In the debate over attendees at the Counterjihad Brussels 2007 conference, questions were raised about photographs from 15 years ago - 1992 - showing current Vlaams Belang EU Parliament MEP Koenraad Dillen with the 84 year old ex-Nazi officer Léon Degrelle. We asked Dillen for an explanation of the origin of the photo, and received this statement today:

Yes I met LD on 11th of July 1992. I was 27 years old at the time.

I finished my studies in 1987 with a paper on the french writer Robert Brasillach. The director of my thesis was a left wing professor of literature, named George Adé. He died in 1992. I got “maxima cum laude” with my thesis.

Before the war, Robert Brasillach published a book on “Léon Degrelle et l’avenir de Rex”. Since my paper deals a lot with Brasillach and Belgium, I took a genuine interest in Degrelle and wrote about him. He was an important figure in prewar politicics and played a major role during the war years. After the war, in exile, he continued his life in Spain as a writer.

Soldier on the eastern front, Degrelle was convicted, in absentia, for high treason. But he was never charged with war crimes.
I had neither sympathy, nor animosity for Degrelle in 1992. He was 84 years old at the time. He interested me as a person who played a historical role. No more, no less. I had no political functions at the time.

In may 1992, I started a weekly column on French intellectual life and politics in the newspaper ‘t Pallieterke. I still write my article every week. So I have a partly job as a journalist.

Degrelle talked to me. He explained me for example, why Franco did extradite Pierre Laval, the prime minister of collaborating France who was executed by De Gaulle and not him, the SS-general. (”Because I was Catholic, and Laval not”.) It was an interesting testimony, never published in any book. Why should I be blamed. I had a few drinks on his terrace. Fifty years after the war, it was not up to me to act as an attorney general ! He signed some books and photos. Did I have to refuse ? I met the former bolchevik commissar Lew Kopelev in 1987. He signed his memories for me. Does it make me a communist ?

I published a book on [corrected] European Commissioner Louis Michel and on the accession to European Union of Turkey.  A major book on François Mitterrand - on which I work since three years - will follow in some months. I had interviewed and toasted with many french socialists - eg. the former minister of Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas. It doesn’t make me a socialist.

Curious as to what Dillen is doing now, fifteen years later in the European Parliament, we looked up his record. Here are a few excerpts from the Debates (see also Questions, Motions, Speeches, Declaration). The most recent statements have not been translated, but starting back in September or August, past speeches are in English:

1. Debate - Tuesday, 19 June 2007 - Strasbourg

What can we learn from a report about the effects of migration of educated employees in terms of national development? The migration of educated employees leads to a brain drain in the countries of origin and is in any case detrimental to these countries.

This is, after all, the great paradox, of course: those in favour of more migration to Europe in order to fill vacancies in so-called bottleneck professions all too often overlook the fact that this migration leads to the impoverishment of the countries of origin, with the effect that the weakest are at risk of being left behind alone. We should have the courage to say this out loud. In the final analysis, though, the Joint Assembly’s vision and its response to migration are, of course, predictable. As a link between the European institutions, the Joint Assembly simply repeats policy from official Europe on migration. This is anything but effective and firm immigration policy, where clear messages are sent to the countries of origin and conditions imposed to suit the JPA’s own needs.

In terms of human rights, democracy and good governance, this forum is a faithful reflection of official EU policy and utterly fails to send out a powerful signal. A signal that demonstrates to the relevant countries that a refusal to respect human rights and apply democratic principles should be reciprocated with a reduction, or even scrapping, of all forms of development aid.

2. Debate - Tuesday, 22 May 2007 - Strasbourg

Mr President, Mr Prodi, you more than anyone are familiar with how the European institutions work. As a former President of the Commission, you are therefore well placed to fathom why the European citizens are increasingly turning their backs on present-day Europe. Bureaucracy, overregulation, no ounce of respect for the principle of subsidiarity, political correctness, no respect for Europe’s Christian heritage, and the obsessive desire to admit Islamic Turkey to the EU have meant that these days, most Europeans equate the European ideal of the founding fathers with an intrusive super state that no longer listens to what the people want.

In recent years, we have seen some striking examples of the deliberate deafness of official Europe. In France and the Netherlands, in democratic referendums, the people said ‘no’ to the European super state. Despite this, the German Presidency simply carries on down the path already chosen. For Angela Merkel, and I am afraid for you as a Member of the European Council, the will of the people does not count. All opinion polls show that whilst the Europeans want to be on friendly terms with the Turks, they do not want a non-European and Islamic country to join our Union. Again, the pre-determined path is simply followed.

I should like to finish off by saying to Mr Prodi that the government of my country brought itself into disrepute last week by refusing, for commercial reasons, to allow the Dalai Lama to visit Belgium. Nobody wants to offend China. It is very unfortunate that the rule in these situations seems to be that of Erst das Fressen und dann die Moral . I therefore hope that, within the European Council, you will speak up to focus on the attitude of your government which, although it likes to wax lyrical about human rights, when the chips are down, lets its own economic interests prevail, and also to denounce Belgium in this matter. If Europe is serious about defending human rights, it should also have the courage to denounce the hypocrisy of some Member States.

3. Debate - Thursday, 26 April 2007 - Strasbourg

Mr President, in 2006, 31 000 illegal refugees found their way to the Canary Islands and tried to emigrate from there to the European mainland - six times more than did so the year before. We have seen similar scenes in Southern Italy and Lampedusa.

If the human tragedy of the refugees is to be addressed, it must be done by tackling the hopeless situation in their countries of origin, not by importing transitory social tension.

