Afghanistan Analysis: Dutch Government Falls Over Troop Withdrawal

UPDATE 0810 GMT: Afghanistan government officials say at least 33 civilians have been killed by a NATO air attack on a convoy of vehicles in Uruzgan. Nato confirmed that it fired on Sunday on a group of vehicles that it believed contained fighters, only to discover later that women and children were in the cars.

On Friday, our colleagues at The Holland Bureau --- one of the up-and-coming blogs on political issues in and beyond The Netherlands --- wrote:

We still have a government, for the moment. Opinion polls taken today indicate 45% in favour of Uruzgan [Dutch troops in Afghanistan] being worth a crisis, 35% against. Supporters of [Geert] Wilders’ PVV and the Socialists are above 60% in their hope that the Cabinet falls, as are – significantly – 55% of Labour. Yet overall 54% still come out hoping the Cabinet stays together, economic concerns being the main reason. It's rare that a foreign policy issue can be so divisive, and potentially so decisive.

Transcript: General Petraeus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Other US Conflicts (21 February)

Indeed. Less than 72 hours later, and the Government of Jan Peter Balkenende is no more. Balkenende, of the centre-right Christian Democrat CDA, wanted to extend the August deadline for withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan by a year. He miscalculated, possibly because of misleading signals, that he would the support of his coalition partner, the Labour Party; Labour leader and Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos announced:

A plan was agreed to when our soldiers went to Afghanistan. Our partners in the government didn't want to stick to that plan, and on the basis of their refusal we have decided to resign from this government.

With elections likely in May, the immediate issue is whether all 1,600 Dutch soldiers leave Uruzgan, southwest of Kabul and north of Kandahar. NATO's Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, filed an official request for the extension of the Dutch mission earlier this month.

The crisis exposes the too-common perception, at least in the US and UK press, of a military intervention in Afghanistan led by American forces, supported by a British junior partner. While 1600 Dutch troops may not seem much, compared to the 100,000+ that the US intends to have in place after its current escalation, any loss of soldiers --- especially in central Afghanistan --- is a blow to military plans.

Even more important, however, is the symbolic impact of this news. It comes in the middle of the vaunted US-led offensive, Operation Moshtarak, to clear the Taliban from Afghanistan's center and put in Afghan forces to hold the area. The vital support, beyond the word "coalition", of non-American troops is not just that they share the fighting; perhaps more importantly, they offer the image of peacekeeping and rebuilding after the Taliban are vanquished. The political message from Holland is that some politicians, supported by a large section of their public, don't buy the rhetoric that this will be the long but decisive resolution of Afghanistan's political, economic, and social issues.

There will be a lot of damage limitation this week from US and NATO press offices, and within America, there is the bonus of simply ignoring the story. (In his interview on US television yesterday, General David Petraeus, the overall American commander for the region, was never asked about the Holland situation, and he certainly did not volunteer a reaction.) But beyond US shores and en route to Afghanistan, others will see this as a wobble in the narrative of "this time, we win Afghanistan".

Comments

[Catherine]

RE UPDATE 0810 GMT: Afghanistan government officials say at least 33 civilians have been killed by a NATO air attack on a convoy of vehicles in Uruzgan.

2 days ago, either on Aljazeera English or the Dutch news, it was reported that lots of Taliban forces from Helmund Province - where the Marja offensive is taking place - are now moving up into Uruzgan. This will make it even more likely that NATO will fire on convoys in Uruzgan (and make these mistakes).

[WitteKr]

Scott,

The Dutch coalition government - ultimately - collapsed because there is no majority in parliament for a yet again extended stay in Uruzgan, Afghanistan. NATO requested the Dutch to stay a bit longer but the majority of MP's want to keep a promise to the electorate made (by the coalition government) two years ago: end of the military mission in Uruzgan by August 1st, withdrawal completed by the end of December.

The majority of parliament doesn't believe in the approach to 'bomb' the Afghanistan population into the 21st century.

That's why the Dutch introduced the 3 D policy when they started in March 2006 in Uruzgan province: a combination of Defence, Diplomacy and Development. During the Bush administration it was laughed at. Obama and Clinton later embraced it. The 3 D policy worked!
We don't see that mentioned much in the international press though - and Petraeus doesn't offer that kind of information either.

