Discours

Discours à l'occasion de la Fête du Roi

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:07:43 +0100

Hulde aan de vrijwilligers in het kader van het “Europees Jaar van het Vrijwilligerswerk”

Koninklijke Hoogheden,
Mijnheer de Voorzitter van de Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers,
Mevrouw de Voorzitster van de Senaat
Dames en Heren, in uw ambten en waardigheden,
Dames en Heren vrijwilligers,

Enkele dagen geleden woonde ik, zoals ook de voorzitter van de Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordiging, de ontroerende uitvaartmis bij van baron Emmanuel de Bethune, de vader van Senaatsvoorzitter Sabine de Bethune. De eerste lezing in die mis, van Johannes, typeerde de groothartige man die Emmanuel de Bethune was, de “mijnheer Manu” die altijd klaar stond om de mensen rondom hem te helpen, van welke rang of stand ze ook waren.

Die lezing zei namelijk: ‘Kinderen, wij moeten niet liefhebben met woorden en leuzen, maar met daden die waarachtig zijn.’

Die prachtige zin lijkt mij het perfecte thema voor deze hulde aan allen die zich onbaatzuchtig inzetten voor hun medemensen. Want al die vrijwilligers beperken zich inderdaad niet tot woorden of slagzinnen, maar helpen hun medemensen met “daden die waarachtig zijn”.

De Europese Unie heeft terecht dit jaar 2011 uitgeroepen tot jaar van het vrijwilligerswerk, als aanmoediging van en hulde voor de zowat 100 miljoen vrijwilligers in de Europese Unie.

Koninklijke Hoogheden
Dames en Heren,

Een grote Amerikaanse democraat, Hubert Humphrey, heeft ooit gezegd dat onze maatschappijen hun morele waarde tonen door de wijze waarop ze zorg dragen voor drie categorieën van hun inwoners : zij die in de dageraad van het leven staan, zij die in de schemering van het leven staan en zij die in de schaduw van het leven staan. Dat wil zeggen de kinderen, de ouderen, en de andersvaliden die niet of moeilijk voor zichzelf kunnen opkomen.

In onze Europese landen bestaat een oude traditie van bekommernis om de zwakkere leden van de samenleving. In zijn recente boek ‘Une histoire du chômage’ schrijft de Franse docent en expert Yves Zoberman dat de bedel-orden, die in de dertiende eeuw door de heilige Dominicus en de heilige Franciscus gesticht zijn, de eerste georganiseerde hulpverlening aan de armen waren.

Sindsdien zijn onze maatschappijen onherkenbaar geëvolueerd. Op basis van de waarden die door onze religieuze tradities en het humanisme gedragen worden, hebben wij in de meeste van onze Europese landen, door herverdeling van onze rijkdom, een vangnet gespannen voor de zwakkeren in onze samenleving.
Wij vinden dat dit de plicht is van een humane samenleving, en wij zijn, terecht, gehecht aan ons model dat politieke en economische vrijheid aan sociale solidariteit paart.

Maar het eigene van een net is dat er gaten in zijn, hoe fijnmazig we het ook proberen te maken. Er zullen, jammer genoeg, altijd mensen zijn die door die gaten van het verzorgingsnet vallen. Onder andere daarom zullen er altijd mensen nodig zijn, vrijwilligers, die door hun warme menselijke inzet de tekortkomingen van koude bureaucratieën compenseren en aanvullen.

Altesses Royales,
Mesdames et Messieurs,

Je souscris entièrement à ce que vient de dire la présidente du Sénat sur le rôle et le devoir qu’ont les autorités publiques, à tous les niveaux, de soutenir le travail si précieux et si nécessaire des volontaires. Je souscris également aux paroles du président de la Chambre des Représentants sur la nécessité de formation et d’encadrement de nos volontaires et bénévoles.

En effet, le volontariat couvre un terrain et des besoins énormes, et a donc besoin de spécialistes. Il va des grandes organisations connues et reconnues comme la Croix Rouge aux gens qui, discrètement, donnent un coup de main dans des hôpitaux ou des hospices pour y rendre le séjour des malades ou des gens âgés plus agréable.
Il va des papas et des mamans qui, bénévolement, entraînent une équipe de sport de l’école de leurs enfants, aux gens qui, aux lignes téléphoniques d’urgence, trouvent les mots pour répondre à la détresse de ceux qui ne voient plus que le suicide comme issue à leur mal de vivre.

J’ai dit que l’Union Européenne compte une centaine de millions de volontaires, de bénévoles. C’est beaucoup. Mais en même temps ce chiffre implique que plus de 75 pourcent d’Européens n’auraient aucune activité bénévole. Je crois que ce chiffre ne fait pas justice à la réalité. Il y a des bénévoles qui travaillent sur un plan si local, si personnel, si discret qu’eux aussi passent à travers les mailles du filet, dans ce cas-ci le filet des statistiques.

Ceci étant dit, il reste que nous tous pouvons faire plus. Et comme un long périple commence toujours par un premier pas, tous les jours nous pouvons être, nous tous, à une échelle très modeste, des volontaires.

J’aimerais, pour illustrer ceci, citer l’inoubliable Chanson pour l’Auvergnat, de Georges Brassens. N’ayez pas peur, je n’essaierai pas de la chanter. Mais le texte résume en mots simples et modernes les antiques commandements de miséricorde et de charité. Il remercie, et je cite, « toi l’Auvergnat qui sans façons, m’a donné quatre bouts de bois, quand dans ma vie il faisait froid ». Il remercie, et je cite, «toi l'hôtesse qui sans façons, m'as donne quatre bouts de pain quand dans ma vie il faisait faim ». Et il remercie « Toi l'étranger qui sans façons, d'un air malheureux m'as souri lorsque les gendarmes m'ont pris ». Et à propos de ce sourire il ajoute : « Ce n'était rien qu'un peu de miel, mais il m'avait chauffé le cœur, et dans mon âme il brûle encore, à la manière d'un grand soleil ».

En effet, il y a toujours, dans nos sociétés d’affluence, des gens dans la vie de qui « il fait faim » et « il fait froid ». Mais il y a aussi des gens qui sur le plan matériel ne manquent de rien, mais qui meurent, intérieurement et parfois littéralement, de solitude. Il est à la portée de chacun d’entre nous d’être attentif à cette solitude-là dans notre entourage, de tendre la main, de sourire, de donner ce « peu de miel qui réchauffe le cœur ».

Ceci évidemment ne remplace pas les « actes véridiques » des volontaires. Mais il les complémente dans une société qui a besoin de chaleur humaine et de convivialité.

Pour tout ce qu’ils apportent à notre société, je tiens à féliciter et à remercier très sincèrement, au nom du gouvernement, tous nos volontaires. Et je joins mes félicitations à celles de Madame de Béthune à l’adresse de madame Eva Hambach pour sa nomination à la tête du European Volunteer Centre.
Ik wil ook, namens de regering, de leden van onze Koninklijke Familie zeer oprecht danken voor de ondersteuning en aanmoediging die zij met hun aandacht en hun vele bezoeken geven aan het vrijwilligerswerk. Wees ervan overtuigd, Koninklijke Hoogheden, dat dit voor de betrokken mensen en organisaties een enorme aanmoediging betekent, en door ons allen zeer op prijs wordt gesteld.

