Little enthusiasm
Not everyone is enthusiastic about calling up the army in the fight against drug violence in Brussels. The police union VSOA shrugs off Leisterh’s proposal.
“We actually have little response to that. Perhaps you should submit the question to Prime Minister Rudi Vervoort,” says VSOA spokesperson Patrick Roijens. “The problems must be solved in Brussels. There are enough parliamentarians and politicians in the Region, no?”
“We are not in favor of using the army in the fight against drug violence in Brussels, and by extension even in Belgium,” says trade unionist Robby Huysmans of ACOD Defense.
The most common argument against the proposal is that soldiers have fundamentally different missions – such as foreign peace support missions and providing logistical assistance in the event of natural disasters – and are not trained like the specialized police to deal with drug gangs in the urban fabric.
“I understand David Leisterh’s concerns, but using the army against drug gangs is a bad idea,” said Jasper Pillen, Open Vld’s defense specialist. “Let us – across party lines – stop calling for the army in every domestic crisis situation. That army does not have the capacity to do so, is not technically and operationally equipped for police work and – above all – has no mandate for it.”
Monopoly on violence
“The monopoly on violence in the streets belongs to the police,” Pillen emphasizes. “So soldiers have no mandate at all to open fire in the streets of Brussels. Soldiers are also not allowed to search or arrest anyone.”
Within the current legal framework, soldiers can only patrol and carry out static surveillance assignments. “The Defense has no police powers, but can be deployed for surveillance tasks on national territory, as happened after the 2016 attacks,” Huysmans says.
Once its deterrent effect has faded, it is doubtful that drug dealers will care much about it.
“The solution lies in more investments in specialized police, tools and international cooperation,” says an expert on the Brussels file.