NATO also praised the Dutch 3 D approach and used it as a reason in their request for staying even longer. The Christian Democrat part of the government was sensitive to that argument, Labour (who always had great difficulty with this military mission) wasn't.

And they seem very right. Today NATO fighter jets attacked a convoy that was believed to be carrying Taliban fighters. Unfortunately NATO (again) made a mistake: it was a civilian convoy. At least 33 people were killed.
Thank God for the Dutch mission. Many of the injured were taken to the Dutch military base Camp Holland, for medical help.

If the situation in Afghanistan had developed more into the direction of the 3 D approach instead of the same 'bomb, bomb, bomb' policy (Obama is no different from Bush here) Dutch politics might have been different now, too.
Unfortunately we're looking forward to early elections in June, no real governing till then and a few months on (negotiating a new coalition also takes time) - in the middle of an economic crisis...

For up to date information (the blog story you mention is a bit old and concentrates too much on internal politics - and yes, they do play a part: The Netherlands take to the polls on March 3rd for municipal elections) there's an excellent website by Radio Netherlands Worldwide - http://www.rnw.nl
More specific on this matter:
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-government-falls-over-afghanistan-mission
http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/dutch-troops-leave-uruzgan-after-cabinet-collapse

[G. Scott-Smith]

I agree with WitteKr that the Dutch 3-D approach has a lot of merit. But I see a broader change in attitude here that goes beyond which approach works best for NATO.

It has become opaque in the Netherlands how the military operation in Uruzgan contributes to the security of either Afghanistan or the Netherlands itself. It is striking that, in a time when financial and fiscal cut-backs are being planned on all sides, the general public contributed more than 40 million Euro for post-earthquake aid to Haiti, yet show a consistent opposition for continuing the nation-building exercise in Afghanistan.

People want to help others, but Uruzgan was always meant to be a development mission helped by a military presence, and it has always been a military mission carrying out development. The same thing happened to the Canadians in southern Afghanistan. And this has affected the credibility of those who want to continue the mission, also in the wake of the corruption in the Afghan elections last year.

[Catherine]

Thanks WitteKr. Good post.
The Obama administration has been very vocal about its admiration of the Dutch 3 D approach in Afghanistan since the Dutch government organised the first Afghanistan Conference in The Hague in March/April last year. But they started really putting the pressure on the Dutch to stay longer after the Dutch foreign minister started making noises last September about possibly considering an extension of the mission, although this directly contravened the conditions agreed upon in 2007 by all parties for the duration of Dutch mission.

Not surprisingly, a flurry of Obama admin. courtship rained down - invites to the G20, public compliments from Hillary Clinton, a televised sit-down between the Dutch PM Balkenende and Obama in which Obama showered him with praise for his country's work in Afghanistan, etc.. Now, one of the pillars of the the Christian Democrat party is their strong transatlantic commitment, so they were very sensitive to the flattery and probably thought that the "positive reinforcement" from Obama's general direction would help sway other parties to go along with an extension of a year to 2011 and thereby help them fulfill what they see as their transatlantic obligations.

NATO's official request for the Netherlands to extend their military mission, despite the repeated and public opposition to this by the majority of Parliament, came across to many as the fruit of some behind-the-scenes deal between the Christian Democrats (prime minister and foreign minister) and NATO to force the Labour Party to play ball. That impression was most likely reinforced by Joe Biden calling twice a week to check up on how the debate was going :-).

As WitteKr says, it's a real shame, because the Dutch have indeed been doing a very good job in Uruzgan, and after several years of having to provide mostly military support, they were finally able to focus much more on the reconstruction and development tasks this mission was originally supposed to carry out.

[Scott Lucas]

Thanks to all, especially given that I have to be a student learning from you on Dutch politics. Thanks also for fresh links, though I think your comments go beyond even the latest news.

S.

[Old Outsider]

The German magazine „Der Spiegel“ reports, that the travellers in the convoy were mainly Hazaras:
„Tatsächlich waren es aber Reisende, überwiegend vom Stamm der Hazaras, auf dem Weg nach Kandahar.“
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,679495,00.html
Unfortunate Hazaras:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people#Hazaras_in_post-Taliban_Afghanistan