As CDA, VVD, and PVV head for informal talks in the coming days, perhaps laying the groundwork for the most right-wing cabinet that this country has ever seen, a simple man like myself thinks: its time for a holiday. The Bureau will continue to function intermittently over the next few weeks, but France beckons, with its fine wines, sumptious cheeses, and glorious football team. Normal service will be resumed in late August, assuming the new cabinet allows me back into the country. The Bureau has been going seven months and the response suggests it is worth continuing. So thanks for tuning in, thanks for the comments, and see you soon.

Do you feel lucky, punk? [source here]

Quite a week. With Paars Plus buried on Tuesday evening, all eyes returned once more to Palace Noordeinde. Normal practice meant that the party leaders from parliament would once again troupe past the Queen to offer shreds of wisdom and hints of some way forward. Not so. A trio of trusted advisors came and went that evening: First Chamber chairperson Rene van der Linden, Second Chamber chairperson Gerdi Verbeet, and State Council vice-chair Herman Tjeenk Willink. Then at 10 o’clock former minister president Ruud Lubbers arrived as advisor, and left as informateur. Informateur? Lubbers? Time for a new round of comment on the role of the monarchy in the Dutch political system.

The NRC led off today with a piece on Lubbers’ wish that the leaders of the VVD, CDA, and PVV start talking, seriously. He left the door open for a VVD-CDA minority cabinet supported by the PVV from the parliament. Even though this is officially not within his brief. Pragmatism, desperation, take your pick.

Next came Mark Kranenburg and Pieter van Os on p. 3, doing the rounds of the constitution experts to check out if the Queen’s decision was legit. Huib Pellikaan pointed out that it is precisely in times of serious political division that the monarchy’s role is strongest, since the lack of a clear message from the party leaders allows the monarch to choose the path forward. We’ve seen that more than ever since June 9. Lodewijk Rogier added that this is really the last vestige of royal power within the Dutch political system, and therefore it is precisely during these periods that all (critical) attention turns to the Queen’s role. He has a point. Opening supermarkets and launching ships one day, setting the course for the future of Dutch politics the next. For some, it kinda grates.

Rogier then dropped a mega-hint that this problem can only grow. While he (and many) have faith in the qualities of the current monarch, “if this situation occurs with another head of state in the future, then you’ll see that the discussion will turn out differently.” A tough call for Willem Alexander.

But its one thing to focus on the monarchy, and another to consider for a moment that maybe the parliament is quite happy if she takes on this role and saves them from the headache. This point was rammed home, lastly, by the NRC editorial on p. 7. The monarchy maintains this influential role by cabinet formation because the parliament has allowed it to do so. There have been attempts to disrupt it. In 1971 parliament voted in favour of a motion to take over the appointment of the informateur. The legal basis for a democratic, ‘republican’ system exists – but is never used. Earlier this year the parliament once again agreed to discuss the naming of an informateur following the elections. Once again, this option was avoided when the chips were down. Moves to open up debate on a ‘modernisation’ of the monarchy (i.e. complete removal of the monarchy from politics) – as attempted by former D66 leader Thom de Graaf in 2000 – have so far led nowhere. The monarchy clearly still plays a crucial role, because the politicians are not willing to fill the space that would be vacated. Maybe royalty still is at the heart of Dutch national identity and political process. But by default. And if its based on personality not position – for how long?

So where is it all going? The day before the Paars Plus talks collapsed, Geert Wilders popped up with an op-ed – in the NRC ! – that was a translation of his response to the Muslims Debate site that wanted to know ’why he became anti-Islam’. The piece obviously caught a lot of media attention elsewhere – the original English version is available here. Wilders’ big statement before cabinet responsibility? Maybe.

Some trenchant details:

1) the inevitable quote from Churchill (all these right-wing Western civilisation types bring out Churchill, guaranteed every time);

2) Israel is clean and well-run while all Arab states are dirty, poor and chaotic (maybe divide US civil + military aid – $3 to 4bn a year, unconditional – by the Israeli population – 7.5m – and you’ll find out why, Geert).

But the big message of course is that Islam – and the all-powerful but unknowable Allah – takes away individual freedom, to the detriment of all:

“The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.”

A call to freedom! Enough to clear the air and lever his way into the government? Its not a million miles away from Maxime Verhagen’s human rights mantra, after all. Except for some minor details that the CDA might struggle with. Such as Mohammed being referred to as “a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile.”

So the question is – will Maxime swallow this, for the good of the nation? Or will he spit it out – for the good of the nation?

