not implementing a federal arrangement or re-federalization of the competences of the Region. Mr. Vuye, it is planned that the Minister of Foreign Affairs shall inform the Regions of the human rights situation of the countries for which a proposed license for the export of weapons is being considered. This is already planned and it is happening in this way. There is no creation of a new process.

I have heard you talk about the regional engagement of some. I can tell you that we are in favor of a union federalism, in which the Regions fully exercise their powers. A discussion framework is already planned. If it is this element that annoys you in the resolution proposal, be calm: it already exists.

I must give the floor to Mr. Vuye, asking you not to resume a debate between you, otherwise we will never get out of it.

Mr. Miller, I have no problem with the information. But what do I read in point 5? “We advise the local authorities to do the same.” What do I read in paragraph 9? “To ask.”

Flanders does not need the opinion of Mr. Reynders. Thank you, very much, but this is not an improvement, with all my respect for Mr. Reynders. The Flemish Region does not need the opinions of Mr Reynders, nor the Community.

Does the Minister consider that there is a personal fact? (Not to)

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the last speaker, I do not dare to imagine what the size of Flanders should be for its diplomatic voice in the world, if we should follow Mr. Vuye’s argument.

More fundamentally, that our Parliament finally expressed itself more determined about the relations between Belgium and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was more than necessary. I would like to remind you that, for a long time, our government has not shown much determination to clearly signal to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that this anti-democratic drift has become more than unbearable.

I recall that the government, for example, covered the move of the head of state, King Philip, to present his condolences to the ruling family following the death of the previous King Fayçal. This has been the subject of interpellations and interventions within this assembly. I remember very well the prime minister’s response asking why to blame. He then long cited to me the European states and elsewhere who had delegated representatives to the ruling family in order to present the official condolences of their state to the ruling regime.

I had had the weakness or the willingness to say that there may have been blows that hit Raif Badawi’s back with the complicity and silence of the authorities lacking the courage to refrain from presenting condolences to a regime whose threats and interventions are called, today, all unacceptable, including on our national territory.

I am surprised that some facts were not cited in the resolution. First, it should not be remembered that the vote expressed by Belgium in the competent instance of the United Nations, at the time when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was designated, was regretted by the Prime Minister. One could at least recall that and that the government authorities of the time had not shown diligence to prevent this regrettable vote. It could have been said again and I am submitting an amendment for this purpose. I ask that we incorporate in this text a reminder of this fact that demonstrates that this resolution was born, was carried out at a given time because there was this unbearable and condemned vote and more than regrettable.

Then, the debate on the financing of cults by Saudi Arabia has been discarded. (I have been speaking in the committee and others like me have also been speaking in this direction.) We were asked to wait for the debate when the resolutions and recommendations of the Anti-Terrorism Committee were available. Honestly, who needs to wait for the resolutions or recommendations of the Anti-Terrorism Commission to know what was and what is still today the role of Saudi Arabia in the direct or indirect support of certain branches of international terrorism?

Not daring to assert it in a resolution like this is like assuming very limited courage. However, this is still a fact that deserves a real debate and a more bold response from the public authorities. We will not make the economy of the debate on the financing of cults, and especially of the Muslim cult, by foreign powers who, by their governmental practices and their ideological choices, are distant from all our democratic principles. Europe will not be able to leave this debate suspended indefinitely, neither will our country or the Regions that make up it and which exercise a certain competence.

As such, I welcome the ongoing work of the Wallonian government and Parliament to better mark the financing of cults and to put an end to this type of external interventionism that is not suitable for relations between States and ⁇ not for countries that respect democratic freedoms, including freedom of religion. This is far from the case of states that finance certain reactionary, retrograde and, for all to say, hostile religious currents to our fundamental freedoms. You have to have the courage to say it.

I also submit amendments, while knowing that they will not be adopted, since the majority does not want this debate at the moment. But this one cannot be you. We will have to come back with strength.

When it comes to the issue of selling weapons and military technologies, the discussion is not new. First of all, let us be honest! When the debate was held on the regionalization of competencies, in the South and the North of the country, a will for autonomy was expressed so that there was no longer the right of cross-looking from one Region to another. I remember very well one summer, during which some parliamentary committees met in a hurry, as a result of arms exports to third countries that were problematic. This was almost the source of a government crisis. And then, the outcome took the form of a regionalization of skills.