Accordingly, our group welcomes Frontex and the establishment of intervention brigades in the countries that are facing the problem of mass immigration, on the condition that this new instrument is deployed efficiently and not simply serves as a media spectacle.

External border control falls within the Member States’ remit, but the flows of refugees that are common today illustrate that these external borders have become too permeable. The exponential influx of illegal immigrants can therefore only be addressed by taking additional, but not replacement, measures to support the Member States, which, it is to be hoped, is where Frontex will come in.

4. Debate - Thursday, 15 February 2007 - Strasbourg

Mr President, it is often the case that different standards are applied to China, where human rights are concerned, than to countries where lucrative contracts are unlikely to materialise. It is very unfortunate that the rule in these situations seems to be that of Erst das Fressen und dann die Moral .

When reading the relevant resolutions, which reflect not only the positions of the different groups in connection with this dialogue, but also the stance of official Europe, I, as a Fleming, do have some reservations.

Politicians who, yesterday and the day before that, while discussing the Fava report, brandished international law and insisted on human rights - which they were right to do - are now suddenly talking about the need to respect China’s sovereignty, whilst not breathing a word about the illegal occupation and subsequent annexation of Tibet, about the mass human rights violations, the ever increasing exclusion of the Tibetans from their local government, or the Namdrang Rangdrik programme, launched in 2005, whereby Tibetans are forced to demolish their houses and subsequently rebuild them according to strict official guidelines.

The sanctimonious line is that a mutually acceptable solution must be found for Tibet’s future. To say that is to make victim and executioner equal partners in dialogue. It became once again evident on whose side the EU is when in November 2005, the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, was received with much pomp and circumstance across Europe, yet it had, in fact, been he who perpetrated serious human rights violations when he was Secretary of Tibet’s Communist Party between December 1988 and March 1992.

The Tibet issue once again demonstrates that European rhetoric all too often amounts to nothing but moral wrapping paper and that in reality, only economic interests matter. We must continue to have the courage to denounce the cowardice and sanctimoniousness of this Europe, of this mercantile Europe that chooses to side with the oppressors to the detriment of innocent peoples.

5. Debate - Wednesday, 31 January 2007 - Brussels

Madam President, countries where capital punishment still exists do not deserve to be part of the civilised world, no matter whether these countries are Islamic, where adulterous women are stoned, the America of Bush, India, the world’s largest democracy, or Communist China. I will therefore not hesitate to back the plea for a worldwide moratorium. One judicial error, the life of one innocent, is enough to write capital punishment off as barbaric. Allow me, though, to add two observations.

Respect for life should not stop a constitutional state from giving serious offenders effective and irreducible penalties of 30 years, or lifelong imprisonment for that matter. This condition must, and indeed can, underpin the public’s consensus against the death penalty. This consensus will not come about unless our citizens, who are increasingly faced with the most brutal forms of crime, add their voice to the worldwide abolition of capital punishment.

Secondly, some opponents of capital punishment should display a certain degree of consistency. For example, on a recent friendly visit to China, which is a single-party state, the French Socialist Presidential candidate sang the praises of the efficiency of the Chinese justice system. This efficiency involves the families of the thousands of people who have been sentenced to death every year being presented with the bill for the bullets that killed the victims, but Ségolène Royal did not spare a thought for them. After all, they do not bring in the contracts, because the commercial interests of major enterprises in China must be protected, and that is when some European opponents of capital punishment go all quiet all of a sudden. If Europe wants to retain its credibility, it should exert pressure on countries such as China, whatever the political or commercial cost.

6. Debate - Thursday, 12 October 2006 - Brussels

Mr President, quite a few people are wishing the Fundamental Rights Agency much success, and, in view of recent events, it will need it. I reckon the agency will have enough on its plate just upholding the freedom of expression. Yesterday, this House expressed its indignation at what is happening in Russia, which is wholly justified, except that it is not only in Russia that freedom of expression needs to be upheld. Allow me to give you a few examples. In my own country, the trade unions announced yesterday that they will track down all members who stood for my party, the Vlaams Belang , during the recent elections, with a view to kicking them out. That is tantamount to a Berufsverbot in the heart of the Union. In France, Dr Redeker, a professor of philosophy, had to go into hiding following death threats, because the oh-so-tolerant Islam does not tolerate criticism of its holy Koran. France is being threatened with an economic boycott from Ankara and the Turkish Government, because Charles Aznavour and President Chirac have been in Yerevan demanding that Turkey should acknowledge the Armenian genocide - something that is not to the so-called model candidate country’s liking.

Indeed, there is a great deal yet to be done by this agency, and not just in Russia.

7. Debates - Wednesday, 15 February 2006 - Strasbourg

Mr President, that everyone is agreed that we cannot accept a regime of religious maniacs having weapons of mass destruction at their disposal is not something we have learned only today, so from that point of view this debate is superfluous. Far more relevant is the question as to whether we should not have stepped in much sooner. Allow me in this minute to draw your attention to the hypocrisy which Europe and the US display in matters such as these in order to pursue realpolitik .

It was, after all, France which offered Ayatollah Khomeini shelter and asylum and which helped ensure that the Shah’s Persia was able to slip into obscurantism. If we are shocked today - as we rightly are - by Teheran’s barbaric execution of minors, at the same time as it plays a leading role in the smear campaign against Denmark, should we not also question the human rights situation in the large Islamic country Saudi Arabia, which is claimed to be the USA’s major ally and hence ours too? We have not even mentioned Pakistan, itself a country armed with nuclear weapons. What do we do if another Ahmadinejad starts rebelling over there tomorrow?

We encourage everyone to read the statements by all three MEPs from Vlaams Belang, as a useful indicator of their political positions across a wide range of issues.