An interesting court case related to Dutch intelligence matters reached its conclusion today, picking up quite some media coverage, such as from Steven Derix in NRC Next. The high-profile case in Haarlem was against an AIVD officer and her ex-AIVD partner concerning their alleged leaking of classified documents on Iraq to the Telegraaf, resulted in victory for the defendants. The court ruled that journalists have a right to protect the identity of the sources of their information. As lawyer Van den Elzen emphasised, ”this is a good day for press freedom,” not just for journalists but also for their potential sources.

This judgement was more or less a confirmation of an Amsterdam court ruling and the views of the Advisory Committee on Intelligence and Security Services (CTIVD) at the end of 2009. The reaction of the AIVD to the Telegraaf’s publication of a criticial article based on leaked material, which involved tapping the phones of Telegraaf journalists in order to find the source of the leak, was then ruled to be illegal and ”disproportional”.

By upholding these previous judgements, the Haarlem court effectively ruled that the evidence against the two defendants – entirely based on material obtained from the telephone taps – was also inadmissable. The court therefore stated that while it could not address the work of the AIVD per se, it could – and would – address whether the AIVD obtained its information in a legal manner. This was not so. As a result, the case would not proceed any further.

The immediate sense is that this could be an important signal for potential whistle-blowers in the future. Sources are protected – the investigative journalist is a trustworthy channel through which information can be leaked. It is true that the state prosecutors declared immediately that they will appeal and take the case to a higher level. But as lawyer Inez Weski retorted, that means returning to the Amsterdam court that delivered the original critical ruling last year, so the judges would have to overturn their previous judgement.

The question is whether the AIVD is still able to successfully push the case under the heading of national security. The prosecution tried to do so at the opening of the case in Haarlem by claiming the necessary right of the state to set an example against those who leak classified information, and also the damage that this can do to an intelligence service if it is deemed untrustworthy by partners in other services or potential partners in civil society. The court accepted that there will sometimes be cases where the rights of journalists to protect their sources will have to weighed against the demands of national security. What is interesting so far is that the law iss insisting on addressing the needs of national security on a case by case basis – there will be no blanket ruling that any material leaked will automatically allow the state to throw the book at the alleged offender(s). This particular case has not been deemed important enough for the prosecutors to use it in order to prevent future embarrassments. But if I get this right, neither are the courts saying ’we protect the freedom of the press in every single case.’ So the ‘victory for the whistle-blower’ headlines going around are true, but only until the next battle.

A small milestone was passed on 17 June that is worth pulling out of the media dustbin. A court in Rotterdam sentenced five Somali pirates to five years each for the failed attempt to board the container ship Samanyolu on 2 January in the Gulf of Aden. At that moment the Netherlands became the first Western land to judge and sentence the Somali scourge of the seas for a couple of centuries.

Irrelevant? Hardly. The fact that it has taken so long for a Western legal system to take such a case on speaks volumes for the difficulties in agreeing on who should (or can) do what to whom in this field. The judge literally said that pirates picked up are often released because no-one wants to take the responsibility to put them on trial. The chances that the defendants claim asylum once they exit prison are high. The Dutch proposal for a special piracy tribunal has gone nowhere. But something needed to be done to break the impasse, considering the piracy issue has been seriously bubbling away since at least 2008. So the process to get them in front of a Dutch judge took longer than usual – it took forty days before they were actually indicted. Will the case solve the problem of what kind of law is required to take on the pirates? Possibly, but it could just open up new problems as well.

The signs would first appear to be that obstacles were overcome to allow the Netherlands to take on this new role in international law. The navy that pisked them up was Danish, after all – but the ship was Dutch. Well, not exactly – Dutch Antillean, from the Caribbean. But as it was the Netherlands and not the Antilles that signed the UN Law of the Sea, and the Antilles are still part of the Dutch Kingdom, this small technical detail could be overcome. Ever onwards to setting a precedent.

But the Rotterdam court spoke out otherwise. It was not necessary for the Netherlands to try all captured Somali pirates. Caution is wise here, otherwise every navy active in the Gulf of Aden will ship its captives off to the Netherlands and let the Dutch work it out. The idea for a piracy tribunal was that it would be located somewhere in the region of Somalia exactly to avoid this scenario. So if there is no reasonable Dutch interest involved, its still Somebody Else’s Problem.