However, since this regionalization, all regional governments – regardless of their composition – of the North, of the Centre, of the South – although in the Brussels Region, the export of weapons constitutes an exceptional prerogative, since it is mainly components and rarely manufacture of specific weapons – have closed their eyes on this issue, privileging their economic interests to the ethical requirement in relations with third countries for the sale of weapons.

Therefore, one can blame one another in this assembly. But if we review the history of weapons licenses given by regional governments over time, we will find that governments, all of them confused, have accepted, at some point, the export of weapons to countries that cannot benefit from our trust.

The proposal for a resolution to be examined is, indeed, a strong gesture. But we will have to think about what we are doing with other states that are not much more respectful of fundamental freedoms and democratic values that we intend to defend. Therefore, it is a much broader debate that awaits us.

Today, we have Saudi Arabia in “the sight” – if I can say – but it is not the only state with respect to which we will have to ask ourselves what our arms export policies should be. And it may be necessary to conduct this debate without being confronted with an actuality such as the one we have known in recent months, due to the failures of the federal government or certain authorities.

Therefore, even if there are gaps, because the text under review has the boldness – and I welcome the initial authors – to awaken awareness in the face of deviations that threaten our rule of law as well as the core values of Europe, we will support the proposed resolution.

I would like to thank Mr Maingain for his contribution to this draft resolution.

However, I would like to make a historical reminder.

Mr. Maingain, I heard you say that since the regionalization of competence, all political families had been involved. I don’t want to be more angelic than the Pope. I do not know whether this latter is angelic or whether the formula is used. But know, Mr. Maingain, that the MR has only participated a few months in a Walloon government since the regionalization of the competence. The latter took place in 2003. In 2004, we joined the opposition and we are in 2017. But it is true that, for a few months, our group has again participated in the Wallon government. I insist on this aspect. In fact, not everyone has the same level of responsibility in all weapons licenses that were exported to Saudi Arabia between 2003 and 2017.

Mr. Maingain obviously wants to react to this historical precision, for the posterity.

Mr. Miller, we could make a history of Belgian arms exports before regionalization, and see which were the majorities. Let us be honest. We know that for a long time, regardless of the composition of the government, economic interests were privileged, at the expense of a reflection on ethical requirements. That is all I say. Before and after regionalization. I do not know which majorities were in each of the regional governments.

First of all, I would like to welcome the intervention of my colleague Mrs. Grovonius.

I would also like to add a few personal considerations.

First of all, just read the reports of UN organizations to realize that human rights and women’s rights are being violated in Saudi Arabia. It cannot be denied.

Belgium must commit itself with all its weight at the European and international level to ensure that these rights are respected and advanced in Saudi Arabia. We know that Belgium alone is too small to be heard. It must make use of its tradition of dialogue and multilateralism.

Therefore, a unilateral decision by Belgium to stop its trade relations with Saudi Arabia, including the arms trade, will not prevent other European countries from trading as they want with this Gulf country. To think the opposite is hypocrisy.

Dear colleagues, the resolution calls on Belgium to submit its relations with Saudi Arabia to “deep reflection” – which is rather vague. On the other hand, it is very clear when it calls on federal entities to stop arms exports to that country. The requirements vary from one level of power to another.

Within the European Union, Belgium and Wallonia are minor players in arms exports.

Wallonia accounts for a marginal percentage of the total European exports. To think that a unilateral decision on a Walloon embargo will influence Saudi Arabia seems unbelievable to me. We know that Saudi Arabia’s main trading partner is the European Union. In Belgium, there are no less than 1,500 companies that export to this country in various sectors and also in the arms sector, where 15,000 jobs are affected only in Wallonia. This exchange creates interdependence between the two countries. If one decides to isolate itself with an embargo, beyond the lost jobs, I think Belgium will lose a capacity to influence a leading regional power.

