Martin Broek, investigative journalist and blogger via the Volkskrant, sent me an article in Dutch recently that I could use on HB. Its an interesting insight into the NATO military industrial complex. Here is a synopsis.

Even though Dutch forces have now largely left the province of Uruzgan in Afghanistan, a NATO institute in The Hague ensures that the war is never far away. The US military journal Defense News ran an article earlier this year that referred to NC3A (NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency) in The Hague, an outfit that works on weapons technologies. This is part of a wide-ranging infrastructure used by NATO forces to ensure that technological solutions can be found rapidly for the problems being faced in the Afghan war. According to Marty Angeli, one of NC3A’s managers, solutions can sometimes be sent out to the field within minutes. 

Information is always essential for waging war, but possessing too much information is now a problem. To alleviate this information overflow, NC3A works to ensure that the entire war machine information network (C4ISR – Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) functions properly, and how the system can provide information in the most efficient way to soldiers in the field.  

600 people work at NC3A, and another 200 work at its offices in the NATO hq in Brussels, and is active in all NATO operational areas and beyond (Iraq), according to director Georges D’hollander. In 2009 it began a cooperative venture with the German research institute Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft for research and development. To be able to develop practical technical solutions for all the NATO partners, NC3A works closely with the arms industry, ranging from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon en British Aerospace Systems to specialised Dutch firms such as Castor Networks and the biggest Dutch weapons manufacturer, Thales. Being a NATO supplier brings an ever-expanding market, and NC3A’s role also means that Dutch companies have a good chance of picking up Basic Ordering Agreements. NC3A also plays an important role in integrating the military systems of non-NATO nations in the EU with the Organisation’s forces.

Waging War

NC3A is pivotal for maintaining the national and joint NATO weapons and communications systems. Mobile communications are vital for forces that have to react rapidly to developments and threats. The adaptation of the C3 systems was a priority for recent NATO reorganisation, and the upgrading of communications systems is a never-ending business.  

The war in Afghanistan involves both the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) against terrorism and the International Security Assurance Force (ISAF) run by NATO, requiring many nations and essential coordination. The most important contribution of NC3A is to ensure that all the information gathered in Afghanistan arrives in usable form at the command centres, despite the different technical systems in use. This has become known as the OEF system, and it also has to ensure that the right information reaches the right destination. Hierarchies and security clearances determine what national forces should receive. NATO  is definitely not a force of equals. 

In 2002 NC3A and Thales developed a system for gathering information, security, targeting, and reconnaissance for French and US forces in OEF, which is now being marketed worldwide. Anoter project aims to reduce the impact of roadside bombs. It turned out that Italian mines sent to the mujahideen by the US to be used against Soviet forces in the 1980s are a prominent basis for the Taliban’s own weapons, a fact that only came out after a Freedom of Information request in the US by journalist Gareth Porter. 

NC3A’s location in The Hague means that the Netherlands is totally bound up in NATO operations. Even if the Dutch military is not involved, the R&D and technical support that aims for an efficient mission is still coming out of  The Hague. Even if the parliament decides that a future mission does not meet the requirements of international law, the technical support to enable the mission to take place will still be provided.

NC3A also works on future weapons systems, such as a rocket shield to operate on lans, sea, and in the air. Last year President Obama announced that the plans for the missile defence system in Poland ans the Czech Republic were being scrapped, in exchange for a more flexible system known as ALTBMD, a ship-based system that can defend a more limited area. Germany, France, Italy, the US, and the Netherlands are producing parts for this system out of their national defence budgets. These parts need to be incorporated into one large network, as with the plug en play principle. 

At the centre of this system will be ships armed with SM-3 rockets, which will be used to bring down ballistic missiles. SM-3’s will use kinetic energy to reach a speed of 4km a second, something that was banned by the original Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty which the US stepped out of in 2002. It is claimed by the Pentagon that the SM-3 could take out ICBM’s, but this is doubtful.  