Nevertheless, the message is clear. If necessary, a regular court can take this kind of case on. Victory for the state prosecutor’s office that decided to go this path. Victory for imposing the rule-book that says piracy is a serious crime that comes with a heavy prison price-tag. Victory for those who constantly push the Netherlands as the pioneer state in international law. Victory for a civilised process, as opposed to the Yemeni court that sentenced six Somali pirates to death back in May. And surely victory for the pirates, who in all likelihood won’t be sent back to Somalia after they are released, and who could have access to the Netherlands via an asylum application. The idea of this case actually repelling future piracy was therefore largely ignored. Highly likely that it will lead to a rush on Dutch ships going through the Gulf of Aden.

Interesting turn in the cabinet formation discussions this week. As talks test out the possibilities for Paars Plus, the parties involved have floated the idea of reaching a minimal core agreement for governing but allowing ‘free issues’ to be decided by the whole parliament. The set-up has not been tried before. The thinking seems to be that this will remove difficult obstacles from the cabinet formation, speeding up a result. It will also be a positive response to the splintered election outcome – or, as formateur Uri Rosenthal put it, the ‘pulverised political landscape.’

The NRC has checked out what this could all mean in practice. The big question is of course what a ‘free issue’ might be. It would be remarkable, for instance, if the number one issue – public spending cuts – would be turned over to parliament. The big differences - VVD 29 billion, PvdA 15 billion – are not to be trifled with, and are surely at the centre of government business. The catch is that by excluding public spending, where the Left could unite with the PVV on certain fronts, the agenda is going to be dominated by the parliamentary majority on the Right (VVD-CDA-PVV). So issues such as immigration, criminal justice, and nuclear energy could potentially be decided in ways at odds with the views held by the majority in the cabinet.

The minus of all this is that it will produce many complications as governing parties weigh up possible voting behaviour and the win-lose value of specific issues. The plus, on the other hand, is a parliament taken more seriously in the business of governing. So democracy is strengthened but leadership is weakened. But there is more to it than this, and it comes back to Rosenthal’s comment about being pulverised. How to make the current parliamentary and party system work in a nation politically increasingly footloose and divided? How to create a governing majority with parties that all equally feel they legitimately should govern? 

The answer – expand the cabinet to include the whole parliament. Bring everyone in, exclude nobody. Everyone responsible, no howls of indignation from the opposition benches by the PVV. Balance the Leftist cabinet with the Rightist assembly. Most commentators asked by the NRC seemed positive. ‘It will be a very open and exciting political process’ said GroenLinks advisor Dik Pels. It is indeed a rational, decent, novel, and probably totally hopeless attempt to hold things together. In the media-frenzy that this situation will create, every move being tracked, where the instant sound-bite rules, it will be those who are able to react the fastest and the most glib who will call the shots. And who might that be?

Jort Kelder, a regular on Dutch TV discussion progs, is guaranteed to produce political opinion of a controversial nature. The man who put Quote into the big time, and who runs a nifty website with his ever-present braces as trademark, Kelder has nurtured himself into the position of spokesperson for the Dutch business sector. Now that the Queen has finally named two informateurs – Uri Rosenthal for the VVD and Jacques Wallage for the PvdA – the path to Paars Plus is wide open. (Why we needed a week of formateur Tjeenk Willink to announce this is beyond me, but maybe I am missing some of the subtleties of the royally-ordained cabinet formation process). With this result now looming, Kelder seized the moment for a nice broadside in the NRC last weekend (’stop de rituele formatiedans, installeer een zakenkabinet’).

During the election campaign Kelder took every opportunity to bang on about how stupid it was that the political leaders avoided the bad economic situation and kept on pestering each other about ‘incidentals’ like tax relief and immigration policy. Now, almost a month since the elections, he’s had enough. We knew well beforehand that it was going to be difficult to form a new cabinet. The elections produced exactly the splintered result that we expected. Weeks later we are still stuck, as Kelder puts it, in the ‘formation-dance’. And worse – even though the Right won, the Left are now going to govern. Scandal! Time for a change.

For Kelder its time to abandon all the parties, each with their own particular interest groups, for ‘a real meritocracy’ – a ‘business cabinet’, made up of professionals who know how to run things in the long term and who don’t get caught up in short-term media-hype (Hague) nonsense. Its time for real men! Disagreements are not to fought out endlessly in parliament but can be immediately solved by referendum. And the Left clearly hates the rich so much that they have made them ’the new Jews’ who can be blamed for everything.