Dear colleagues, weapons workers do not have to pay the bill for Belgium’s diplomatic fiasco. At European level, we have been in favour of a code of good conduct on the sale of weapons which Wallonia fully complies with. If there are rules for the sale of common weapons, I find it normal that the rules of embargo are also. It is a matter of common sense.

For these different considerations, I cannot agree with this resolution and my statement against is not a sub-localist statement, but an internationalist statement. The weight of Belgium is small except when it is used in a multilateral framework. This must be kept in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I will come back on a few points, not beginning to thank the different political groups.

Indeed, in this debate and over the years, the minds evolve in all groups. A number of points in the resolution concern economic missions and arms sales.

Our last economic mission to Saudi Arabia, including Oman, took place in March 2014, following a request from the three Western governments to the Foreign Trade Agency. So in March 2014, we had another economic mission to Saudi Arabia, at the request of the three Western governments. I will not add the political composition of the three western governments at that time, but there is a beautiful evolution for all political factions.

With regard to the sale of weapons, the same is true. The majority succeeded in the region. I have been in the department since the end of 2011 and I would say that until the summer of 2014, I have not received strong requests from the Wallon government to go towards an embargo or to suspend the export of weapons. I will not recall the composition of this government at the time, including with regard to this proposal that was submitted to us today and the authors of this proposal.

Since photographic reminders are shown to me, I will confess that the March 2014 mission was conducted with Princess Astrid, with Mr. Marcourt for the Walloon Region and Mrs. Fremault for the Brussels Region. When I say “by our side,” I still have the weakness to believe that I was present! Just keep in mind that in the Federal Agency, the three Regions make the request and I found that the Regions wanted to go to Saudi Arabia. They came through their respective ministers. Please share all the photos available and not just one or the other.

The federal government will effectively implement the resolution, if it is voted sooner.

I hope that the resolution can be unanimously adopted. Even if it is approved only by a majority of votes, we will correctly apply and implement the resolution.

For me, the West must be informed that we will no longer organize an economic mission if there is no progress on human rights, especially women’s rights, in Saudi Arabia. Even not at the request of one or the other Region, we will organize a new economic mission with the Agency for Foreign Trade. We will also ask the regions to go in the same direction. This is also a question of the Parliament in the resolution.

We have been providing the three regions with all information about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia for several years. There were many meetings on this subject based on our cooperation agreement. After an exchange of opinions of my department with the Wests, it was the exclusive authority of the Wests to organize an economic mission and yet to decide on the supply of weapons.

Regarding more directly the delivery of weapons, I did not want to interrupt the exciting debate recently, Mr. Speaker, but at first I thought I understood that with regard to the possible double use of a number of products, the reference text was very clear since it is taken from European texts and that the Legal Service of the House also made a very clear statement.

In general, even if you don’t have much time, reading the first page should already be enough. I mean that it should already be possible to understand the approach, but so that there is no doubt, I would like to tell you that I will obviously send a letter to the Prime Ministers-Presidents of the Regions, as soon as you have adopted the resolution.

I don’t want to have any doubt in the room. I will send a letter to Mr. Bourgeois with the message that on 8 June the House adopted with a very large majority – I hope – a resolution to review Belgium’s foreign policy with respect to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Paragraph 9 of that resolution calls on the federal government to request the states to cease the import, export and transit of military goods and technology referred to in the lists referred to in Articles 6 and 12 of the Common Position of the Council of 8 December 2008 with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I therefore ask the West to give a positive answer to the question of the Belgian Parliament.

With regard to point 10 of the present resolution, I will write the following: “To take action on European and/or United Nations equal in relation to a domain of competence of the federated entities, the federal government must obtain a mandate from the competent authorities. With regard to request number 10 of the resolution, we may ask you to give the Flemish Government’s consent to the federal government advocating, on behalf of Belgium, the introduction of a European embargo on the export of weapons and dual-use goods to Saudi Arabia.”

If necessary, I will specify that the Ministers-Presidents of the Walloon Region and the Brussels Region will receive the same letter, unless it is addressed to them in French. As regards the request No. 10 of this resolution, I will ask them this: "Can you confirm me by return of mail that the Wallonian Government, or the Brussels Government, signs its agreement to the Federal Government pleading on behalf of Belgium for the introduction of a European embargo on the export of weapons and dual-use equipment to Saudi Arabia?"