Stephen D. Terstegge suggested in a study for NC3A and the American Missile Defence Agency in April 2007 that the Netherlands could buy the SM-3 in 2015. This is logical as a Dutch radar system was used in an SM-3 test in the Indian Ocean in 2006 (which can be seen on YouTube). The Ministry of Defence was asked in 2007 about Terstegge’s claim, and gave only a ‘wait and see’ answer, although in the Ministry’s Material Projects Overview it states that the purchase is being prepared. 

These became known as Ghost Projects : materials prepared by the military before they officially exist, so that the new weapons system can be purchased regardless of what parliament says. In 1995 state secretary Gmelicht Meijling replaced the term with ’multinational projects’. According to Terstegge, the Netherlands was the only nation with political ambitions to establish a missile defence system in the near future. Since this could have an impact on other European nations, the Dutch have therefore been an important element in US plans (along with Japan). The role of NC3A only adds to this prominent position. Terstegge, who works at the Naval War College, ended by suggesting that it seemed logical to make The Hague a central location for the future missile defence system.

In 2008 NC3A was brought into the missile defence infrastructure of the US military. Shortly afterwards, three members of the Socialist party in parliament put forward detailed questions on the role of the Netherlands in this development, only to receive the answer that it didn’t really mean anything. Since then there has only been silence. What the specific technical cooperation with the US entails, and what advantages the Netherlands may gain for carrying out this role in Europe, are questions never raised. The missile defence system should be a US-European project, and since opinion in Europe is divided, NC3A is a vital component in this scenario. For the US, European involvement would commit allies to a US-led military system that could be used in relation to countries of concern for the US (Iran, Russia). NATO has also involved Israel in its missile defence activities, and the US has signed bilateral agreements with Australia, Japan, and South Korea. 

While the East European bases have been abandoned, the missile defence base in Alaska is being expanded. The Russians have said that the missile defence system could force them to step out of the recent START treaty on the reduction of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands tests for the system continue.   

[This article was written by Martin Broek as part of a research project into the role of the Netherlands in the war on terror, made possible by the Pascal Decroos Funds and the Democracy and Media Foundation.]

“It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks”

Acts 9: 5-6

The prick in biblical times was the wooden spike used to goad the oxen to plough the field. If the ox resisted, the spike would be applied a little harder. More resistance, more pain.

This remarkable cabinet formation process has now reached the point where everything hinges on the outlook of the Christian Democrats. The upcoming party congress will effectively decide whether the leadership’s decision to work with the PVV – even if they are not actually together in government – can go ahead. One can be cynical - party congresses, heavily manipulated and passaged, rarely overturn decisions already taken, especially if power is in the offing. But the divisions within the party for and against are very real. The enforced silence surrounding the cabinet talks, preventing any hint of what concessions Wilders may be forced to make, only heighten the tension and further emphasise the issue as one of principle not policy.

The party has not had to delve this deep into its soul since its first period in government (1977-81), when seven CDA ‘loyalists’ professed their aim to support the VVD-CDA cabinet so long as it stayed true to the christian principles of their party. Unusually, international politics were central in this, concerning the use of nuclear weapons and their place in Dutch (Western) security policy.  

Will there be CDA ‘loyalists’ in 2010? It is quite possible. A VVD-CDA minority cabinet (54 seats) with support from the PVV (24 seats) reaches a parliamentary majority of one, slim enough to collapse on matters of principle. But there is more than principle at stake here, despite the claims of the original loyalists interviewed in Trouw yesterday, and despite the CDA petitioners who associate cooperation with the PVV with undermining constitutional rights, such as the freedom of religion. The 1970s loyalists were determined not to split the party, and played their principled game always with that in mind. The current situation is much more unstable.