Kelder does have some good points. The fluctuating winds of the Dutch electorate have produced an increasingly unstable situation, which opportunists like Wilders have benefitted from. The traditional Left-Right distinctions are fading out, so that voters no longer associate with one party (he rightly states that less than 2 % of the population is now member of a party) and shop around according to whim and wealth. So its time for a new entrepreneurial elite to break through the impasse and get things done: Jaap Maljers, Wiebe Draijer, Tex Gunning, to name a few. The Dutch political system also allows outside experts to be named to ministerial positions, so this is all within the bounds of possibility.

This is all very well, but he does mess up his argument with some real clangers. If he dislikes the way that the country has fallen into the hands of a constantly shifting under-layer (onderlaag), why give this group greater power through referenda? And if he is so worried that the Netherlands is slipping down the list of ‘knowledge-economies’, no longer the model country (gidsland) that it is supposed to be, are not those nations that succeed in this area – he names Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark – some of the most stable democracies around? Do we really need a business elite to sort out what bog-standard politicans can apparently do elsewhere? Especially when he complains that only in Scandinavia are income taxes higher. Thats right, Jort – maybe they invest the extra tax money in their successful knowledge-economies! No kidding!

And what about this – ‘Endlessly talking politicans have produced empty state treasuries and top-heavy welfare states for the parliamentary democracies.’ Empty state treasuries? I seem to recall this was due to the need to fill huge financial holes left by the wonderfully functioning private financial sector with public money……maybe I’m too cynical, but forgive me for wanting to avoid those kinds of poeple being in charge.

Whatever the blatant inconsistencies, it is still a joy to read Jort Kelder. He comes across as a kind of 21st century mix of T.S. Eliot, Plato, and Milton Friedman, calling for the new Guardians to seize control, maintain cultural standards, introduce a flat tax, and keep the plebs in line. Churchill, as ever for these kinds of thinkers, is the perfect model, the man who stood alone as the enemy was allowed to rise because of everyone’s ignorance. Churchill, scourge of the Nazis – and architect of the WW I Gallipoli disaster, violent oppressor of the 1926 General Strike, and supporter of eugenics for the lower classes. What about Kelder’s suggestion for a voter exam: ’Whoever is too lazy or too dumb to know the basics about democracy, economics and society, will not receive a ballot paper.’ This is great stuff, just when the cabinet discussions were starting to get boring. Thanks Jort.

(De Pers, 18-1-2010) 

The parliamentary debate on the cabinet formation this week finally broke the ice on where the main parties really stand in relation to the PVV. Since it was the CDA that held the ‘keys’ to a right-wing majority cabinet, as Wilders put it, it was only fitting that it should be Maxime Verhagen who spelled it out, clear as day. The PVV is a threat to the democratic state. The party’s wish to ban the Koran, introduce a ‘hoofddoekjesbelasting’ and pursue an anti-Islamic foreign policy are dangerously controversial. In March this year Verhagen had already said that the PVV damaged the reputation of the Netherlands abroad. Now he has taken this line a step further.

Verhagen could have done us a favour by saying this more than two weeks ago, but credit to the CDA leader that he finally came out with a statement that puts the whole ‘PVV or no PVV’ deliberations into perspective. Calling these issues a threat to the democratic system also put them beyond discussion in cabinet negotiations. This is not policy, its democratic principle. In short, Verhagen basically named Wilders a pariah, outside of consideration. Having heard Verhagen draw the line, the other party leaders piled in to get an answer from GW. But he was not to be moved. You could almost hear his calculating mind weighing up whether it was worth it to launch an immediate counter-attack, but political prudence saw Wilders stay silent. For now.

Has Verhagen taken a fall for the sake of moving the cabinet formation along? His move was risky but could work out well for the CDA. Having broken the impasse and taken a stand, he may have set out the ground for a CDA revival by launching an appeal on principle to those doubting voters who left them at the polls on 9 June. In this sense he has nothing to lose. But in doing so he is closing out a right-wing cabinet and moving the CDA into the opposition, and that won’t be easy. The CDA is not used to that (since WW II it has only found itself in that position during the Wim Kok years of 1994-2002), and it will be sat next to an awkward, noisy PVV out to score points at any opportunity.

Verhagen’s move also effectively opened the path for the Paars-plus talks to get serious. With the CDA taking the brunt of the PVV, Mark Rutte was completely free to say he had no choice but to work with the Left, which of course he did. It was Wilders’ own fault, after all. GW’s silence was louder than any words. After weeks of dominating debate on the election hustings, he was finally put on the defensive. Verhagen’s move also fits with the court case against Wilders, set to continue this autumn, where he is accused of spreading hatred. A political and legal cordon sanitaire is coming into being, and its being led from the centre, not the left.

