Should Balkenende step down over Iraq?
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?
Friday 15 January 2010, 0:09
When big bad bullies, Bush and Blair, are hauled before the Hague International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, Little-B should be asked to answer for providing comfort and succour. A year’s community service would do him a power of good. He should spend it mopping out the Baghdad mortuary.
Friday 15 January 2010, 1:40
No, of course not. Why should he?
Friday 15 January 2010, 14:09
The Netherlands did the right thing, in supporting the 2003 liberation of Iraq. There’s no other possible conclusion. Since 2001 42 million peoples have been liberated and had their self-determination returned, the second largest exporter of terrorism defeated and turned into a representative state in the middle of an autocratic region, and 41 otherwise disparate nations have assisted in rolling back global terrorism on three separate continents. Don’t let the anti-war crowd confuse the issue and lie about the results, the war was and is a good choice.
Saturday 16 January 2010, 12:43
Few years back Mr.Jan Peter Balkenende started a debate about ‘Dutch Norms and Values’(normen en waarden)claiming that “we are proud of our moral values”.
Every single individual on this globe knows that the Iraq War was based on filthiest lies,which resulted in to ongoing bloodshed,and will continue(thank to the liberators of Iraq),your government contributed standing behind the Cow Boy of Texas and my question to you is…”Mr.Prime Minister,What happened to your conscience and moral values,that instead A Confession of bloodiest blunder,you and your colleagues love to continue”,where are your leadership qualities,which requires courage and if you were a leader then by all means under the moral values you would have resigned,don’t you think you have brought us(the Dutch Nation)in to a shameful and embarrassing circumstances?????!!!!
Saturday 16 January 2010, 13:02
@Daniel,
What kind of fact twisting is this? The Iraqi people went since the beginning of the invasion from opppression into war and hell, is that an improvement? Has the right to self-determination improved? The kurdish people might want to deny that. Since when was Saddam an exporter of terrorism? That’s a completely new fact to me. And having religious warlords leading the country is in my humble opinion in no way a representative state.
The issue here is not about anti-war crowd but about the truth. Mr. Balkenende has problems with the truth, and you apperently as well.
There is no legal “pre-emptive strike” anywhere in the world, there never has been, and the end of the world is close by whenever it will come into existence. Though mr. Balkenende claimed otherwise there was no legal ground for an attack on Iraq. Even reasons for attack as provided by mr. Balkenende were invalid and were known to be invalid by that time.
The containment policy (the no-fly zone together with relative freedom for the kurds) did work. And before and afterwards the research proved that Saddam had destroyed all his weapons.
Your last sentence shows i.m.h.o. that you are out of touch of the reality of a war.
Mr. Balkenende should resign of course for lying, and for incapability of leadership and for being a war monger without realising the hell he is creating for other people to live in.
Sunday 17 January 2010, 10:27
The biggest grudge was that there wasn’t a mandate issued by the United Nations. Yet the Netherlands took actions. The problem in the Netherlands is that the opposition will take any chance they can get to try to make the extant goverment fall, which self-evidently almost kindled a cabinet-crisis.
Sunday 17 January 2010, 20:55
The Iraq war was a necessary evil. In fact, the Iranian Green revolution going on now owes itself in part to the success of the Iraq war. The Iranians have seen that self rule is possible in Iraq and they want to have the same right in Iran. Don’t kid yourself. Passivism begets as much blood as aggression. Only more of it later rather than sooner. The Iraqi people and the whole dictatorial middle east are better off now than they were under Saddam and Bush had the foresight and the guts to help the Iraqi people secure their current freedom. Peace is good, freedom is better. Balkenende is a hero in my opinion for doing what is right in the face of political backlash in the Netherlands. He is courageous to have supported the war and should receive a medal. Lookup “Neville Chamberlain” if you want to see the results of fear and passivism when confronted with evil. Hooray for Balkenende. A Dutch man with faith and HONOUR!!!
Tuesday 19 January 2010, 2:13
Saddam was interfering in US domestic policy ever since the first war. Since 1979 this has been not a wise policy to follow and indeed Iran’s interference in American Domestic policy brought about the arming of Saddam. That said 1441 is a piece of diplomacy – it means different things dpending on who you are. To those wanting war it is a mandate. When things were to be brought back to the security council, France (recently bribed by saddam) said in advance they would veto any resolution leading to war, going back to 1441 if they was a threat to any country then that country could take steps. Since Iraq was in breach of the terms of the original cease-fire, then there is an assumed risk of attack – no cease fire means war resumed.
in 1441 Saddam was required to give up his WMD or provide EVIDENCE of their destruction, he did neither.
Also mentioned in 1441 is the genocide issue. UN members have an obligation to make regime changes where genocide is committed. Having UN sanctions imposed on him because of his non compliance is tantamount to genocide if you look at the numbers of deaths occurring and who were dying. Ive not even mentioned the atrocities of chemical Ali not the treatment of the shi-ites in the south at the end of desert storm.
The fact that the davids report is flawed is that it comes to the conclusion that military action is not implied by 1441. This shows they have gone into it with a predetermined opinion. The correct thing to say about it would have been that 1441 was diplomacy and it said to all parties what they wanted it to mean – to the US and Britain after all the sanctions had failed this means military action, to france and russia who had signed oil agreements with saddam to come into effect after the lifting of sanctions this meant we talk more with saddam. I must also point out (playing the french veto!!!) if the UN security council was unhappy with the interpretation of war, why to this date have they not passed a resolution about it?
WHen there is a proper enquiry then we shall see a more balanced view. Davids should have approached this like a historian (History means literally “enquiry”) rather than what i can only assume is a political point scoring exercise.
