The Dutch have a long and proud military history going back to at least the 16th century and even earlier if one considers the “Batavians”—fierce tribes who lived around the Rhine, in today’s the Netherlands—who were described by Tacitus as “the bravest of the tribes of the area, hardened in the Germanic border wars.”
Dutch sailors and soldiers—straight and gay, I am sure—fought honorably, heroically and victoriously in an “Eighty-Year War” (1568-1648) and helped the Dutch Republic become a world commercial and naval power.
During the next one hundred years, the Dutch military would fight valiantly against British, Swedish, Portuguese and French naval and land forces.
Names of naval heroes such as Piet Hein, Michiel de Ruyter and of legendary battles such as the Battle of Gibraltar and de Slag op de Medway (the Raid on the Medway) still evoke pride in the Dutch.
Fighting alongside the British at Waterloo, the Dutch Army was instrumental in defeating Napoleon’s forces.
During World War II, the Dutch resistance acted nobly and heroically to hide and protect Jewish Dutch, sabotage Nazi activities and facilities, collect intelligence, hide downed allied airmen, and support the allied invasion. Hundreds, if not thousands, of these men and women were killed by the Nazis in retaliation for their resistance activities. We will never know how many of these brave people were gay or lesbian.
In the 1950s, approximately 3,500 Dutch troops served bravely in Korea in support of U.S. and U.N. troops. Over 100 Dutch military gave their lives in that war.
Gays have been allowed to serve openly in the Dutch military since 1974 and today about 7 to 10 percent of the troops serving in the Dutch military are gay or lesbian. And, according to every measure and every report, gay Dutch troops have been serving well in Kosovo, in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Especially in Afghanistan, in their area of responsibility—the province of Uruzgan—the Dutch troops, heterosexual and gay, have been singularly effective and successful.
But hold it: Over 500 years of valiant and distinguished Dutch military history and tradition are being called into question by a retired U.S. Marine general intent on preventing the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
You see, fifteen years ago, a Dutch UN battalion was tasked with protecting the “safe zone” of Srebrenica. However, Serb forces overran the United Nations “safe zone” and executed thousands of Bosnian Muslims.
The New York Times, quoting David Rohde, author of the book “Endgame: The Betrayal and Fall of Srebrenica,” tells us:
The small force of 450 lightly-armed Dutch peacekeepers tasked with defending the enclave by the United Nations was simply not equipped to repel the invading Bosnian Serb Army. When the Serb commander, Gen. Ratko Mladic, led an attack on Srebrenica in July 1995, the Dutch repeatedly requested that their NATO colleagues use airstrikes to keep that force at bay. That close air support failed to come in time to prevent the Serbs from taking control of the town and eventually killing more than 7,000 Muslim men and boys.
…[W]hen the United Nations voted to declare Srebrenica and five other Bosnian towns “safe areas” in 1993, the United States and other countries that supported the resolution failed to agree to send enough troops to police the towns. The United Nations estimated that it would take a force of 34,000 soldiers to protect the civilian populations of Srebrenica and the other towns that were completely surrounded by Bosnian Serb positions. Only 7,600 troops were divided among the six towns.
Other investigations have found that the soldiers did not have an adequate mandate to act and that the Dutch battalion was insufficiently prepared.
However, during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, retired Marine General John J. Sheehan claimed that the Dutch UN battalion charged with protecting the enclave had been weakened partly because it included gay soldiers.
Asked if Dutch leaders had told him that the Dutch military’s performance was linked to its gay soldiers, Sheehan mentioned the name of the then Chief of Defense, a ”Hankman Berman.”
According to the Times:
The Dutch Defense Ministry guessed that this was a reference to Gen. Henk van den Breemen, the country’s former chief of defense staff. On Friday the ministry issued a statement saying that General van den Breemen, now retired, called this “absolute nonsense,” since he did not believe that the presence of gay troops had anything to do with what happened at Srebrenica and had never said any such thing.
Reaction by the Dutch government, military and media has been swift and harsh—and rightly so.
Comments by other Dutch officials:
The Dutch minister of Defence, Eimert van Middelkoop, issued a statement to distance himself from Sheehan’s remarks, which he called “outrageous and unworthy of a soldier”. “I do not want to waste any more words on the matter,” Van Middelkoop said.
Dutch defense ministry spokesman Roger Van de Wetering said in a telephone interview that he finds it “unbelievable that a man of this rank is stating this nonsense.”
“The whole operation in Srebrenica and the drama that took place over there was thoroughly investigated by Dutch and international authorities and none of these investigations has ever concluded or suggested a link between homosexual military personnel and the things that happened over there. I do not know on what facts this is based, but for us it is total nonsense,” Van de Wetering said.
On the Dutch attitude to gays in the military, he said: “For us it is very simple. Every man or woman that meets the criteria physically and mentally is welcome to serve in our armed forces regardless of (religious) belief, sexual preference or whatever.”
I am part Dutch; I have been educated and lived in the Netherlands; I have studied their history; I have had business dealings with the Dutch military. As a result, I have every respect for the Dutch people and their military.
We should not use—besmear—our friends and allies in order to score debating points or to win our internal social and political battles.
Image: “Raid on the Medway”