I think this is the best way to clarify what I was asked about double use recently. The terms are clear.

I think it is very clear, for all regions. Ms. Grovonius stated that we have been receiving questions about this from the Welsh Region for many years. I have not read it, never. Even at the last meeting, the question of a real embargo always remained unclear. I will send a letter, hoping to receive a positive response from the various regions, so that we can put that question on the table of the European Union.

Point 9 is in fact a direct question for a Belgian embargo, for a decision at Belgian level to end potential supplies.

As for the contacts with Saudi Arabia, I have received many questions for direct contact from my Saudi colleague in the last few weeks. I will discuss this, but I have asked not to do so the day before the debate in Parliament. That would not be normal. A few hours ago we received a question in the same direction from my colleague from Qatar. So we will organize bilateral contacts, presumably in Brussels, with my colleagues from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This seems to me very useful, not only for a direct discussion on human rights, women’s rights and many other areas that have been criticized in our Parliament, but also on recent developments in the Gulf States.

Regarding recent developments in the Gulf region, we have seen the very strong decision to break diplomatic relations, sometimes going even further, taken by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates or Egypt with regard to Qatar.

It is important, as many have recalled, that one can be documented on all the arguments and elements that are often already disseminated concerning the financing of terrorist groups by a number of States, foundations or groups that can be considered as close to certain States.

I hope that the work, recalled by many, which was done within the Terrorism Committee and which in particular focused on radicalism will give us a number of additional elements on this aspect of criticism of countries that could be the source of terrorist financing. It is important that we can discuss this situation with both Saudi and Qatar authorities.

I would like to conclude by saying that I have proposed that we have a discussion at the entrance. If you can get it done sooner, so much better! But, on relations with Saudi Arabia, I think that when we do, we will probably have to enter into broader discussions. My feeling is that there is a real problem in the Islamic world today. We have, through predecessors, here a number of years now, been able to see that after the Second World War, for powers that were barely coming out of a bloody conflict, it was possible in Yalta to try to establish a new world order through the institutions of Bretton Woods, the United Nations and other regional approaches including the later European Union or alliances like NATO.

After the Cold War, many European countries signed into the Helsinki Agreements; ⁇ useful to mention in evolution. In my opinion, there is now a possibility, ⁇ within the United Nations, with two groups of countries.

One of the elements that I discussed with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres earlier this week in New York, on the occasion of the Ocean Conference, is the role that the United Nations should play in opening a debate between the Shiite world and the Sunni world. Very specifically, this means a debate between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A number of conflicts oppose these components of Islam and, through them, often states. Let us look at what is happening in Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, or even in Lebanon for a long time. I remain convinced that in addition to the necessary resumption of dialogue for a Middle East peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it is indispensable to gradually take the initiative of a debate between the Shiite world and the Sunni world, and, more specifically, between Saudi Arabia and Iran, if we want to stabilize this region of the world.

From this point of view, Belgium, along with others, is very committed. One of the few diplomatic successes in my opinion over the past decades has probably been the nuclear agreement concluded, in large part, at the initiative of the European Union, with Iran. It will have to be controlled. This does not give us all the guarantees, but it might bring Iran back around the international discussion tables.

What is happening today is a great progress for our Parliament, I think. Almost all factions have evolved compared to a few years ago. We will therefore continue to apply this resolution in many bilateral contacts with Saudi Arabia itself.

I repeat – I have heard some names, Raif Badawi among others – that I have always said something about it, in all bilateral contacts and also very openly in press briefings, as well as that I have achieved some results.

I would like to tell Mr. Maingain that when decisions were made regarding Saudi Arabia, fortunately, despite the continued arrest, Mr. Badawi no longer suffered physical punishment. This was the first request we made. I do not despair that we can get more: his release.

A case like this, and others, have been systematically raised in bilateral or multilateral contacts with Saudi Arabia. They will still be in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that beyond the exchanges this afternoon, it will be possible to gather unanimity on a decision like this. Even if this is not the case, the government will implement the content of the resolution that your House will want to adopt.