[The court in Haarlem]

The state prosecutor opened the case against former AIVD officers Helene S. and Hans H. yesterday by demanding that they serve three and two years in prison respectively for leaking state secrets to the Telegraaf. The two are supposed to have been the source for the infamous Telegraaf article ‘AIVD faalde rond Irak’ that was published on 28 March 2009, since one of the journalists responsible for the article, Jolande van der Graaf, had visited them at home prior to that date. While a subsequent search of de Graaf’s home did not produce any suspect materials, a search of the home of Helene S. did, namely five documents, but none of them were related to the Iraq-Telegraaf case.

Testifying as a defendent, Helene S. claimed that she did not know how those documents came to be in her house. When questioned, the journalists didn’t offer any further information and refused to answer about their source(s). Speaking for the defendants, lawyer Inez Weski spoke out that the state prosecutor’s office had decided very quickly that the leak had come from these individuals. To prove the point that there was actually nothing in the article that could not have been found from material already in the public domain, she handed the prosecutor two boxes full of possible sources that the journalists could have used.

The case has all the markings of ‘making an example’. The prosecutor admitted that the leaked information wasn’t exactly “world news,” but it was more a matter of principle – “The leaking of state secrets is indeed extraordinarily serious.” He also escalated the proceedings by stating that if such leaks occur, the AIVD will lose important contacts because they will fear that their information can potentially end up “on the street.” The very ability of the service itself was therefore being brought into question. A minor case is therefore being expanded into a major breach of security.

Where this will go depends a lot on how far Weski is able to shift attention to other possible sources of the leak – such as the Ministry for General Affairs. Without this the lack of a water-tight defence could prove a problem. We will have to wait and see if she succeeds in hauling Minister-President Balkenende into the courtroom.

The ‘informateur’ Uri Rosenthal announced Friday that the first round of negoations for forming a cabinet were over and he had therefore completed his initial task. The expectation – and the advise of Rosenthal himself – was that two informateurs would be chosen, one representing the VVD and one the PvdA, to enable two-track negoations to continue next week. This would equitably reflect the stand-off between the two largest parties. It also indicated a long second round of talks in the offing.

Today however the Queen, whose task it is (having taken advice) to announce the informateur, pulled a surprise by declaring that there would be only one, and he is from the PvdA – Herman Tjeenk Willink, vice-president of the Raad van Staat (Council of State), the main political advisory body for the monarchy. This is quite a surprise, as it puts the emphasis squarely on a centre-left cabinet or at least a centrist cabinet involving both left and right. Significantly, Tjeenk Willink was informateur once before – in 1994, when Paars I (PvdA-VVD-D66) under Wim Kok came into being. Looks like we could be heading in the same direction.

The party leaders now identified to play a role in the second round – representing VVD, CDA, PvdA, D 66, and GroenLinks – have been invited today to speak with the Queen to discuss the state of play. So no Wilders, who reacted, predictably, that this was a scandal and a total rejection of ‘his’ voters. Since yesterday Maxime Verhagen of the CDA has suddenly shown an interest in taking part in cabinet discussions, after two weeks of holier-than-though sitting on the fence. The entire first round now takes on a sharper image – it was no more than manouevering to ensure that the PVV and Wilders could be shut out. By not including a VVD informateur and therefore not inviting Wilders to discuss matters at the palace, the message of the Queen today was crystal clear. This man Wilders is not ‘one of us’.

Wilders has denounced this ‘cordon sanitaire’, as well he might. What is so weak about this particular exclusionary tactic is that it has been accomplished with no single attempt to attack the PVV’s programme. This is a stupid mistake, mainly on the part of the VVD and the CDA. A head-on declaration of why they do not want to share a cabinet with the PVV on policy grounds would have given a clear message of principal and show where they stand. It would be pretty easy to do so – one really does wonder how many of the PVV voters have read the party’s programme, because its quite an unbelievable document. Instead both VVD and CDA pretended as if they might cooperate, passing the buck back and forth until the first round was over and Uri Rosenthal could report that there was no possibility for a cabinet that included Wilders. This simply gives Wilders all the ammunition he needs to tell his supporters that he’s being unjustly treated.

What makes the politically-tinted decision by the Queen today all the more interesting is the fact that Wilders has already spoken out against the existing political system in the Netherlands which continues to give the Queen an influential role behind the scenes. He favours the Swedish model that would keep the ceremonial aspect of the monarchy but remove them from the serious political scene. I suspect right now he might be thinking more along the lines of outright abolition.