En ten slotte wil ik ook graag, namens de regering, op deze Dag van de Koning onze vorst alle mogelijke succes en geluk wensen in zijn ambt van staatshoofd en in zijn familieleven.

Discours du Premier Ministre Yves Leterme à l'inauguration d’une nouvelle station d’épuration d’eau, réalisée par Waterleau

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:54:18 +0100

Monsieur l’Echevin,
(Michel Firket, cdH, échevin de l’urbanisme, de l’environnement, du tourisme et du développement durable)
Mesdames et Messieurs,

Je suis très heureux d’être présent ici en ce jour à l’occasion de l’inauguration de cette station d’épuration. Avant tout parce que je mets un point d’honneur à rencontrer chaque année les entreprises sélectionnées pour le titre d’entreprise de l’année. Votre nomination est tout à fait méritée. Waterleau est une entreprise saine, innovante et à croissance rapide qui exerce ses activités dans une branche prometteuse : la recherche de solutions respectueuses de l’environnement et leur mise en œuvre à des prix concurrentiels. [Epuration des eaux, épuration de l’air, traitement des déchets et énergie renouvelable].
Je souhaite en outre féliciter Waterleau pour ses ambitions internationales. En effet, depuis ses racines belges, l’entreprise est parvenue en dix ans à piloter des projets partout dans le monde. Les projets à l’étranger représentent pas moins de 90 % du chiffre d’affaires de Waterleau. Ces résultats ne pénalisent cependant pas l’emploi dans notre pays, puisque plus de deux-tiers des employés (200 sur 300) sont actifs en Belgique. Cette entreprise incarne selon moi un modèle du genre qui utilise de manière optimale les atouts de la Belgique. Elle peut constituer un exemple de la direction que doit prendre notre économie, à savoir des travailleurs belges hautement qualifiés qui réalisent et exportent la technologie propre à leur entreprise.
Toutefois, Mesdames et Messieurs, comme vous le savez, je ne suis pas uniquement ici pour vous adresser mes félicitations. Je viens volontiers à Sclessin, une ville qui m’est chère et où une multitude de talents techniques belges ont pu s’exporter à l’étranger grâce à d’excellentes prestations. Je fais le vœu aujourd’hui que ce savoir-faire technique belge, cette technologie à la base de cette station d’épuration exceptionnelle, suscite l’attention méritée en dehors de nos frontières.
Pour conclure, Mesdames et Messieurs, et avant de vous souhaiter de profiter de la visite et des festivités liées à l’inauguration de cette nouvelle installation, je tiens aussi à rendre hommage au maître d’ouvrage de cette installation novatrice : l’Association Intercommunale pour le Démergement et l’Epuration des communes de la province de Liège (AIDE). Cette intercommunale est responsable de l’épuration des eaux sur l’ensemble du territoire de la province de Liège. Et, quand on sait que nous consommons chaque jour de 150 à 200 litres d’eau qui doit être épurée, l’on se rend compte de l’ampleur de la tâche. Son mérite est d’avoir opté pour un producteur belge, ainsi que pour un projet novateur.
Avec toute l’équipe de Waterleau, je souhaite dès lors féliciter l’AIDE pour cette inauguration. Bonne chance !

Speech by His Excellency Yves Leterme at the Tata Consultancy Services Summit:

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:47:41 +0200

Mr. Chairman,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very happy to welcome you in our Belgian – and European – capital. I am all the more happy as I value the presence of Tata Consultancy in Belgium, and the fact that, as I was told, Belgium is your third largest operation in Europe.

I also congratulate you on the choice of theme for this summit. ‘The growth imperative’ is a very topical subject. We do indeed need economic growth, and for Europe especially it is imperative to reconnect with a sustainable growth.

I tell you no secret when I say that growth requires, first, financial stability. Over the past three years the European countries have put a considerable amount of money and energy in stabilising the financial markets and fighting the global crisis. Much of this stabilising effort came from a common and coordinated response of the member states of the European Union.

As you all know this effort is now in a critical phase. Sunday, the European Council will have to take decisions on - at the least - the following matters:
-    a solution to put Greece’s public finances on a sustainable footing
-    a recapitalisation of our banks.
-    an improved European Financial Stability Facility
-    and, last but not least, new institutions to improve the functioning of the Eurozone.

The crisis of the Eurozone demonstrates that we need ‘more Europe’, that a common currency requires coordination and integration of the fiscal and economic policies of the member countries, in short, that a common currency requires economic governance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Financial stability is a prerequisite for growth but it is of course not enough. We have to address the challenges Europe faces to reconnect with growth in a socially and ecologically responsible manner.

When I say in a socially responsible manner, I mean that growth has to benefit the many, not the few. In Belgium, as in a number of other EU countries, we have created what we call the Rhineland model, a humane system of government which combines personal, political and economic freedom with social solidarity and ecological responsibility. It is a model which is the envy of a large part of the world, as witnessed for instance by the number of migrants who are attracted by it.

We are and remain attached to this model. But we also know that the world does not owe us a living, that the rest of the world is rapidly catching up with us. To paraphrase the famous phrase of prince Salina in ‘Il Gattopardo’: if we want things to remain the same, we will have to completely change them. In other words, if we want to be able to go on financing our Rhineland model, we will have to work differently, as well on the side of capital as that of labour.

Let’s start with the capital. We have seen the disaster that occurs when capitalism is not driven by the creation of value. We are still paying for the devastations caused by a capitalism that was led by greed; that saw people not as an asset but as a cost to be minimized; that was driven by the short termism of quarterly reports and shareholder value; and that imploded at a great cost to all of us.

It is not easy for political leaders to explain to our citizens, who suffer from the crisis, that, on top of that, their tax payer’s money has to be used to pay for the irresponsibility of some bankers.

Do not misunderstand me. We in Europe are totally in favour of systems of free enterprise. But freedom, as we have seen all too clearly and painfully, is the opposite of laissez faire.

Freedom has to be canalized and protected by law, so as to benefit the many and not the few. That goes as well for personal as for economic freedom. As the catholic preacher Jean Baptiste Lacordaire already said in the 1830’s: ‘Between the strong and the weak, it is liberty that oppresses and the law that sets free.’ Indeed, a free market soon ceases to be a free market without the laws and regulations that prevent the formation of cartels and monopolies, without the laws and regulations that create a level playing field for smaller players and for newcomers.

All this means that free enterprise has to be a stakeholder capitalism, which benefits the many, and not a shareholder capitalism, which increasingly benefits only the few. It has to be a capitalism which creates things, not just deals and swaps; which creates lasting value, not just benefits for shareholders.

Secondly – and this is no cheap pun - labour also will have to work differently. We are faced by several challenges. One is the fierce competition in an increasingly globalised and integrated world. We remain committed to our systems of social solidarity but we have to be careful that we do not price labour out of the globalised market.

Another major challenge is the greying of our population. At the Belgo-British conference in London earlier this week, a representative of the British government gave a very telling figure. One in three of the girls and one in four of the boys born today in Britain can expect to become a hundred years old. I suspect that the figures for many other European countries are similar.

