Increasing numbers of responsible analysts question the analytical assumptions of a U.S. blog, http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com (aka LGF), that are the foundation of LGF’s attack on Vlaams Belang, a Flemish Independence party in the rapidly disassembling country of Belgium - see Diana West in The Washington Times, Richard Miniter at PJM and James Lewis at The American Thinker.

In a recent post, LGF raised questions about the Vlaams Belang participation in the European Parliament political group ITS - standing for “Identity, Tradition and Sovereigty.” We provide here the statements Vlaams Belang has actually made in the European Parliament, so that you can judge based on what they actually do and say. This first batch is from pre-2007, when they were a member of other Parliamentary political groups.

Background on the ITS:

The ITS is a political group in the European Parliament. Countries that are members of the European Parliament are strongly encouraged by the Parliament’s procedures to create transnational coalitions, that being the point of the European project - to reduce the importance of national sovereignty. Only members of political groups receive the European Parliament’s standard support in budgets. Only members of political groups have guaranteed seats on committees, and can table motions for resolutions and also amendments to reports that are to be voted on. Out of the 785 members of the European Parliament, only 11 are not members of a political group.

Some parties tend to vote in blocs, and others are considered “technical” political groups, formed largely to be able to operate effectively in the European Parliament. Analysts across the political spectrum generally agree that the ITS is one of the latter, since the member parties disagree on many positions; Vlaams Belang is specifically pro-Israel and actively working against anti-semitism, other parties such as the French National Front have histories of anti-semitism that are just starting to be addressed by new party leaders. Other differences are more divisive; the Romanian party members are more open to Turkey becoming an EU member if certain conditions are met. In the last 24 hours, due to the last week’s policy changes in Italy towards more restrictive immigration and deportation laws for Romanian immigrants, additional differences between those two ITS member countries have emerged.

The principles of the ITS are specifically opposed to the “superstate” ambitions of the European Union. They are in entirety the following:

* Recognition of national interests, sovereignties, identities and differences.

* Commitment to Christian values, heritage, culture and the traditions of European civilisation.

* Commitment to the traditional family as the natural unit within society.

* Commitment to the freedoms and rights inherited by all.

* Commitment to the rule of law.

* Opposition to a unitary, bureaucratic, European superstate.

* Commitment to direct accountability of governments to the people and the transparent management of public funds.

These ITS principles have also been the basis for outreach to other political parties not represented in the European Parliament, potentially influencing those parties more to the center right. The three VB members of the European Parliament are Frank Vanhecke, Koenraad Dillen, and Philip Claeys.

The VB has been a member of other political groups in the Parliament before the ITS group - these groups dissolve and change members constantly, across the political spectrum, with dizzying frequency. Below we provide various VB statements prior to the formation of the ITS; in a second post, we will provide VB resolutions, including several after the formation of the ITS. Boldface emphasis is added by us.

1. 9 September 2004 - Parliamentary Questions - Second version of the EUMC report on anti-Semitism

On 31 March, the second version of the EUMC report on anti-Semitism was presented in Strasbourg. The first version of the report was not released, reportedly because the conclusion that most anti-Semitic acts are committed by Islamic immigrants was considered politically undesirable. The official reason for withholding the report was that its scientific methodology was inadequate.

How much is the unpublished study estimated to have cost?

The passage ‘The history of the report’ (pp. 9 and 10 of the English version) in the report explains why the original study was not considered satisfactory. The main reason was evidently that the period surveyed was too short.

Could not this problem have been foreseen, either before the study began or while the data were being collected?

‘For this and other reasons, it was decided by the EUMC that the NFPs should maintain a special focus on antisemitism during 2003′ (p. 10). Can the Commission specify what these ‘other reasons’ were?

2. 20 December 2004 - Parliamentary questions - Al-Aqsa office in Rotterdam

The Al-Aqsa Foundation has opened an office in Rotterdam; it is currently operating as ‘Stichting Jeruzalem’ (‘Jerusalem Foundation’).

