The revelation in a tv documentary on Monday night that Maxime Verhagen wanted to mobilise the AIVD to find out about Geert Wilders’ plans with Fitna has kicked up a major storm in parliament this week. The opposition has been busy peppering the cabinet with demands for an explanation. Yet somehow the words ‘storm’ and ‘teacup’ come to mind. And Wilders himself has remained pretty much out of sight.

On Tuesday the parliament demanded a response from Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner, but he adopted the classic ‘neither confirm nor deny’ approach, and gave the usual rejoinder that all matters discussed by the ministerial council and concerning the AIVD are secret and shall remain so. But any opportunity to undermine the cabinet is worth seizing, so we had the spectacle of Tofik Dibi (Groenlinks), Alex Pechtold (D66), and Jeroen Recourt (PvdA) falling over themselves to table questions and haul Donner back to parliament for further interrogation on Thursday.

Dibi wants the CITVD to investigate, because after all MPS should be allowed to express their views freely and if necessary should receive the protection of the security services to do so. Pechtold thought this was a cheap shot, instead demanding that Donner and Verhagen walk the plank while facing a barrage of criticism from the irate opposition. Recourt protested that this was evidence of an undermining of the democractic system – ‘Nixon-like practices’, for which Nixon (read: Verhagen) had to resign. All three of them then joined forces to submit a list of 11 questions for Donner and Verhagen, including the following: Can you provide an overview of the members of parliament who have been eavesdropped or surveilled by the intelligence services? If not, why not?

What is going on? Firstly this is not only an opportunity for more cabinet-bashing, but more specifically Maxime-bashing, the real entertainment for a large section of the parliament (including a large chunk of his own Christian Democrats). So far Donner has taken the flak, and on Thursday he responded true to form (plenty of outraged indignation etc). Secondly this seems to be yet another chance for taking the AIVD down a peg or two, it being a popular target for those afraid that the ‘secret state’ is forever undermining the democratic system. Others disagree – aivdwatch has pointed out that we need the AIVD to watch out for serious breaches of democratic protocol, as the case of Wilders’ PVV colleague Gidi Markuszower illustrated not so long ago. And Roelof Bouwman has reminded us that not so long ago members of the Communist party, the Pacifist Socialists, even the Farmers party were regular targets for security service surveillance as ‘threats to the state’.   

Wilders, of course, has been here before – back in 2007 the Telegraaf printed a story, leaked from the AIVD, about Wilders’ visits to the Israeli Embassy which triggered a list of questions from GW  himself for the then Interior Minister Guusje Ter Horst. The Minister denied the allegations but refused to go any further than that. Vrij Nederland (among others) jumped in to question the right of the AIVD to leak judgements on a politician’s loyalty to the press.

So four years ago the Left backed Wilders against the security service, saying he should be allowed to visit the Israelis any time he wants. In 2011 the Left again backs Wilders on suggestions of surveillance of his Fitna project, even though the security service clearly rejected this task. GW as an unjust target of state power? Do Dibi, Pechtold and Recourt really know what they are doing?

10.40 pm:

We still have a government, for the moment. Opinion polls taken today indicate 45% in favour of Uruzgan being worth a crisis, 35% against. Supporters of 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 hopeing the cabinet stays together, economic concerns being the main reason. Its rare that a foreign policy issue can be so divisive, and potentially so decisive.

Wilders backs ending the Uruzgan mission but supports the war against the Taliban in general. For him, the Dutch have done enough and its time for others to take over the heavy lifting in the south of Afghanistan. But there is also a whiff of opinion-poll-driven opportunism about this that will deliver results when the elections come.

No-one has conducted an opinion poll at NATO HQ in Brussels, but maybe someone should. Apparently there has been a proposal that Rasmussen withdraw his letter to the Dutch government requesting an extension of the Afghan mission, to avoid the impression of outside pressure. So, take away the request to hopefully deliver the same result that the letter was asking for? For some this makes no sense. But then they don’t appreciate how Rasmussen’s letter represented the large drop that made the Labour party’s bucket overflow this last week.

If the cabinet does go and the Uruzgan mission ends this year, it will have major implications for both domestic and international politics here. The Dutch Foreign Ministry is geared to having a place at the top table in all the fora that matter, and this will not only close them out of the NATO in-crowd, but could also have repercussions in other areas, such as with those sought-after invitations to the G20.

Maybe the Belgians were right all along. Europe is the only answer, love it or hate it.

I am now quitting for a weekend in Amsterdam and will be back to survey any carnage on Sunday.