This raises different issues. One is the question of providing for the care for more and more elderly people. Another very important one is the fact that the labour force as a whole will have to work harder and will have to work longer if we are to be able to afford this care.

This is not a harsh or inhuman position. The same medical and social progress which makes people live longer also means that our citizens stay healthy and active for a longer time. In a paraphrase on the fashion guru in ‘The devil wears Prada’ who says that ‘size two is the new four’, a Belgian professor, at the same Belgo-British conference, said about age: ‘45 is the new 35’. If I extrapolate, I can say that ‘sixty is the new fifty’, which means that we have to consider more flexibility in the mandatory retirement age. This is something which really has to be done.

These are matters to be discussed between the social partners. But governments also have their role to play for if those partners fail to reach agreements, governments may have to step in. And this is my third point, European governments also have to work differently.

The role of public authority is not to create jobs, and this is true even in crisis situations. The role of governments is to create a climate which stimulates the creation of jobs and thus of wealth. Much has to be done to adapt this climate to the competitive globalised world.

In its Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union has set out five ambitious targets for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. On top of that, the European Commission put forward seven so called flagship initiatives to catalyse this progress.

I would like to see the European Union play a more decisive role in these matters. The implementation of these targets and flagship initiatives is still too much the responsibility of national governments. But in the situation as it is, the Belgian government takes these targets very seriously.

I’d like to focus here on one of them, named "an industrial policy for the globalisation era".

This is a very important flagship, for growth must be driven by growth in the real economy, and an important part of that economy is the industrial sector. As I said, we need a capitalism which creates things, on top of services and deals.

It is an illusion to think that we can completely separate R&D from manufacturing, that we can keep the R&D in our highly developed countries and farm manufacturing out to countries with lower labour costs. We will lose out on both fields, for, inevitably, the software follows the hardware, not the other way around. Moreover, the loss of manufacturing also means the loss of many solid, well-paid jobs.

All this means that the European public authorities should have a smarter policy in encouraging the manufacturing industry. This industry will, of necessity, have to be one with a high level of added value, or tailored to specific niches. But it has its role to play, a vital role to play in Europe. To support this, governments have an essential responsibility to help create a more favourable R&D and innovation environment by, for instance, the quality of their education system, by innovative and sustainable public sector procurement, by stimulating entrepreneurship and SMEs, by reducing the administrative burden and improving business legislation.

And this is not the end of the story. The European Union should complement the measures of the member states with efforts of its own. The European Commission should activate the industrial flagship and roll out an industrial agenda which invests in the competitiveness of European industry.

It should invest in cross border infrastructure, and also in Research and Development, for instance for the clean technology which is necessary to reach our own environmental goals and which will be in increasing demand in the rest of the world. These are niches for a strong industrial basis.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have proposed some ideas on how capital, labour and governments will have to work differently if we want to generate enough wealth to keep our model of society. I want to stress that this goal is in no way to be achieved by protectionism. Belgium is by tradition an open economy, one of the most open economies of the world. It has never been protectionist. On the contrary, national and European industrial policy should be combined with a trade policy that opens doors to non-EU markets, and to knowledge and investments from outside Europe. Our industry can only be durable if it can hold its own in a competitive international environment and if it can export successfully to emerging markets.

We must never forget that we live in a globalised world. EU companies should endeavour to learn from and cooperate with non EU companies. That so many important European and Belgian companies work with Tata Consultancy Services - our hosts today - proves my point.

As one of the most open economies in the world, Belgium is very well aware of the importance of investment from, and trade with all parts of the world. With Tata Consultancy Services and all other companies who invest in Belgium, we will remain reliable and hospitable partners for the mutually beneficial growth that Europe and the rest of the world need.

I thank you for your attention.

Speech by H.E. Yves Leterme, Prime Minister of Belgium, 100th Anniversary of the first Solvay Conference on Physics

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:41:11 +0200

Your Majesty,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen

‘Eureka!’, that triumphant shout of Archimedes in his bath, is probably the most widely known phrase by a scientist of any place or age. But, as the American scientist Isaac Asimov wrote, ‘Eureka’ - I found it! - is not the most exciting shout in science. He said, and I quote: “The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is : "That's funny!." End of quote. And he is quite right.

Apples had been falling from trees for centuries and millennia before Isaac Newton said: “That’s funny. Why do things fall? And why do they fall at different speed?” His calculations on gravity changed the way people understood the universe.

Scientific progress indeed rests on a capacity of constant curiosity, of wonderment. It is an interesting etymology that in the word wonderment, there is wonder, as in the French word émerveillement, there is merveille. For science indeed is the capacity to imagine ‘wonders’; to think the unthinkable; to imagine the unimaginable. Fundamental research is a fascinating voyage of discovery, is adventure.

That is why most great discoveries were not made by a 'specialist' or a 'researcher', but by someone who said: “That’s funny!”, by someone who had a brilliant intuition of a new explanation, long in advance of any possible proof.

It is important to stress the adventurous nature of fundamental research because it is important to attract young people to it, to interest them in stretching their minds and imagination and curiosity to the limit.

Science must indeed be curiosity driven, not application oriented. The proof is around us. Most of the inventions which have changed our lives were not the products of specific research. They were and are the unexpected but welcome applications of revolutions in the fundamental understanding of the natural laws.

The challenges our world faces, in terms of environment, energy, sustainable development, make fundamental research more important than ever. Governments have a duty to foster the fascinating voyage of discovery which fundamental research is, not only by financial means but by putting curiosity and audacity, ambition and the pursuit of excellence back at the heart of our education systems.

But governments can only do so much. They need institutions like the Solvay Institutes who have such an impressive tradition of fostering fundamental research, of bringing together the most brilliant minds of their time. As well in this field as in the industrial field, the name Solvay stands for excellence, and our country is proud of and grateful to the Solvay family and all those who work with it.

I am honoured to be part of the celebration of this hundredth anniversary. I congratulate the Solvay Institutes most sincerely on their splendid achievement. And I wish them a future which is just as successful. For civilisations show their vitality by their scientific, cultural and economic creativity. As the American scientist Martin H. Fischer said, and I quote: ‘A living civilization creates; a dying one builds museums’. End of quote. This is of course an exaggeration. But it is only by scientific creativity that we can afford the museums, and that we can prevent our civilisation from becoming a museum. I know that the Solvay Institutes will continue to help our country in that achievement and I thank them for that.

Thank you for your attention.

Speech by H.E. Yves Leterme Prime Minister of Belgium at the ceremony in honor of President James Earl Carter

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:41:35 +0200

Egmont Palace, 4th of October, 2011

Madame,
Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a always a great honor to welcome in Belgium a President of the United States of America. It is even more so when this President has been a fighter for peace, and successfully so, not only during his Presidency but long afterwards.