On 29 May 2003, the US Treasury Department formally designated Al-Aqsa as a terrorist entity, giving full details of the Rotterdam foundation, which was designated a branch of Al-Aqsa. On 30 May 2003, the Bank of England froze the accounts of the Al-Aqsa Foundation, which appears on the list referred to in EU Regulation No 2580/2001(1).

In reply to questions by Rotterdam City Council member Michiel Smit, the City Council Bureau comprising the Mayor and Aldermen stated that, according to an extract from the Chamber of Commerce company register, ‘Stichting Jeruzalem’ (registered offices at Gerrit van de Lindestraat 103E in Rotterdam) was registered on 24 July 2003 (instrument of incorporation dated 18 July 2003, that ‘Stichting Jeruzalem’ was registered at the same address as the former Al-Aqsa Foundation, and that two former Al-Aqsa Foundation board members were now members of the board of ‘Stichting Jeruzalem’.

Rotterdam City Council is taking no action against the office despite every indication that it serves as a base for the financing of terrorism.

Is the Commission aware that an Al-Aqsa office has been opened in Rotterdam and that the office now operates as ‘Stichting Jeruzalem’?

Has the Netherlands Government already been requested to take action?

Will ‘Stichting Jeruzalem’ also be placed on the list of terrorist organisations?

3. 26 January 2005 - Debate on a motion on commemoration of Auschwitz, submitted by the Socialist Group

We are discussing a resolution on the commemoration of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and racism. We could have expected a text that pays tribute to the victims of the Holocaust with, in all serenity, an appeal never to forget this gruesome chapter in European history so that this can never be repeated. My party, the Vlaams Belang, could obviously have agreed to a resolution to that effect, together with 99% of the MEPs, but the resolution that is here before us for discussion has not been conceived in that spirit. The horrors of the Second World War have all been disgracefully piled onto one heap along with, and I quote, the rise of extremist and xenophobic parties and growing public acceptance of their views. Paragraph 5 of the resolution literally calls for the current fight against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism to be set against the background of the Shoah in education.

My party, the Vlaams Belang, is neither extremist nor xenophobic, but the standard politically correct terminology is very much against the current democratic political parties that make a stand for maintaining national identity. The traditional political groups simply want to demonise a number of successful and growing competitors at the expense of the Holocaust victims. This is not only an insult to millions of voters in Europe but, what is worse, these cheap political games trivialise the horrors of totalitarian regimes, including National Socialism. Another worrying aspect is the appeal for, and I quote, a ban on incitement to racial and religious hatred throughout the EU whilst guaranteeing legitimate free speech. According to the traditional groups, there is apparently such a thing as illegitimate free speech which must be stopped at all costs. They seem to forget that freedom of speech only exists if it also applies to political opponents. Aberrations of this kind come as no surprise, given the fact that this resolution was submitted by the Communist group.

4. Wednesday, 11 May 2005 - Debate, The future of Europe sixty years after the Second World War

Mr President, it is of great importance that we should at this moment commemorate the end of the Second World War 60 years ago. It is also a good thing that on this occasion, it is underlined once again that freedom and democracy should not be taken for granted, and have to be actively upheld. The atrocities of National Socialism are a black page in Europe’s history and the previous speakers were right to point out that there is little, if anything, that can be added to that.

It is regrettable, though, that Western Europe is devoting so little attention to the historical fact that 60 years ago, the official go-ahead was given for handing over the Eastern European peoples to Soviet occupation, to dictatorial Communist regimes that were certainly a match for the Nazis in terms of horror and crime. The Red Army was already at Warsaw in 1944, simply waiting until the Nazis had suppressed the uprising. Sixty years ago, there was praise and honour everywhere in the West for Joseph Stalin, a tyrant who had by then already killed millions of people and who, with the connivance of the liberated West, would go on to kill many more millions, in and outside of Russia.

It is, in fact, high time that Russia should follow Germany in putting the past to rights. Officially, countries such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were liberated by the Red Army. Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia’s President, pointed out that 1945 did not bring the Baltic States liberation of any kind, quite the contrary. Let me quote her: ‘It meant slavery, it meant occupation, it meant submission and Stalinist terror’.