Wilders has been very successful in taking voters away from the CDA, as the election results in Limburg – Verhagen’s backyard – fully demonstrated. And the CDA’s success in attracting support from cultural minorities is now threatened by its apparent preparedness to sell their rights down the river. When Fortuyn came on the scene in 2002 he took votes from the VVD and the PvdA, with CDA as the safe haven for the undecided voter wanting stability. Now the CDA has lost that vote-winning haven. An optimist would say the VVD has temporarily become the safe bet, which CDA will regain in time. Playing the constitutional card will wake up the sensitive citizen and they will ‘do the right thing’ next time around. A pessimist on the other hand would speculate that Dutch voting behaviour has become so volatile that the whole notion of ’safe havens’ is no longer relevant. (needless to say, the notion of safe havens and Dutch politics is an uncomfortable combination at present, as the recent decision by the state prosecutor to investigate the Dutch military’s association with the Serb destruction of Srebrenica and Goradze painfully brought home). 

[From World Elections]

The CDA is therefore caught in a vice. Following its own regent-like identity and choosing for government means risking introducing painful public spending cuts and potentially losing more ground to a ‘blameless’ PVV. Rejecting this option means occupying the opposition benches with a rowdy PVV out to score points at any opportunity. The only way ahead, the gamble of Verhagen, is that this whole cabinet formation process will force the normalisation of the PVV, reforming its agenda, and reducing its support as a protest movement.

A chance meeting with a PVV-voting acquaintance a couple of days ago offered an opportunity to delve a little into this scenario. (for your information – being still on holiday, I did not want to talk politics. He brought it up, knowing full well we occupied different standpoints). The person in question, a former dyed-in-the-wool VVD’er turned Fortuynist, brough a whole new and rather scabrous meaning to the idea of kicking against the pricks. Two issues dominated the discussion. One was the lack of democracy within the PVV itself. My point that the party only contains two members, and that this control-freakery would surely complicate things should Wilders have to tolerate a PVV minister other than himself, was brushed aside as an irrelevant detail. Lack of members wouldn’t affect how they govern, and anyway ‘Wilders had a list of ministers in his back pocket already on 10 June’ was the answer (so we were told was my silent reply). The second issue was the intriguing nature of the PVV’s left + right agenda: Anti-immigration and defence of the health system. If the PVV wins out on some of its rightist demands, won’t it lose support from the lower incomes if in return it caves in to the VVD’s heavy public spending cutbacks? Isn’t the Verhagen strategy correct?

The answer to this was the clincher. Oh, does Wilders demand fewer cutbacks? My PVV-supporting acquaintance claimed to lack the figures and didn’t know. It was late by then and a couple of glasses of wine led me to utter the word ‘bollocks’, realising quickly it was time for bed. But the cat was already out of the bag. 

Wilders’ appeal may indeed come from parts of his agenda. But it comes above all from his prime-time media-orientated ability to raise mayhem at every turn. So the PVV agenda is contradictory? So a lack of party members means Wilders has to search for funding abroad? So the PVV has no members in the First Chamber of parliament? You can go on and its always missing the point. He may well be ex-VVD, a member of parliament since 1997, a Hague insider, but he’s staked his entire identity on ripping it all up. Why else would support for the PVV go up after he abandoned his stance on defending the pension age at 65? Because pensions are irrelevant. What counts is calling the bluff of his political enemies who think he leads a ‘normal’ party with a ‘normal’ support base. Giving the finger to the CDA and the PvdA counts more for GW supporters than running a coherent programme.

Dutch parliamentary expert Henk te Velde may think there’s no tradition of populism in the Netherlands, but I beg to differ. There has always been an undercurrent of resistance within a (generally) well-run country of regents and monarchs, and this occasionally bursts out into the open. Since WW II the Provos would be a fine example, as would the squatter movement in the 70s and 80s. Ok, I’m stretching things to link anarchic social movements with an anti-establishment ’party’ on the verge of government (probably been reading too much Greil Marcus), but I think there could be something to it. Its not similarity of agenda, its similarity of disdain for established authority. Wilders is turning this into a political art form, and it looks like a big section of the Dutch electorate will follow him whichever way he turns as a result.

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.