The choice of informateur today, for instance, was not taken by her alone but on advice of others – however, the fact that she went against the advice of the first informateur, Uri Rosenthal, indicates already that something or other was being said and done in the last 24 hours that led to a different outcome. A PvdA informateur in current circumstances is truly a remarkable political decision. The intention of course is that this will narrow down the possibilities for a cabinet and get the job done. But the fear now is that its going to lead to a compromise cabinet either fudging things or being blocked by internal divisions. This is exactly what happened to Paars the fist time round, which led to the dramatic rise of Pim Fortuyn. Paars II could see the same happening with Wilders.   

And if it does, the already shaky ground for the monarchy could take a further jolt.

Lawyer Inez Weski: The Davids Report II? 

Not much to say on the coalition talks.

After the end of the first round, the signals are that Job Cohen is trying to block a right-leaning cabinet by refusing to share power with the Christian Democrats, as a result forcing the VVD to either go for broke with Wilders and the PVV or take a centre-left coalition seriously. The CDA almost unconsciously seems to go along with this by insisting that their heavy defeat at the polls means they can’t take a leading role in any discussions. “Ons past bescheidenheid” – we need to be humble – is their new, attractive party slogan.

Cohen has also suggested that another attempt should be made to form a right-wing dream cabinet VVD-CDA-PVV. While this might be awfully decent of him in terms of democratic principle, one wonders if he’s not playing games with CDA and VVD supporters and their willingness to support such a move. Cohen is after all pretty good with some sharp moves – just take a look at this.

But with the regular media already searching for something new to say on the negotiations, there is little point in this blog doing the same. So lets switch topic and go back to one of the more interesting curiosity items of news in 2009, the Telegraaf-AIVD case [An Intelligence Affair, 31 January 2010, and subsequent reports]. The reason that the case has re-appeared on the media radar screen is that the court case against AIVD officer Heleen S. and her partner, for allegedly leaking an internal report and other information to Telegraaf reporter Jolande van der Graaf, begins in Haarlem next Monday. Van de Graaf, who made good capital out of being bugged and harrassed by the Dutch state last year, has since fallen totally from any position of respect thanks to her highly inappropriate move to gain an interview with the 9 year old survivor of the Tripoli plane crash last month. But the case has since moved way beyond the ethics (or not) of journalism.

In an interview with Vrij Nederland, S.’s lawyer Inez Weski has stated that she intends to call Jan Peter Balkenende as a witness for the defence. The reason is that she suspects the leaked information – which was critical of the AIVD’s role in assessing intelligence on the Iraqi threat in 2003 – came not from the AIVD itself but from the Ministry of General Affairs, the administrative apparatus behind the Minister President. Why? As the Davids report showed, Balkenende, via the Secretary General of the Ministry R.K. Visser, in late 2002 received two British intelligence reports which were not to be circulated elsewhere. The usual channel for this exchange of information would be via the AIVD itself to allow the Dutch service to assess the material. Both the AIVD and MIVD leadership were offended at being bypassed in this way. In the interview Weski referred to Balkenende running a “private secret service”.

The relevance of this is that the coming court case could take an interesting turn. The Telegraaf article exactly claimed that the AIVD had failed to correctly assess Iraqi possession of WMD. Weski is suggesting that the Ministry of General Affairs is the source of the article because it was exactly the Ministry that swallowed the faulty British intelligence whole, not the Dutch intelligence services. Weski: “That Telegraaf article therefore looks like it served as a lightning rod to attract attention away from the failure of the private secret service of Balkenende.”

This is no small matter. In an article on the Davids report back in April, intelligence expert Bob de Graaff pointed out that up till now the Ministry for General Affairs had largely been ignored in the whole Iraq story, with most attention going to Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Foreign Affairs. The for-your-eyes-only documents were not the only ones that passed from London via Visser to Balkenende, and all these items – which were not disclosed to the Davids committee – were of crucial importance for setting out Dutch policy. De Graaff’s conclusion is that “a small club of civil servants without legal justification played intelligence analysts under the protection of the Minister President.” Not good.

The possibility now is that even if Balkenende doesn’t testify, the case will break open this aspect of the Iraq story a little more. Weski’s move could bring some late justice for the misused and abused intelligence services. But what looks certain is that Balkenende began his first premiership back in 2002 with the Iraq storm-clouds looming, and he’s going to end his last premiership with those same clouds still chasing him.