Mr. President, exactly 33 years ago you accomplished, thanks to your personal involvement and determination, a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt that still today stands as a model. You did this together with two other great leaders, President Anwar El Sadat and Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who committed themselves to justice for the Palestinians, the withdrawal of Israeli military and political forces from the occupied territories, and an opportunity for Israelis and all their neighbors to live in harmony with each other. The parliaments in Cairo and Jerusalem ratified the agreements, which were overwhelmingly approved by the citizens of both countries and have never been violated.
Mr. President, while this agreement took place 33 years ago, you never rested on your laurels since then. You created the Carter Center in Atlanta in 1982, so ably supported by your wife Rosalynn, whom we also do honor, in order to advance peace and health worldwide.
The Carter Center is based on 5 principles out of which I want to single out the following two, which seem particularly relevant to the excellent cooperation Belgium enjoys with your skilled staff and yourself :
1) The Center does not duplicate the effective effort of others ;
2) The Center addresses difficult problems and recognizes the possibility of failure as an acceptable risk.
The Belgian government decided to support the activities of the Carter Center in remote, often forgotten places, like Nepal, where you monitored the last elections. Belgium also intends to help the Carter Center in its assistance to the Tunisians who are holding their constituent assembly elections later this month.
We have also worked together in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the sheer size of the country turns every effort in the right direction into a huge challenge. You know how important for Belgium, prosperity and peace are in Congo. We are grateful for the significant contributions you made to the monitoring of their presidential elections in 2006 and to the various systems you implemented in order to make sure that its precious minerals benefit the Congolese people in the first place. We are pleased and honored to cooperate again with the Carter Center for the upcoming electoral period in Congo.
It would be far too difficult for me to mention all the admirable results that the Carter Center has achieved since its launching. This is why I prefer to call on a poet in order to capture the essence of your endeavors.
Wystan Hugh Auden wrote a poem after he had visited the Fine Arts Museum here in Brussels and saw Breughel’s painting of the fall of Icarus. While Icarus is falling out of the sky the farmer continues his work and the passing ship sails on towards its destination. Had you been in the painting, Mr. Carter, not only would you have tried to rescue Icarus, you would also have drawn the attention of the farmer and the sailor to Icarus’ unfortunate fate.
Let me quote from this marvelous poem:
“About suffering they were never wrong, the Old Masters.
How well they understood its human position.
(…)
In Breughel’s Fall of Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
quite leisurely from the disaster :
The ploughman may have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
but for him it was not an important failure.
The sun shone, as it had to,
on the white legs disappearing into the green water.
And the expensive delicate ship that must have seen something amazing, a
boy falling out of the sky, had somewhere to get to, and sailed calmly on.”

I believe that your principal force, Mr. President, is to make that forgotten facts are no longer forgotten. Too frequently, the brutal features of power and violence mar the face of our times. Too frequently, we prefer to turn a blind eye to the suffering and the despair created by diseases. But if we are willing to look for it, we can also see the face of peace, even if we have to peer through prison bars to find it : and, in spite of everything, new hope is raised, on each occasion we see how the spirit of man refuses to be conquered by the forces of hate.
It is my privilege to bestow on you the Grand Cross in the Order of the Crown in recognition of your numerous and excellent merits as far as waging peace, fighting disease and building hope are concerned.
In the name of the countless people who benefit from the Carter Center’s support, we offer you our undiminished gratitude and boundless affection.

Speech by H.E. Yves Leterme, Prime Minister of Belgium at the Asset Congress

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:33:43 +0200

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A long time ago, when the United States of America were still young, there was an exhortation to young people: Go west, young man, go west. At that time, there were still enormous open spaces to be conquered and settled and developed.

Today, I’d like to say to young Europeans: go east, young lady or young man, go east. Go east, not to conquer and settle and develop large open spaces, but to watch what is happening there.

Go to a small city state like Singapore or a giant like China, and watch the energy, the drive, the hard work of their people. Go and meet your counterparts, students, and watch their ambition, their pursuit of excellence, their willingness to work hard and take risks. Do that so that you’ll know what is coming to us, what we are up against.

And when you come back to Europe, you will, I think, be struck by two things.

First, you will realise how lucky you are to have been born in Europe. I say this without any feeling of superiority, but with gratitude towards the generations who have built the Europe we live in, a continent at peace, a continent where many of our countries have created what we call the Rhineland model, a very humane system of government which combines personal, political and economic freedom with social solidarity and ecological responsibility.

Do not think it is a cliché to say those things. At a conference in London on Afghanistan last year, a representative from that country had a very moving phrase. He said that his compatriots aspired to ‘the modest miracle of a normal life’.

Now, that may not sound heroic, and it may not be the stuff on which ballads are written and epic movies made. But it is the aspiration of the majority of the people on this earth, and only those who do not know what war is, or deprivation, or tyranny, or forced exile, only those would look down upon this modest miracle.

Likewise, talking about a Europe that has become whole and free, a Europe where, for the largest part, war among its nations has become unthinkable, talking about this Europe is not a timeworn cliché. Go to other continents and you will see how exceptional our democratic Europe of ever closer union is.

As I have said in a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the worst international disorder is not the current financial and economic turmoil. The worst international disorder is the fact that today, still millions of people are killed, maimed, raped, driven from their homelands in violence between and within states. The worst international disorder is that still millions of people do not get a chance to a minimally decent existence, because of war, civil war, inter ethnic violence or savage repression. For them, the modest miracle of a normal life is a totally inaccessible dream.

So yes, you are lucky, we are lucky

But – and there is always a ‘but’ – if you go to a small and highly developed city state like Singapore, or a fast developing country like China or India, you will, when you return, also be struck by the slower pace in Europe, and by a certain complacency. This complacency is something we very much have to guard against.

Yes, we have a social and economic model which is the envy of a large part of the world. But the world does not owe us a living. The rest of the world is rapidly catching up with us. If we want to be able to go on financing our Rhineland model, we will have to work harder and we will have to work differently.

We will have to work harder, and keep people at work longer, under socially acceptable conditions of course. And we will have to work differently. In the nineteen nineties and the beginning of this century, the battle cry, the recipe for success was: make money, get rich. The sum of the individual efforts to get maximum profits would lead to a better life for the whole of the community, it was said.

We have seen the opposite happen. The greed of some bankers in North America, the lack of due diligence of many other financial institutions in America and Europe, plunged a large part of the world in the worst financial and economic crisis since 1929. Even if some people got very rich by doing so, this cannot be called success.

A number of our EU countries have weathered this crisis without too much hardship for their subjects. In Belgium and other EU member states, governments managed this with policies which softened the blows of the crisis for their populations without mortgaging the future too heavily.

But, as you all know, we are still confronted with the crisis of the Eurozone. It is obvious that the governments of the countries of the Eurozone must do a lot more than stitch together rescue packages.

It has been very clearly demonstrated that a common currency also needs a convergence of the macroeconomic and fiscal policy of the countries concerned, that a common currency needs economic governance.

The fact that there are weaker and stronger economies in the Eurozone is not a problem in se. In the United States, there are similar differences. States like New Jersey and Connecticut have an average median income of almost 65.000 dollars a year. In Mississippi, the average household earns a median of just 36.000 dollars per year, which is more than 40 per cent less, and one in five households live below the poverty line. The essential difference is that, in the United States, there is one president, one Congress, one Treasury, one budget.

