[Photo: EcoEng Newsletter]

‘In an idyllic Dutch town, a new wave of Iranian activism.’ So begins a recent Washington Post article which looks at the community of around 1000 Iranian students located in Delft, between Rotterdam and The Hague. Articles on the Netherlands in the major US press are rare, so this one stands out.

The Iranians are studying engineering, aerospace technology and physics at the Delft University of Technology, one of the best institutes of its kind.  Significantly, the article points out that sanctions prevent these students from taking up similar programmes in the US. The article goes on to describe how the Iranian community in Europe is divided between those demanding overthrow of the current regime and those asking only for reforms. The Delft community represents the second group, since as another Iranian put it, “Many of these kids are from wealthy North Tehran” and are more passive than those who left Iran longer ago. Nevertheless “there is a lot of potential in Delft.”  

Potential for what? The first name that the Post article brings to mind is A.Q. Khan. The ‘father of the Pakistani bomb’ also studied at Delft in the late 1960s, moving on from there to a position with the FDO research institute in Amsterdam from 1972-75. Khan, via his metallurgy research at FDO, came into contact with the highly sensitive British-Dutch-German unranium enrichment programme being run by Urenco in Almelo. At some point he took on the task of collecting materials and methods that would lead directly into the developing Pakistani nuclear project.

And the university-security issue has already been on the agenda this year. In April the cabinet admitted that the pursuit of a ‘knowledge economy’ – involving attracting talent from abroad – also had a security aspect due to the problem of infiltration by intelligence elements. Then in August it was explained that the AIVD has regular contact with universities to ensure awareness of the risks. Special attention was given to the technical universities in Twente, Eindhoven, and Delft. Twente let it be known that they had turned away Iranian students in 2008 precisely because they could become involved in sensistive nuclear-related research. The government’s position – that students can be turned away due to the potential security risk even if they satisfy the educational requirements – has been challenged in court, and is yet to be fully resolved.

But the smoke and mirrors in the Khan story are endless. As came out several years afterwards, the Pakistani had been under suspicion and surveillance in 1975 due to his already cavalier approach to gathering nuclear know-how, including orders being placed for specific equipment by the Pakistani embassy in Brussels. But the BVD was requested by the CIA to allow Khan to continue, in order to follow the trail. Khan left the Netherlands at the end of the year without any action being taken.

When the case came out of the closet via a German tv programme in 1979, the Dutch had no choice but to check out their own skeletons. A court duly ruled in 1983 that Khan should face four years in prison. The case was then overturned in 1985 on a technicality. Ruud Lubbers, who described the whole affair in an interview in 2005 (after the New York Times broke the story in 2004), agreed that as premier he could have overturned this technicality and kept Khan a wanted man, but instead bowed to the Cold War dictat of the US-Pakistani ‘alliance’ against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. For the second time US interests overruled Dutch concerns.

But Khan continued to return, his wife being Dutch. In 1988 he was picked up for a ‘traffic violation’ (i.e. he was under surveillance and told he was unwelcome) and put over the border. Then in 1992, with his father-in-law ill, he was allowed in to visit once more. Despite the resistance of both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Justice. Who allowed him in? The head of the BVD, Docters van Leeuwen. And who allowed him to take such a step against the wishes of the ministers? In his own words - the secretary general, the highest civil service position, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The circle is complete.

But back to the Post and Delft. It comes out in August that the Dutch security service is liaising with technical universities about the potential intelligence threat posed by foreign students. Then a month later a US article focuses on Delft as a hotbed of Iranian liberalism, but still adds that “Many here say they want an Iran that is connected to the world, but they also support nationalist causes such as Iran’s right to nuclear energy.” Is there a subtext here?

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?

With Obama and Medvedev signing a major bilateral deal on reducing nuclear weapons, the wind seems to be once again getting back behind the non-proliferation ideal. Iran and North Korea continue to shoot holes in the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) effectiveness, and the Treaty is further stressed almost beyond use by the non-signatories such as Israel, Pakistan, and India. But Obama put the issue back on the agenda in his ‘nuclear-free world’ speech in Prague last year, and now 12 months later he produced the first fruits. If the momentum can be maintained - by pulling in the Russians and Chinese to visibly turn the screws on Iran with sanctions at the current Nuclear Security Summit, then upgrade the credibility of the NPT at the Review conference coming in May – we could be witnessing a remarkable rebirth of a Treaty that not so long ago was considered defunct.

Where does this leave nuclear strategic planning? Well, it starts to raise the issue of what to do with all those US nuclear weapons still stationed in Europe. They are located, as best we know, at bases in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Turkey (not the UK, interestingly enough, since they have already been withdrawn), and come to between 150-240 in total.

What are they? Pretty much old-style free-fall tactical weapons to be used by adapted fighter-bomber aircraft. Their military significance is therefore pretty limited, and since 1991 around 90% of these weapons have already been withdrawn from their European sites. So why bother? Former Dutch minister president Ruud Lubbers , the man who faced down the anti-nuclear movements during the Cruise missile debate in the 1980s, has been calling for the removal of these weapons (between 10 and 20) from the Volkel Air Force Base in the southern part of the Netherlands. So are their days numbered?

Juurd Eijsvoogel, international affairs editor with the NRC, came with the response last weekend. The value of these weapons is symbolic not military, that is true. They stand for the Cold War era protection of Europe by the US military, and this last vestige of nuclear-ness takes on a greater meaning for that reason. Would removing them not signify the yet further drifting apart of the two continents in the 21st century, each disregarding the other when it comes to security concerns?

In some ways, yes. But times are changing in positive ways as well, and Obama’s move to reduce nuclear weapons comes in the exact period when NATO’s Strategic Concept is being revised. The Concept will almost certainly look to bind the Organisation more around common concerns and turn away from the Afghanistan-or-bust position that was the norm under Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. For Eijsvoogel this means it is not the time to start acting unilaterally to disrupt the process of NATO rejuvenation (for that is really at stake with this new Concept, now that Bush is gone, Iraq is ‘over’, and the French are back in). Lets not be too hasty – our Eastern European colleagues have every reason to want to believe in a stable European home, and NATO – read the US – provides this.

Fair enough. But would it not be a perfect moment in that case to reflect on what the Russians have been calling for over the past decade? A re-assessment of the European security infrastructure, that isn’t locked in to a Cold War mentality dominated by NATO? I grant that Moscow is not always the most reliable of partners. But Eijsvoogels’ call for the status of US weapons in Europe to be judged by a NATO discussion decided by consensus somehow seems to miss the boat. The Russians are increasingly involved in European security, namely via energy supply. Now is the time to bring that into the equation as well.