A report published by a Dutch government think tank last week levelled some heavy charges at foreign aid policy. The 352-page report labelled Dutch development aid policy “pretentious” and argued its contribution to the development of poor countries was modest at best. The report also made the case for limiting foreign aid spending to ten countries. Currently, the Dutch give out aid to four times as many developing nations.

Politicians were quick to find support for their own positions in the pages of the report. Foreign aid minister Bert Koenders for instance, said the report would help him in “modernising foreign aid”. Arend Jan Boekestijn, a long time critic of development aid and a former member of parliament for the VVD, painted the report as an argument for cutting back on government spending on foreign aid, which has long stood at 0.7 percent of GDP.

What do you think? What makes sustainable development aid policy and how much should rich nations like the Netherlands spend on it?

The Balkenende government seems to have narrowly averted a full-blown crisis by admitting that “in hindsight” it could have done better in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The admission did not come easily, following a day of tense deliberations between government parties.

The special committee of inquiry, chaired by retired supreme court judge, Willibrord Davids, did not mince words in its description of the political failures that paved the way to the invasion of Iraq.  Its conclusions resonate with critical appraisals of the decision-making process leading up to the war in the UK and the US: politicians based their views on poor intelligence data and they deliberately misconstrued the little information they did get.

The legal case for an invasion was exaggerated, with precedents from international law misinterpreted through wishful thinking. After a limited number of executives decided to go through with the war, little room was left for debate. These failures had varying political consequences in different countries.

Not all Western countries fell victim to what might be labeled groupthink. France and Germany, notably, refused to support the American invasion of Iraq, which makes the question why the decision making process in other countries had such a different outcome all the more relevant.

What do you think? What could the Netherlands have done better in the run-up to the invasion? Has Balkenende done plenty by admitting some fault, or has his position been so badly damaged that he should step down?

Last Tuesday, Iceland’s Olafur Ragnar Grimsson vetoed a bill that would have required his nation to repay the Netherlands the 1.8 billion euros in  damages it incurred after IceSave went bankrupt.

The initial reaction in the Netherlands was harsh. The Dutch minister of finance, Wouter Bos, said he was “very disappointed.” Dutch European parliamentarian Hans van Baalen even threatened to block the nation’s entry into the European Union.

Since then, voices have risen urging we should not be too hard on the smallest Nordic country. Eva Joly, a Dutch colleague of Van Baalen, has said that Iceland risks becoming severely impoverished if the Dutch stick with their demands of full repayment of damages at 5.5 percent interest. She also called it unfair that the Icelandic population at large had to pay for the mistakes of a handful of banks.

What do you think? Is it unfair to expect the Icelandic population to repay a debt incurred by others? Or would a waiver of the debt provide an unwelcome precedent?