So, the countries of the Eurozone have to be prepared to transfer more sovereign competences to central economic governance.

But that is not enough. As I have said, we have to work differently. Remember the criticism which was levelled at the so called European model during the heydays of financial capitalism, of deal making and of record gains on the exchanges.

The most developed EU member states, we heard, are overregulated. Our systems of social protection and our bureaucracies eat up too large a part of our gross national product.
Our social protection tends to smother personal initiative and risk taking, audacious entrepreneurship and bold R&D work. Our economic growth is sluggish, compared to other parts of the world.

I am willing to acknowledge that there is some truth in all this. We have to remain vigilant to find and keep the right balance between the protection of our social model, to which we are attached, and the personal free initiative which is needed for the creation of wealth.

But let us look at the other side of the medal. We may not have known double digit yearly economic growth. But growth is not enough. As the rising giants in Asia experience, what is also needed is a fair distribution of the new wealth amongst the citizens, because otherwise social harmony is threatened.

In Western Europe we have grown more slowly, but we started from a higher base, and we did it in a context of political stability and social harmony.

And there is more. We see now that those so called overregulated countries have weathered the crisis much better, in a socially much more acceptable way, than the ‘laissez faire’ systems.

Even a number of American economists have come to that conclusion. In a March paper for the New York based Council on Foreign Relations, Nobel laureate economist Michal Spence focuses on Germany’s successes, and argues that they are largely a result of - I quote - ‘a broad agreement among business, labour and government’ - end of quote. The system of Mitbestimmung, in which the labour unions participate in the corporate governance, was once decried in what we call the Anglo-Saxon type of capitalism. It was seen as a slow and cumbersome procedure which threatened to hold German companies back.

In reality, the paper says, the system has allowed Germany to retain a large and booming manufacturing sector, thanks to the tripartite system that kept wages competitive and production with high added value at home.. I was very much struck by this analysis, for I think that it is indeed essential for our countries to maintain a strong manufacturing base.

Equally, the influential American columnist Harold Meyerson pointed out - I quote - ‘the crucial distinctions between a between Germany’s stakeholder capitalism, which benefits the many, and our shareholder capitalism, which increasingly benefits only the few’ - end of quote.
He also praised a system where companies are less dependent on shareholders and the short-termism of quarterly reports. And he wrote - I quote: ‘They make things, while we make deals, or trades, or swaps’, - end of quote.

A stakeholder capitalism which benefits the many, a capitalism which creates things, not deals, that is not a bad definition of success. It equally is not a bad definition of our Rhineland model. Yes we are totally in favour of free enterprise, but of a socially responsible free enterprise, which benefits the many, not just some happy few.

To adapt this socially responsible capitalism to the globalised world, we have to invest heavily in education and innovation. Only in this way will our companies find the specific niches, create the high added value necessary to compete on a world wide scale.

We also need to educate our future businessmen and women differently. These last years, sustainability, green ways of doing business, so called ‘ecopreneurship’ were the leading new themes in the business schools and the political debate. They are indeed important, for we do not own this planet, we are its stewards and have to leave it in good shape to the future generations.

Speech by H.E. Yves Leterme,
Prime Minister of Belgium,
Asset Congress
Tilburg 29 September 2011

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A long time ago, when the United States of America were still young, there was an exhortation to young people: Go west, young man, go west. At that time, there were still enormous open spaces to be conquered and settled and developed.

Today, I’d like to say to young Europeans: go east, young lady or young man, go east. Go east, not to conquer and settle and develop large open spaces, but to watch what is happening there.

Go to a small city state like Singapore or a giant like China, and watch the energy, the drive, the hard work of their people. Go and meet your counterparts, students, and watch their ambition, their pursuit of excellence, their willingness to work hard and take risks. Do that so that you’ll know what is coming to us, what we are up against.

And when you come back to Europe, you will, I think, be struck by two things.

First, you will realise how lucky you are to have been born in Europe. I say this without any feeling of superiority, but with gratitude towards the generations who have built the Europe we live in, a continent at peace, a continent where many of our countries have created what we call the Rhineland model, a very humane system of government which combines personal, political and economic freedom with social solidarity and ecological responsibility.

Do not think it is a cliché to say those things. At a conference in London on Afghanistan last year, a representative from that country had a very moving phrase. He said that his compatriots aspired to ‘the modest miracle of a normal life’.

Now, that may not sound heroic, and it may not be the stuff on which ballads are written and epic movies made. But it is the aspiration of the majority of the people on this earth, and only those who do not know what war is, or deprivation, or tyranny, or forced exile, only those would look down upon this modest miracle.

Likewise, talking about a Europe that has become whole and free, a Europe where, for the largest part, war among its nations has become unthinkable, talking about this Europe is not a timeworn cliché. Go to other continents and you will see how exceptional our democratic Europe of ever closer union is.

As I have said in a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the worst international disorder is not the current financial and economic turmoil. The worst international disorder is the fact that today, still millions of people are killed, maimed, raped, driven from their homelands in violence between and within states. The worst international disorder is that still millions of people do not get a chance to a minimally decent existence, because of war, civil war, inter ethnic violence or savage repression. For them, the modest miracle of a normal life is a totally inaccessible dream.

So yes, you are lucky, we are lucky

But – and there is always a ‘but’ – if you go to a small and highly developed city state like Singapore, or a fast developing country like China or India, you will, when you return, also be struck by the slower pace in Europe, and by a certain complacency. This complacency is something we very much have to guard against.

Yes, we have a social and economic model which is the envy of a large part of the world. But the world does not owe us a living. The rest of the world is rapidly catching up with us. If we want to be able to go on financing our Rhineland model, we will have to work harder and we will have to work differently.

We will have to work harder, and keep people at work longer, under socially acceptable conditions of course. And we will have to work differently. In the nineteen nineties and the beginning of this century, the battle cry, the recipe for success was: make money, get rich. The sum of the individual efforts to get maximum profits would lead to a better life for the whole of the community, it was said.

We have seen the opposite happen. The greed of some bankers in North America, the lack of due diligence of many other financial institutions in America and Europe, plunged a large part of the world in the worst financial and economic crisis since 1929. Even if some people got very rich by doing so, this cannot be called success.

A number of our EU countries have weathered this crisis without too much hardship for their subjects. In Belgium and other EU member states, governments managed this with policies which softened the blows of the crisis for their populations without mortgaging the future too heavily.

But, as you all know, we are still confronted with the crisis of the Eurozone. It is obvious that the governments of the countries of the Eurozone must do a lot more than stitch together rescue packages.

It has been very clearly demonstrated that a common currency also needs a convergence of the macroeconomic and fiscal policy of the countries concerned, that a common currency needs economic governance.

The fact that there are weaker and stronger economies in the Eurozone is not a problem in se. In the United States, there are similar differences. States like New Jersey and Connecticut have an average median income of almost 65.000 dollars a year. In Mississippi, the average household earns a median of just 36.000 dollars per year, which is more than 40 per cent less, and one in five households live below the poverty line. The essential difference is that, in the United States, there is one president, one Congress, one Treasury, one budget.

So, the countries of the Eurozone have to be prepared to transfer more sovereign competences to central economic governance.