Tuesday 19 January 2010, 13:58
I would recommend to check the history of Iran and Iraq
throughout the 20th century.
You will find a few very interesting facts.
For example the sale of nuclear power stations to Iraq by
the French (Chirac) in the 1980s!(source:BBC news)
Or the following:
‘In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran’s oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civil government.’(source wikipedia)
Hooray for Hollywood (& Harry Potter)!
Tuesday 19 January 2010, 18:42
Mister Balkenende should be brought to the Hague Criminal Court (take a taxi – is just around the corner) for participating in a war that was not supported by the UN, with thousands of civilian victims (and counting). The urge to “assist” the US and UK in this by arms manufacturers instigated war, is a true testimonial of his “Christian” values.
Wednesday 20 January 2010, 2:58
Had Neville Chamberlain been a statesman like Winston Churchill, Hitler may well have thought twice about attacking other countries. The Nazi leader saw an opportunity and filled a political vacume and invaded all his neighbours, save Switzerland. Although liberated by the Canadians, they would have been much slower in coming had it not been for the huge help from those good old Americans, I am grateful they entered WWII and helped free Europe. Look who is in Haiti, helping out? The U.S.! Regarding Iraq, all those who claim that the U.S. had no international authority because the U.N. had not given one, need to think again. Why do democratic countries need approval from it, a bunch made up largely of dictators and corrupt regimes? If anything, the current setup of the U.N. needs to be reformed. I have a partial solution: No democratic elections at home, no vote at the U.N. But what about this Davids report and the political support for the invasion of Iraq? Let the left think what it will but the fact that Dutch leftwing parties D66, SP, GroenLinks and Labour (PvdA) are oblivious to the U.N.’s democratic deficit should set off alarm bells with any common sense voter in the Netherlands. In my humble opinion, Balkenende is far too casual with these folks who are so poltically correct that they cannot see right from wrong.
Saturday 23 January 2010, 12:21
This is a very serious matter. JPB should step down and along with him a lot of others.
Saturday 23 January 2010, 18:09
I was send there ,to the so called gulf war, on a rather responsible job. I was told by the ministry of foreign affairs and the ministry of defence that I should definitely not seek assistance of british or american forces although I badly needed it. The visit of the then minister of defence, Mr.Relus ter Beek to Abu Dabu, shortly before the outbreak of the real fighting confirmed my opinion that the whole idea of dutch assistance to the fighting in Irak was founded on a rather weak political base.His visit was so called low key, he did not want to talk to the real potentials, he did not appear in public, he did not talk to the guys who did the work for him. Moreover, there appeared to be a very weak back up, logistical and personal, from the Netherlands.There was always lack of everything: no visas for personel, no proper officeroom for staff, no pay whatssoever properly paid in the Emirates, no hospitals available for casualties in case of real fighting.
There was a general feeling among us, that this thing was a sort of hush-hush affair among politicians and the armed forces. Of course we did not know then , that there was not a well grounded go ahead from these two parties. All in all things started to go better after the outbreak of hostilities. By then the staff had multiplied by a factor 4, and things moved more smoothly. I always wondered what happened in the decision making proces after the middle of januari in 1991.
I was not very happy with that mission.
Tuesday 26 January 2010, 15:30
The final argument of the pro-Iraq war crowd is the claim that the war produced something good: a ‘free’ democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors and indeed a model that will inspire other Arab/Irani citizens.
It comes down to this: does the end (postulating that the outcome is as rosy as the neo-cons claim)
justify the means?
If it does then what is stopping the US/Europe from ‘liberating’ – for starters – Iran and N. Korea? Perhaps Syria next. Lebanon to follow.
The import of the neo-con political philosophy is that we have a positive duty to do so.
Thursday 28 January 2010, 10:54
Only history will judge the decisions and actions of today’s leaders. Every leader has to face critics.
If Balkenende should step down over Iraq, then who among the Dutch politicians is qualified to replace him. Any suggestions?
Wednesday 3 February 2010, 18:47
Mr.Bert Koenders minister for International Cooperation,he is the one who is able to create and develop harmony and solidarity among the Dutch Public,besides because of his remarkable role/efforts for the development of the poor countries,he may help for better global image of the Netherlands.
Saturday 6 February 2010, 22:46
This issue burning in the Netherlands, is somewhat identical as in Canada. Here the Prime Minister of the day a Liberal decided for his own political reasons to not sent any Canadian Troops to Iraq, however this was for political public consumption,a number of militairy advisors were indeed present from Canada, but happened to be a little noticed item.A Conservative PM. would have been a bit more upfront and honest about any action taken. Most likely in favor of the Bush decision, which realy was a good one considering the outcome in the end.
Sunday 21 February 2010, 17:31
Finally he was forced to step down.
Tuesday 23 February 2010, 16:36
#15 Jakc says: [who among the Dutch politicians is qualified to replace him]
No one offcourse, but he was and is the worse of the lot and that counts too.
Thursday 25 February 2010, 22:22
I believe there is no reason for Balkenende to step down. It is just that he had PvDA as a coalition partner, a party that does not have any sense of accountablity towards the Dutch troops mission in Afghanistan and which has brought the good name of the Dutch armed forces to disrespute. This has happened before. In Srebenica. Now in Afghanistan. In both case the PvDA was in power, with their consensus based politics but with no sense of accountability whatsoever. For all the talk about the 3-D approach, one D that did not figure in the PvDA’s equation is one that is called being “Dependable”. This has translated in to meaning that the Dutch are seen neither as a dependable NATO ally nor as reliable partner as peacekeepers for Afghans. Will any lessons be learnt? I strongly believe no.