1.30 pm:

We seem to be in the midst of an imminent cabinet collapse in The Hague. Minister of Finance and Vice-premier Wouter Bos has insisted again on Wednesday that there is no room for manoeuver on the Labour party’s determination to end the Dutch military role in Afghanistan. His cabinet partners from the Christian Democrats and Christian Union appear surprised that no further discussion is possible. The debate in parliament yesterday did not bring any further revelations. Maybe we have no government by 5pm today.

The cabinet had planned to make an announcement before 1 March, but Bos has clearly decided to push the issue before parliamentary recess next week, and with local elections looming on 3 March. Uruzgan has become the High Noon between Labour and the Christian Democrats, neither wanting to show any sign of weakness in their position. It could have been something else – the still to be defined fiscal cut-backs, for instance – but it is remarkable how in 2010 the two issues that have quickly forced the cabinet to the edge are both in foreign policy – Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither are vote-winning issues – instead, they are definitely vote losers, whichever way you look at it. So Bos and Labour are calculating that if they go down at the polls, they will at least go down with integrity intact.

Meanwhile, a linkage between terrorism and Dutch policy surfaced yesterday, but from an unexpected angle. The Italian AdnKronos news agency published a message from the Yemen-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) terror cell which had been posted in its online magazine ‘al-Malamih’. The message, commenting on the attempted airliner bomb attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on 25 December, went on: “The reason we chose a flight that left from Amsterdam, is that the Netherlands is a country that has offended the Koran and Islam.” The Kronos report speculated that this was probably linked to the film ‘Submission’ by Theo van Gogh, subsequently assassinated by extremist Mohammed Bouyeri on 2 November 2004, and to Ayaan Hirsi Ali who wrote the film’s screenplay.

Late last year there were messages purported to be from Bin Laden stating that those nations involved in the NATO mission in Afghanistan were legitimate targets for terrorist attack.  The intention was clear – use fear and terror to split the alliance and make nations drop out. The Madrid train attacks of 11 March 2004, which seem to have influenced the Spanish general election results shortly afterwards, are significant in this respect. [See 'Was there a Dutch angle with Abdulmutallab?'  The Holland Bureau, 12 January 2010]

But the AQAP message is directed at Dutch domestic policy and society, not its foreign policy. There is apparently no mention of Afghanistan, therefore no apparent attempt to influence the current political deadlock on Uruzgan or the coming local election results. This is striking, and unexpected.

What AdnKronos does not mention is whether this AQAP message is directed in any way at Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom. Wilders is after all currently facing a court case to do with his alleged discrimination against Islam, and his film ‘Fitna’ was arguably as inflammatory as ’Submission’. The AIVD and the National Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism in the Netherlands have long been aware that Wilders could prove to be a magnet for generating violence amonst extreme Islamic elements. Yet the response to Fitna in the Netherlands was muted, and recent reports have indicated that radicalisation in the Netherlands itself has been on the wane. In contrast, the AQAB message seems to want to stir things up from outside. But the focus of the message – domestic not foreign - remains curious.

Interesting post from Peter Wieringa recently concerning an open letter published by five Dutch Islam experts over the citations from the Koran used by Wilders, for instance in his film Fitna. The letter (named as Factsheet 1, with more to follow apparently) was sent to the Amsterdam court that is running the trial, to the State Prosecutor, and to Wilder’s lawyer. The aim of the letter is to show that Wilders has taken the statements out of context, thereby making their apparent call to violence against unbelievers all the more explicit.

Responding to Wilders’ demand for ‘the truth’ about the Koran and its justification of violence, the letter admits that the book gives a call to arms in certain situations. The five experts try and deal with this in two ways:

1. place these statements in their historical context

2. compare them with modern attitudes and approaches.

The second is the most striking. For instance, the letter claims that the Koran’s approach to prisoners on the battlefield is in line with “the modern international law of prisoners of war.” More surprising is the claim that the aim to put fear into the enemy (Wilders cites this as ‘to terrorise’) compares with the NATO strategy of deterrence towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when the credible demonstration of military might deterred Moscow from attack.

Curious comparison.

The letter continues with a determination to declare that the Islam is no more violent than Christianity. And here Wieringa makes a strong point. By attempting to take the sting out of Wilders’ attack on the call to violence in the Koran, the experts also manage to admit that it can be interpreted in a non-peaceful way. Certainly, it includes as many motives for peace as for war, but the letter still leaves room for these texts to provide the justification for terrorist extremism, even if its only by a small minority.

Does this help the case against Wilders, or exactly help him instead?