But that is not enough. As I have said, we have to work differently. Remember the criticism which was levelled at the so called European model during the heydays of financial capitalism, of deal making and of record gains on the exchanges.

The most developed EU member states, we heard, are overregulated. Our systems of social protection and our bureaucracies eat up too large a part of our gross national product.
Our social protection tends to smother personal initiative and risk taking, audacious entrepreneurship and bold R&D work. Our economic growth is sluggish, compared to other parts of the world.

I am willing to acknowledge that there is some truth in all this. We have to remain vigilant to find and keep the right balance between the protection of our social model, to which we are attached, and the personal free initiative which is needed for the creation of wealth.

But let us look at the other side of the medal. We may not have known double digit yearly economic growth. But growth is not enough. As the rising giants in Asia experience, what is also needed is a fair distribution of the new wealth amongst the citizens, because otherwise social harmony is threatened.

In Western Europe we have grown more slowly, but we started from a higher base, and we did it in a context of political stability and social harmony.

And there is more. We see now that those so called overregulated countries have weathered the crisis much better, in a socially much more acceptable way, than the ‘laissez faire’ systems.

Even a number of American economists have come to that conclusion. In a March paper for the New York based Council on Foreign Relations, Nobel laureate economist Michal Spence focuses on Germany’s successes, and argues that they are largely a result of - I quote - ‘a broad agreement among business, labour and government’ - end of quote. The system of Mitbestimmung, in which the labour unions participate in the corporate governance, was once decried in what we call the Anglo-Saxon type of capitalism. It was seen as a slow and cumbersome procedure which threatened to hold German companies back.

In reality, the paper says, the system has allowed Germany to retain a large and booming manufacturing sector, thanks to the tripartite system that kept wages competitive and production with high added value at home.. I was very much struck by this analysis, for I think that it is indeed essential for our countries to maintain a strong manufacturing base.

Equally, the influential American columnist Harold Meyerson pointed out - I quote - ‘the crucial distinctions between a between Germany’s stakeholder capitalism, which benefits the many, and our shareholder capitalism, which increasingly benefits only the few’ - end of quote.
He also praised a system where companies are less dependent on shareholders and the short-termism of quarterly reports. And he wrote - I quote: ‘They make things, while we make deals, or trades, or swaps’, - end of quote.

A stakeholder capitalism which benefits the many, a capitalism which creates things, not deals, that is not a bad definition of success. It equally is not a bad definition of our Rhineland model. Yes we are totally in favour of free enterprise, but of a socially responsible free enterprise, which benefits the many, not just some happy few.

To adapt this socially responsible capitalism to the globalised world, we have to invest heavily in education and innovation. Only in this way will our companies find the specific niches, create the high added value necessary to compete on a world wide scale.

We also need to educate our future businessmen and women differently. These last years, sustainability, green ways of doing business, so called ‘ecopreneurship’ were the leading new themes in the business schools and the political debate. They are indeed important, for we do not own this planet, we are its stewards and have to leave it in good shape to the future generations.

But sustainability is being construed in too narrow a way. It cannot be just a matter of preserving or attaining harmony with nature. What is lacking in the debate is the main factor, that of harmony with humanity.

It is not sufficient to turn issues of sustainability into industrial processes which respect the environment. It is even more important to examine the human impact of business decisions in a global environment. We already saw many cases where so called green decisions led to very unwanted results. For instance, it became green and trendy to produce biofuels from foodstocks. But diverting so many crops from food to fuel production has created global food insecurity.

Therefore, investing in education means preparing the leaders of tomorrow for a morally complex future in which companies will also be expected to create social value. We have seen that maximising profits, that greed are not a motor for healthy and sustainable growth. Companies must learn that there are enormous opportunities to be uncovered by including poverty alleviation and other social needs in their growth strategies. Political leaders must encourage them to go that way.

To sum up, big challenges await us. We must stabilise the Eurozone by bold new steps to economic governance. We must adapt our Rhineland model to the globalised world by investing in education, by innovating, by working more. And, most importantly, we must strengthen world economic growth and world harmony by stimulating a form of growth which is in harmony not just with nature, but with humanity.

I wish you, the students who are assembled here, the ideals and wisdom to see success not as only personal advantage, but to seek fulfilment in work that benefits the many, not the few. I wish you the energy and ambition in your future lives to help the world grow to the common benefit of humanity, this one humanity we are all part of.

I thank you for your attention.

ility is being construed in too narrow a way. It cannot be just a matter of preserving or attaining harmony with nature. What is lacking in the debate is the main factor, that of harmony with humanity.

It is not sufficient to turn issues of sustainability into industrial processes which respect the environment. It is even more important to examine the human impact of business decisions in a global environment. We already saw many cases where so called green decisions led to very unwanted results. For instance, it became green and trendy to produce biofuels from foodstocks. But diverting so many crops from food to fuel production has created global food insecurity.

Therefore, investing in education means preparing the leaders of tomorrow for a morally complex future in which companies will also be expected to create social value. We have seen that maximising profits, that greed are not a motor for healthy and sustainable growth. Companies must learn that there are enormous opportunities to be uncovered by including poverty alleviation and other social needs in their growth strategies. Political leaders must encourage them to go that way.

To sum up, big challenges await us. We must stabilise the Eurozone by bold new steps to economic governance. We must adapt our Rhineland model to the globalised world by investing in education, by innovating, by working more. And, most importantly, we must strengthen world economic growth and world harmony by stimulating a form of growth which is in harmony not just with nature, but with humanity.

I wish you, the students who are assembled here, the ideals and wisdom to see success not as only personal advantage, but to seek fulfilment in work that benefits the many, not the few. I wish you the energy and ambition in your future lives to help the world grow to the common benefit of humanity, this one humanity we are all part of.

I thank you for your attention.

Speech by H.E. Yves Leterme, Prime Minister of Belgium at the presentation of Liège Expo 2017

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:38:53 +0200

La parole fait foi

Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me thank you for being here tonight. I would like to add to what Minister Vanackere just said that we very much rely on you to be – for once – our ambassadors in your country.

And I am glad to be here to help you in this job. As you may know, I have been from the very beginning an enthusiastic supporter of this project.

Je tiens évidemment à saluer la présence des représentants au plus haut niveau des autorités fédérales et régionales du pays. En particulier le Gouvernement wallon, représenté par son Vice-Président M. Jean-Claude Marcourt, la Province de Liège, représentée par son Gouverneur M. Michel Foret et – last but not least – le bourgmestre Willy Demeyer et les échevins de la ville de Liège.

Mesdames et Messieurs les ambassadeurs, ces autorités régionales et locales vous accueillent avec moi ce soir parce qu’elles souhaitent entrer en contact avec vous pour vous aider à « véhiculer la bonne parole » jusque dans vos capitales respectives.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, let me reiterate the main reasons for Belgium’s candidacy for hosting the international exhibition of 2017.

First of all, we have chosen a theme for this Exhibition that is close to our heart and that we want to stress and to promote on all continents: “connecting the world, linking people - connecter le monde, relier les humains”. Communication is crucial for progress and for peace. The development, access and use of new communication and information technologies is an essential tool to further solidarity and cooperation between Mankind and to serve the sustainable development of humanity.