The European leaders who were in Moscow a few days ago hardly took the trouble to broach that reality, and what meant liberation for the Western Europeans 60 years ago, was another calvary for Eastern Europe, the difference being that the new dictatorships could count on the active support and sympathy of so many Western European politicians, media, intellectuals and many others, some of whom, in fact, appeared to be on the payroll of the Soviet secret services. It is perhaps apt, 60 years down the line, to look at those issues. Maybe Europe will not be able to fully put the past to rest unless a kind of Nuremberg Trial of Communism is held, not in an attempt to open up old wounds but with the intention never to forget, with the future of our children and grandchildren in mind.

I am shocked when a European Commissioner includes photos on his website on which he demonstrates his admiration for one such as Fidel Castro. I am shocked when intellectuals and policy-makers continue to deny or play down the advent of Islamic extremism. Jean-François Revel already spoke of la tentation totalitaire - the totalitarian temptation. If there is one lesson to be learnt from the atrocities of the Second World War, it is that totalitarianism should not be given another chance, wherever it may appear.

5. 10 January 2006 - Parliamentary question - “Technical” contacts with Hamas

In November 2005, the EU Ministers for Foreign Affairs decided to enter into technical contacts with candidates from the terrorist organisation Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006.

The European Commissioner for Foreign Relations, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, said in November 2005 on this subject that contacts with Hamas were confined to ‘electoral matters’.

On the other hand, the head of the Commission’s delegation in Jerusalem, Ambassador Ramiro Cibrian-Uzal, has said that the EU is still maintaining its ban on talks with Hamas.

In this connection reference must be made to UN Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, which stipulates, inter alia, that States must refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts (Paragraph 2(a) of Resolution 1373). All the EU Member States co-signed this resolution. Hamas figures on the European Union’s list of terrorist organisations.

Does the Council still regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation? Is it true, as reported, that EU Ministers for Foreign Affairs are entering into so-called technical contacts with Hamas candidates? If so, how does the Council reconcile this with the undertakings given by the EU Ministers for Foreign Affairs under UN Security Council Resolution 1373? What exactly do the ‘technical contacts’ with Hamas consist of?

6. 5 April 2006 - Situation in the Middle East following the elections in Israel

Mr President, following the resounding success of the terror movement Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, there was the risk that the Israeli electorate would react in an extreme manner, which they clearly did not, since it was the new Kadima party that won the elections. Now that most of Israel’s voters have decided in favour of furthering the peace process, the question is, of course, ‘what next?’ Irrespective of how the new Israeli government is made up, the Hamas problem is here to stay.

Mr Solana says that it cannot be the intention that the new Palestinian Authority should fail. That is true to some extent, of course, because the Palestinian elections were conducted fairly and democratically. It is obvious, though, that the new Palestinian Authority should recognise Israel’s right to exist, observe all existing agreements, and refrain from using any violence. That is the EU’s official position and I can only hope that we do not move away from it. After all, the European Union is partly responsible for Hamas’ election victory.

We were too lax when it came to providing support to this Palestinian Authority, which we continued doing to an almost unlimited extent, even if we were perfectly aware of the problem of endemic corruption, even if we knew about the problem of some Palestinian school books stirring up hatred, even if we could never fully remove the doubt that no European tax money was used to fund terrorist action. It follows that this whole new situation also presents the European Union with an opportunity to restore its own credibility.

7. 19 May 2006 - Parliamentary question - Sweden’s decision to grant visa to Hamas minister

Sweden has granted a visa to Palestinian Minister Atef Adwan, a member of Hamas, to attend a conference in the city of Malmö. This is the first time that a Member State has granted a visa to a Hamas representative since the movement won a majority in the Palestinian elections in March. The visa in question gives the Hamas minister access to the whole of the Schengen area, which has led to protests from France. Hamas is on Europe’s list of terrorist organisations.

Does an established procedure exist for notifying other Member States in problematic cases like this one? If not, are there plans to rectify this gap?