At the beginning of his reply, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed his commitment to fully implement this resolution.

Mr. Minister, I want to thank you for this. You know us, we’re going to watch over that process of course in the coming months in this Parliament. We expect that colleagues from other parties will do the same with us.

It is very interesting and important that you will soon be in contact with the representatives of Saudi Arabia, and also of Qatar, given the international context. Specifically with regard to the contact with Saudi Arabia, you can therefore immediately follow the last point of the resolution, in particular to forward the questions and concerns raised therein, ⁇ in the explanatory section on the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, to the representatives of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which you will apparently see soon.

As the chief spokesperson, I also greatly appreciate that you have already responded to a number of Parliament’s questions regarding the government. It is then about the elements that belong to your competence. In fact, this resolution poses a number of questions to the government, which are within the competence of your colleagues. For example, the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Vandeput, is asked to stop the defence attachments taking care of the commercial contacts between our weapons industry and Saudi Arabia. State Secretary De Crem is asked to order Delcredere, the Credendo Group, to no longer insure arms exports to Saudi Arabia. That last point belongs to the competence of Pieter De Crem.

Mr. Minister, I thank you again for your commitment. This case is being pursued, both in terms of the implementation of the resolution and the evolution to a more general debate on a revision of our relations with Saudi Arabia, which can go beyond this resolution. However, this resolution is already a very important first step.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, I want to thank you all.

Thank you, Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, for your comments and your response.

There are two elements on which I had intervened and on which I have not heard you, but which seem important to me.

First, if we want to be serious in our relations with Saudi Arabia, it’s about putting ourselves around the table, federal government and federal entities, and discussing the whole of our economic relations with Saudi Arabia to reach a disengagement plan. I specifically mentioned the issue of our oil purchases, as this is a considerable transfer of money into the Saudi treasury, which I estimated to be more than two billion euros.

This is an extremely substantial issue in our relationships. I would really like that, within the competence of the federal government, in particular the strategic reserve at oil level, but not only, a disengagement plan be implemented for our oil purchases from Saudi Arabia.

We are an exception at the European level. Our imports of Saudi fuel account for more than a quarter of the total imports, while for Europe as a whole, they account for only 7%. We are one of the countries that buy the most oil from Saudi Arabia and I hope this changes. This is within the competence of the federal government.

Second, I asked you and your colleague from the Interior about the famous OCCAM report that establishes the link between Saudi Arabia, the Great Mosque, wahhabism and terrorism. I told you that there was a debate today in Britain, in the light of recent terrorist attacks, where a whole series of members of the British Parliament and members of civil society demanded the publication of the report that exists in Britain on this link between Saudi Arabia and terrorism.

The same type of report exists for Belgium. A few good pages have been published in the Standard, but it now has a confidential status, which does not allow us to discuss it publicly in parliament. I ask that it be published so that we can have a debate on this considerable and important element that establishes the link between Wahhabism and the spread of terrorism, including in our country.

I would like to thank the Minister for his various responses.

Returning to the question of our excellent colleague, Mr. Dallemagne, concerning the energy and oil aspects, I think I said at the beginning of my speech (the minister repeated it in his answer) that a broad debate will take place on the whole of the Belgian-Saudi relations. Mr. De Vriendt said: elements that are not included in the resolution can also be addressed. This is also a way to respond to your concern, Mr. Dallemagne; we will remain attentive to all aspects of the Belgian-Saudi relations, as the Minister said in his response.

I would like to speak on two points.

Mr De Vriendt asks how it is with the distribution of powers among the different ministers. However, I have said that the government will implement the resolution, which I mean the entire government. That is clear. We will carry out that.

Mr Dallemagne, we will indeed implement this resolution. However, some of your questions are addressed to your colleagues, since you are asking for some considerations to be added. Debates have taken place. Take the example of oil products.

In any case, I cannot allow you to give the feeling that the Belgian community financially funds the Saudi regime exorbitantly. Our trade balance is positive – not to mention the weapons of war, which are known, statistically, only by regional parliaments. These are the figures of the Belgian Foreign Trade Agency. I repeat it: without the arms, whose numbers are known to the Regions. I suppose one or the other will be able to transmit them to you.