Second, our bid is prompted by the fact that 2017 will mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the founding treaty of the European Union, which was negotiated in Belgium. Belgium has always been unwavering and outspoken in its support for the European ideal, not least because it opens up a whole new world of opportunities. 2017 will provide an opportunity to celebrate this Europe that looks beyond its own borders.

Thirdly, the city of Liege stands as a symbol of a city that has succeeded in moving with the millennia in a flexible and innovative way. It is called the “Cité Ardente”, the Ardent City, as a reference to its vivacity. The economic and urban transformation which is being performed, makes an inspiring combination of old and new and constitutes an example for other middle sized cities in the world. This city is at the heart of Europe, at a crossroads of European cultures, with over 60 % of the total European purchasing power within a 500 km radius. And with an easy access coming from the main European capitals.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, communication and dialogue, economic and social cooperation and integration, creativity and innovation, these are some of the values Belgium stands for. These are values which we want to promote on a daily basis throughout the world. These ideals are at the core of the city of Liège’s candidacy.

La communication et le dialogue, la coopération économique et sociale et l’intégration, la créativité et l’innovation, voilà quelques-unes des valeurs pour lesquelles la Belgique souhaite s’engager. Il s’agit de valeurs que nous nous efforçons de promouvoir par notre action dans le monde. Ces idéaux sont au centre de la candidature de la ville de Liège.

I am and will remain a fierce supporter of this project, just as I am a fierce supporter of Liège’s football team. And I can tell you : Liège and Belgium will hold their ground in a fair competition.

I now invite you to discover some images of Liège in order to stimulate your interest for our candidacy. Thank you again for being here. We very much count on your support.

Speech by H.E. Yves Leterme, Prime Minister of Belgium at the presentation of Liège Expo 2017

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:38:53 +0200

Discrous du premier ministre Yves Leterme lors du dîner de gala du Comité de coordination des organisations juives de Belgique

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:39:53 +0200

Mijnheer de Voorzitter
Dames en Heren in uw titels, graden en hoedanigheden

Rabbi Moshe Leib van Sassow onderwees zijn aanhangers als volgt:
“Ik leerde eens uit een gesprek tussen twee dorpsbewoners hoe wij werkelijk onze naasten moeten liefhebben.
De eerste zei: Vertel mij eens vriend, hou je van mij?
De andere: Ik hou heel veel van je.
De eerste zei daarop: Weet je dan, mijn vriend, wat mij verdriet doet?
De tweede: Hoe kan ik nu weten wat jou verdriet doet?
De eerste: Als je niet weet wat mijn verdriet doet, hoe kun je dan zeggen dat je werkelijk van me houdt?
“ Begrijp dan mijn zonen’, vervolgde de rabbi, “dat liefhebben en begrijpen betekent dat je weet wat je vriend verdriet doet’.

In een parafrase op de lering van de rabbi van Sassow wil ik hier graag zeggen dat ik heel goed begrijp wat de joodse gemeenschap van België vandaag verontrust en verdriet doet. Er is de jongste jaren een onmiskenbare toename van woorden en daden van jodenhaat in ons land en de ons omringende landen. Dat is onaanvaardbaar.

Ook kinderen worden daar niet van gespaard. In bepaalde steden kunnen joodse schoolkinderen nauwelijks nog door sommige straten naar hun school gaan zonder uitgescholden of zelfs aangevallen te worden.
Soms is aan die kinderen zelfs aangeraden het keppeltje niet meer te dragen om zich niet aan agressie bloot te stellen. Dat is onaanvaardbaar.

Een professor van de ULB vertelde mij over de uitvaart van zijn moeder, al enkele jaren geleden. Toen de uitvaarstoet langs een Brusselse school kwam liepen een aantal kinderen bij het zien van de David ster naar het hek van hun speelplaats en riepen: ‘sales juifs’. De professor zei: ‘Ik had nooit gedacht dat, na alles wat gebeurd is, ik ooit die kreet van haat weer zou horen’. Maar wat hij nog het ergste vond was dat geen van onderwijzers op de speelplaats het blijkbaar nodig vond die kinderen terecht te wijzen. Dat is inderdaad onaanvaardbaar.

Sinds België bestaat heeft de joodse gemeenschap een belangrijke bijdrage geleverd aan de cultuur en wetenschap, de economie en politiek, de welvaart en het welzijn van ons land. Dat onze joodse burgers vandaag weer in angst zouden moeten leven is onaanvaardbaar, is ondraaglijk.

De Belgische joodse gemeenschap heeft, zoals zovele andere joodse gemeenschappen in Europa, een verschrikkelijke tol betaald aan de Shoah. Dat legt ons een plicht tot herinnering op, niet om vast te zitten in het verleden, maar om te verhinderen dat het vergif van de jodenhaat zich opnieuw, onder nieuwe vermommingen, gaat verspreiden. Dat kunnen we als democratisch land niet toelaten.

Ik begrijp dus, mijnheer Sosnowski, voorzitter van het CCOJB. mijnheer Klener, voorzitter van het Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België; mevrouw Frohman, voorzitster van het Forum der Joodse organisaties, wat u verdriet doet, wat u verontrust.
En ik wil u ook dit zeggen: de toename van woorden en daden van jodenhaat is niet alleen een zorg voor de joodse bevolking. Ze is, ze moet de bekommernis zijn van elke Belg die gehecht is aan onze democratische samenleving.

Daarom zeg ik u hier zeer klaar en duidelijk: er bestaat geen enkel excuus, geen enkele vergoelijking voor daden van antisemitisme.

Je le dis très clairement : Il est inacceptable d’invoquer quelque excuse que ce soit pour minimiser ou excuser des actes d’antisémitisme. Il est tout aussi inacceptable d’importer ici des conflits extérieurs à notre pays.

Ainsi, le conflit au Moyen Orient ne peut jamais servir de justification d’actes racistes de quelle nature qu’ils soient, ne peut jamais servir d’excuse à des paroles et des actes qui ébranlent notre état de droit et notre paix civile.

D’ailleurs, le conflit au Moyen Orient n’a pas besoin de violence additionnelle, mais de volonté de paix. Et cette paix doit être fondée sur la solution dite des deux états, un état Palestinien et l’état d’Israël dont on reconnaît, sans ambigüité, le droit d’exister à l’intérieur de frontières sûres et reconnues. Cela reste le fondement de la politique en la matière des Nations Unies, de l’union européenne, de la Belgique.

Il faut le répéter : la paix se fait entre deux ou plusieurs parties, elle ne se fonde pas sur la destruction d’une des parties. Ceux – et ils sont trop nombreux - qui en appellent à la disparition ou même à la destruction par les armes de l’état Israël ne servent pas la paix.
Et ils ne servent certainement pas la cause des Palestiniens dont la grande majorité aspire, elle aussi, à la paix, à une coexistence pacifique avec l’état d’Israël. Toutes les parties concernées doivent donc agir avec modération et retenue.

