Proposition de résolution visant à empêcher le transport d'armes nucléaires par les futurs avions de combat.
General information ¶
- Authors
- Vooruit Alain Top, Dirk Van der Maelen
- Submission date
- Oct. 19, 2017
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- defence policy fighter aircraft nuclear weapon resolution of parliament
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR VB
- Voted to reject
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ PVDA | PTB
- Abstained from voting
- PP
Party dissidents ¶
- Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
- Benoît Dispa (LE) 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 ¶
Feb. 8, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Alain Top Vooruit ⚙
Nuclear weapons are far from the world. This was revealed this week in President Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review.
Even before President Trump’s inauguration, the Americans made known that they want to modernize the nuclear arsenal, and this for more than $1 billion.
If our country does not give a clear signal today or in the coming weeks, the B61 nuclear bombs will also be renewed on our territory.
The world we see for our children and grandchildren is, of course, a safe world, but then one without nuclear weapons.
We must also not forget that the United States is the only country in the world that has nuclear weapons stationed on someone else’s territory. In addition, we support the U.S. military industry by modernising the bombs on our territory. The profits go directly to American private companies.
Since 2001, nuclear weapons have also been removed from Europe, including in Greece, Germany and the United Kingdom. That this could not be done due to international obligations is not a conclusive argument. Moreover, since July 7, 2017, 122 countries have signed an international nuclear ban. This government wants, according to the government agreement, both to purchase new combat aircraft and to make efforts with a view to nuclear disarmament in the world.
Colleagues, the logical conclusion from these two passages could be that future combat aircraft should not be allowed to carry nuclear bombs. In other words, the transport of nuclear bombs must be excluded.
The resolution that precedes calls for a ban on the possibility of equipping future combat aircraft with dual-use capabilities, which my group does not desire for all clarity.
Colleagues from the majority, Ms. Grosemans and Mr. Vandenput, in a debate organized by Pax Christi in 2016, also indicated that, as far as they were concerned, new combat aircraft do not need nuclear capacity.
If the future jet fighters do not possess that capacity, nuclear weapons in Kleine Brogel become superfluous.
Colleagues, given the government agreement and the similar views of some members of the majority, I therefore expect that today, through this resolution, we can finally give a clear signal for a world free of nuclear weapons.