Then I want to hear a lot of things, but you seem to ask for an end to the oil trade with Saudi Arabia. However, one of the topics that has been most debated is the arms trade. If we are not already able to put an end to our relationship in this regard – and we will see what the Regions will respond to us – do not open other workshops by suggesting that we ask partners to stop their oil supplies.

Again, and Mr. Miller has just recalled it, I have repeatedly stated that we will do everything we can to conduct a debate on the whole of our relationships. Those points will be discussed. So far, I have not heard anyone, during committee discussions, calling for the cessation of our trade relations with Saudi Arabia. If we do this sector by sector, I do not see very well how far you want to take us.

Mr. Minister, I must say that I am ⁇ disappointed by your response, because I do not see what annoys you and why you oppose the sale of weapons and the purchase of petroleum products. These two activities are obviously linked: if we do not buy oil products, Saudi Arabia has less means to acquire weapons. That is the very obvious! The fact that our trade balance is positive for some years does not prevent that there is a massive financial flow from our country to Saudi Arabia. Therefore, please take this question very seriously. The fact that other colleagues did not raise it does not mean that it lacks relevance, whether it is secondary or has no urgency. I ask you to take this into account.

It is not obvious that Belgium buys a quarter of its oil products from Saudi Arabia, while most European countries have avoided this type of purchase from it.

I will no longer intervene on this subject. I will look at the text of the resolution and see if Mr. Dallemagne has convinced all of his colleagues.

As regards Mr Dallemagne’s other question concerning the documents of the OCCAM, I will also ask the Minister of the Interior for information, but, as far as I know, there is, if I am not mistaken, a committee within the Parliament responsible for examining a whole series of files from the intelligence services or the OCCAM. I do not think there is a major opposition from the government in this matter. I have never heard that there was one. But there are procedures that exist in this case.

There is also currently a committee in charge of the terrorism case. To my knowledge, this commission has all the capacity to produce these documents and then decide whether it wants to go to publication. Again, I believe that there should not be any effect of handshake on a situation like this. The document exists. There has never been a move from the government to say that we do not want to broadcast. There are simply procedures to do so. No documents from intelligence services or threat analysis services are disseminated without following the usual procedures within the Parliament.

Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, you may be misinformed. It is not the Parliament's responsibility to decide the level of classification of a document. The Parliament and the closed-door committee took note of this report. I just want to say that today, the debate cannot be public because it is a confidential report. It is obviously not up to Parliament to decide whether this report should be confidential or not.

I just hear that there is, in Britain, a very important request from a part of the political class for a similar report to be made public, and I would like to be able to analyze to what extent a report, which I also find fundamental and which has been published in the press by the newspaper De Standaard – this is the paradox – always has the status of a confidential report, which does not allow parliamentarians to discuss it publicly. I therefore ask the Government, and in particular the Minister in charge of this issue, to consider to what extent a debate can take place on this issue.

I understand that Mr. Dallemagne is poorly informed about documents with limited dissemination. The document is not confidential. The document is in limited distribution. This is a very strong nuance in the framework of the provisions.

Again, I understand that on an individual basis, one or the other would like to take advance in this case but, as you reminded yourself, the documents were available to a commission. It is obvious that if the Terrorism Investigation Commission should request the publication of a document like that which, today, is in limited distribution, the government will consider, in order to comply with the procedure, the follow-up to be reserved, but I believe that there is no objection, in any case, neither inside nor outside – so it is already wide enough – to make this document public. We must respect the procedures at a minimum.

It is not because a request is made during a plenary debate that a follow-up will be immediately reserved for it. There is a procedure. Members had access to the documents. The House will decide whether it wishes the document to be made public. I repeat, on the side of the government, there is no major objection to this. But I think that parliamentarians will also examine the detail of the content and see to what extent this type of document can or can not be disseminated.

I believe that the House will have to make a decision on the end of the work of the commission on terrorism because there is no mistake, many other documents are not only restricted distribution but also confidential and they must, in our view, remain, because they contain elements that cannot be disseminated to the public under penalty sometimes, in addition, to harm the safety of a certain number of people.