Wieringa speculates that these experts have written this letter because they fear that Wilders will turn the case away from focusing on him and towards a focus on Islam as a religion. But Wilders has been doing that even before he stepped into the courtroom. The list of eighteen witnesses he put forward was nothing more than a self-congratulatory tirade. And I don’t understand why Wieringa states that when the court decided to choose only three of those eighteen, it effectively undermined its own independent status. Surely he doesn’t think that the court should have accepted all eighteen? And flying ayatollahs in from Iran was ‘perhaps a bridge too far.’ Just ‘perhaps’? I think on the contrary that choosing only three shows a determination from the court not to turn the case into an over-the-top showcase for Islam-bashers.

This way the judges can (hopefully) keep the focus on whether Wilders did or did not discriminate against Muslims – the whole point here – and not be taken down the yellow brick road of Wilders v. Allah.

As for why these experts decided to send the letter in, Wieringa reckons that they may harbour serious concerns over the skills of renowned lawyer Bram Moszkowicz to get Wilders off the hook. Maybe so, but I don’t get how sticking their oar in with this letter (and with more to come) is going to assist the case in any way at all. In contrast, it looks more like they are simply upset that they have not been asked to act as witnesses themselves.

Hans Jansen, one of the three key witnesses, has responded to the letter with a remarkably off-hand blog that both mocks the writers (“retired professors”) and the court (“it is unthinkable that muslims would dare to see a license-to-kill in the Koran if the Amsterdam court declares that the Koran provides no license-to-kill”).

Wieringa says this shows Jansen has a sense of humour. But this would be no more than political farce if it wasn’t so serious. Maybe thats the point – farce like this is now the most serious politics around. And that is perhaps Wilders’ greatest achievement. He couldn’t achieve it alone either. 

 Addie Schulte is the principal columnist on political affairs with the daily newspaper Het Parool. He is a widely respected commentator on Dutch history and politics, particularly on the phenomenon of Pim Fortuyn’s impact on Dutch politics. His books include Daadkracht en Duidelijkheid: Vier Jaar crisis in de VVD [Leadership and Clarity: Four Years of Crisis in the VVD] (2007) and De Achterkamer: Het Drama van de PvdA 1998-2002 [The Backroom: The Drama of the PvdA] (2002). He runs a website at  www.boekenstrijd.nl

Thoughts on a Trial: I

There’s a tremendous amount of interest in the trial against Geert Wilders, both in the Netherlands and abroad.

That in itself is already noteworthy. It is certainly not the first time that a politician has gone on trial for his opinions. In the Netherlands the extreme right-wing politician Hans Janmaat was convicted. A smaller party on the same right-wing fringe was outlawed. Across the border in Belgium, Vlaams Blok was convicted for racism, and it then changed its name to Vlaams Belang.

However, this was all small stuff compared to the vibrations that the Wilders trial has caused.

The trial will definitely have an impact on the image of the Netherlands. The Dutch government has been afraid that the activities of Mr. Wilders would damage Dutch interests abroad, especially his movie Fitna. As a matter of fact, so far it hasn’t, although it has had an impact on the perceived threat level against the Netherlands and Dutch assets. More likely is that the trial will sustain the view that in the Netherlands political debate is more heated than in other parts of Europe. This strong impression has been given over the past eight years by the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh and the turmoil surrounding Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

For Wilders’ supporters here and elsewhere the trial signifies Dutch or even European timidity and appeasement in the face of Islamic aggression. The view of ‘Eurabia’, a weak continent dominated by radical Muslims, is popular in certain political groups in the US. It feeds on older stereotypes of Europe as a soft power in decay, not able to stand up for its own interests. 

And then there is Wilders. In the words of the American neocon islam-critic Daniel Pipes, Wilders is not only the most important living European today, but he has the potential to become a world historical figure.

It is always interesting to see an American defining the needs of Europe.

He even states that Wilders ‘represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization.’ Surprisingly, Pipes himself disagrees with Wilders on Islam, because Pipes makes a distinction between Islam and Islamism. Wilders doesn’t. There is no moderation in Islam, Islam is Islam and that’s it, according to Wilders.

That puts him on a line with Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh. So it is no coincidence that Wilders wants Bouyeri as a witness at his trial. Bouyeri should tell the judge that Islam inspires or even demands the murder of critics of Islam.

But at the same time the appearance of Bouyeri would reveal the similar outlook of Bouyeri and Wilders. Both think Islam can only lead to one simple answer, and both – from different perspectives of course – link Islam with violence.

Thoughts on a Trial: II will continue tomorrow