J’ai bien écouté, Monsieur le Président, les considérations et les objections que vous inspirent le fonctionnement de la cellule de veille sur l’antisémitisme, qui dépend de l’égalité des chances ; le sort du rapport CEGES ; et la participation de la Belgique à Durban III. Vous comprendrez que je ne peux pas y répondre immédiatement sur le fond, mais j’en prends bonne note.

J’aimerais quand même dire un mot sur la conférence dite de Durban. Je voudrais introduire mes remarques par une citation. Je vous dirai le nom de l’auteur à la fin, mais je peux vous dire déjà qu’il était Français, résistant, journaliste et écrivain, ce qui vous permettra peut-être de deviner son nom avant que je le dise.

Je cite :
‘Chaque génération, sans doute, se croit vouée à refaire le monde. La mienne sait pourtant qu’elle ne le refera pas. Mais sa tâche est peut-être plus grande. Elle consiste à empêcher que le monde ne se défasse. Notre génération est héritière d’une histoire où se mêlent les révolutions déchues, les techniques devenues folles, les dieux morts et les idéologies exténuées, où de médiocres pouvoirs peuvent aujourd’hui tout détruire mais ne savent plus convaincre, où l’intelligence s’est abaissée jusqu’à se faire la servante de la haine et de l’oppression’

‘Devant un monde menacé de désintégration, où nos grands inquisiteurs risquent d’établir pour toujours les royaumes de la mort, notre génération sait qu’elle devrait restaurer entre les nations une paix qui ne soit pas celle de la servitude, réconcilier à nouveau travail et culture, et refaire avec tous les hommes une arche d’alliance.’ Fin de citation.

Ces mots sont d’Albert Camus et ont été écrits après la deuxième guerre mondiale et la barbarie de la Shoah. Mais ces paroles sur ‘des révolutions déchues, des techniques devenues folles, et des idéologies exténuées’, sur ‘de médiocres pouvoirs qui peuvent aujourd’hui tout détruire mais ne savent plus convaincre’ sont d’une étonnante actualité.

Et d’une toute aussi grande actualité est le besoin que nous avons d’une ‘arche d’alliance’ entre les hommes.

Qu’est- ce que cela a à voir avec Durban? Eh bien, que cette conférence avait et a toujours un but, qui est de discuter des sujets brûlants que sont l’esclavage et le racisme, non pas dans un esprit de revanche mais dans un esprit d’apaisement, pour que les plaies puissent enfin se refermer. D’aucuns ont, dès le début, voulu dévier de ce but pour faire de la conférence une arène d’imprécations et de haine contre un seul pays, Israël.

Par leurs efforts diplomatiques, des pays occidentaux, dont la Belgique, ont pu obtenir en 2001 à Durban un texte de compromis. Mais les ennemis d’Israël ont continué à utiliser la tribune à mauvais escient. Ce fut le cas du discours inacceptable du président iranien à la conférence Durban II à Genève. Et cela sera encore le cas parce que par leur ouverture, les Nations Unies prennent le risque de la contradiction.

Soyons clairs. Pour paraphraser Jean-Paul Sartre, qui a écrit que critiquer un juif n’est certainement pas de l’antisémitisme, mais ne critiquer que des juifs l’est, je dirais : Critiquer l’état d’Israël n’est certainement pas de l’antisémitisme. Mais ne critiquer que cet état-là, lui appliquer des critères et des exigences que l’on n’a envers aucun autre état, cela a pour le moins de forts relents d’antisémitisme.

Pour en revenir donc à Durban, dont on marquera ce jeudi à New York le 10ième anniversaire lors d’une séance spéciale de l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies, la Belgique n’y appliquera pas la politique de la chaise vide. Le Ministre Vanackere y parlera au nom de notre pays. Sa voix, celle de la Belgique, écrasera celles des semeurs de haine. Il rappellera avec force que la communauté internationale doit poursuivre sa lutte pour éradiquer à la source le racisme et la discrimination. Il rappellera que les Nations Unies doivent être cette arche d’alliance dont parle si bien Camus.

Ce sont là quelques considérations, Monsieur le Président, mais qui montrent que, comme l’enseignait le rabbin Moshe Leib, je sais et je comprends ce qui inquiète et attriste la communauté juive de notre pays.

Soyez assuré que vos soucis sont partagés par tous ceux qui n’oublient pas les leçons du passé et sont attachés à notre démocratie, fondé sur des principes d’égalité et de tolérance.

Je tiens à vous féliciter, Monsieur de Président, de l’organisation de cette rencontre entre la communauté juive de Belgique, dans toutes ses composantes, avec le monde de la politique, des médias et la société civile. Une soirée comme celle-ci offre une excellente occasion à tous les participants de parler des problèmes mentionnés, et de mieux appréhender les sensibilités et inquiétudes de chacun. J’espère que cela pourra devenir une tradition annuelle, comme c’est déjà le cas dans des pays voisins. Notre pays a tout à gagner avec un tel dialogue.

Je vous remercie de votre attention
Ik dank u voor uw aandacht.

Toesrpaak van Yves Leterme op de herdenking van 11 september 2001 in Brussel

Patricia Van Overstraeten — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:46:07 +0200

Monseigneur en Mevrouw,
Excellenties in uw titels en hoedanigheden,
Dames en Heren

Monseigneur et Madame
Excellences dans vos titres et qualités
Mesdames et Messieurs

We all remember the date of 9/11. But just remembering is not enough. We must realize what happened that day, why thousands of innocent people were killed, maimed, made homeless. Because only by remembering well can we work on a future from which this kind of senseless killing will be banned.

What happened ten years ago was an act of hate. It was not an act of protest inspired by poverty or injustice or war. It was an act of hate, not against what America does but against what America is. It was an attack on the freedoms and values we all of us hold dear, values based on the bedrock of our belief in the dignity and equality of all human beings, irrespective of their origin or colour or creed.

What made the attacks particularly ignominious is that the perpetrators invoked God and religion to justify them.
We who are assembled here pray to God under different names. But we all pray to one God, to a merciful and just God. And, as has been said very movingly by the representatives here of different faiths, a just and merciful God does not condone, and does certainly not call for the murder of innocent people. Those who pretend and act otherwise destroy the integrity of their faith.

Therefore, we are not just assembled here to remember and honour those who died, and those brave men and women who risked their life, and often gave their life, to save others. Above all, we are gathered here to celebrate life, not death; to celebrate dialogue, not revenge; to celebrate human understanding, not hatred. We are gathered here to say very clearly that we all belong to the same humanity.

Differences of religious and philosophical persuasions, of customs and traditions can and should be questioned and debated, for the confrontation of ideas can prove fruitful and productive. But this confrontation should always be peaceful because that is what our common humanity needs: peace and love of life.

Paix, shaloom, salaam, c’est pour cela que nous sommes rassemblés ici, pour célébrer non pas la mort mais la vie, non pas la haine mais le dialogue, pour célébrer la paix dont a besoin cette humanité à laquelle nous appartenons tous.

Vrede, shaloom, salaam. Daarom zijn wij hier vandaag bijeen, om niet de dood te huldigen, maar het leven ; niet de haat maar de dialoog ; om de vrede te belijden die broodnodig is voor de mensheid waartoe wij allen behoren.