Proposition 54K2471

Proposition de loi instaurant un cadre d'analyse en vue d'évaluer les missions militaires belges à l'étranger.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Benoît Hellings
Groen Wouter De Vriendt
PS | SP Sébastian Pirlot
Vooruit Alain Top, Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

May 11, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

armed forces military intervention parliamentary scrutiny forces abroad

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Dirk Van der Maelen (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 21, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, at the time of the World Cup, we notice that every football match before, during and after is evaluated very thoroughly. Nice and also useful to improve the game, think most of us.

But, strikingly, football matches are evaluated here much more and better than our military missions abroad, military missions where human lives and various international interests are at stake.

Measuring to know is important and logical in most parts of society. Defence should take its role as an example and should not be an exception. In order to know whether something has gone well, one must set goals in advance and be able to weigh them later. If necessary, intermediate evaluations and updates may be carried out or conclusions may be drawn after completion that could potentially positively affect future missions.

Colleagues, briefings may take place behind closed doors in the special committee responsible for the follow-up of foreign missions and occasionally follows an hearing in the committee for the Defense of the Land, but objectives are never weighed at the beginning or the end of an operation.

In foreign military missions, our citizens have the right to know who is responsible for mistakes made, for the progress in the case and for whether or not civilian casualties are caused.

The Belgian transparency on military missions remains limited to reporting on those missions in the special commission charged with the follow-up of foreign missions behind closed doors. This committee only reports on progress during military missions. The objectives set prior to the mission or the results after the mission is almost never ⁇ . The question is whether the government is then satisfied with the results of the mission and whether the preconceived goals have been achieved. These are important questions that are currently not sufficiently answered.

In addition, evaluations help the image of Defence and the military in a positive sense. The useful work of our soldiers is better illustrated here. Such visibility can ⁇ reduce the gap with the citizens.

In the Netherlands, for example, this has been happening for more than twenty years through a review framework, as in our proposal. The United Kingdom also evaluated, among other things, the mission in Libya. It did not point the finger to the military, but drawn important lessons for future operations. In the Netherlands, for example, a review of the mission in Mali was published last week, where we are also present.

It is urgent time for our country to take steps to work even more efficiently on military missions in the future. That is ultimately the corebusiness of our Defense.

Colleagues, the Netherlands may or may not participate in the World Cup, but it stands many steps further in terms of transparency and evaluation of its military missions.