This is the third post on today’s big news in the Netherlands, the release of the Davids Commission report on its investigation into the Dutch government’s decision-making process and policies during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
My previous posts were based on my own translations of Dutch reports in the Dutch newspaper the NRC Handeslblad.
In translating politically sensitive documents and articles one has to always be careful to convey to the reader the intent, the tenor and the tone of the original writer. I have tried to do so in the recent posts.
Fortunately, the International edition of the Handeslblad has just released a full update in English.
I can now, without worries as to translation nuances, convey the Dutch press’ exact words on this developing issue.
Starting with the title, it becomes clear what some of the Dutch media think of the Dutch government’s actions: “Dutch government misrepresented case for Iraq war.”
The Handelsblad continues, “The Dutch government was less than truthful in presenting its case for the invasion of Iraq to parliament, a report released on Tuesday noted.”
And:
Since the invasion of Iraq, the call for a public inquiry into the Dutch support of the Iraq invasion has grown louder, with the matter even becoming a contested issue in the last parliamentary elections. Prime minister Balkenende opposed an inquiry for years, but in February 2009, he pre-empted his critics by establishing an inquiry committee himself.
As to the Davids Committee’s report released this morning:
The report was vehemently critical of the manner in which the government defended its position with regard to the invasion. The Dutch cabinet was “so determined” to retain its positions on the matter that “no substantial exchange of ideas between government and parliament with regard to the policy on Iraq” ever took place.
The Dutch government was less than honest in making its case for the Iraq war, the report went on to note. For one, the committee found the government justification for the invasion “to some extent disingenuous”, since it maintained that the dismantling of WMD stockpiles was the main reason for the Anglo-American invasion, long after it had learned that regime change was the most important goal. Davids and his fellow committee members also noted that Dutch intelligence agencies mainly sourced their information from foreign colleagues, but presented a “more nuanced” picture than these did. Dutch ministers, however, failed to adequately communicate this fine distinction to parliament.
On a more constitutionally serious note:
The report contested the defensive nature of the Patriot missile launchers stationed near the Iraq border, noting that their deployment without parliamentary consent was a violation constitutional law.
The Handelsblad concludes:
Because the committee was instituted by prime minister Balkenende, it is regarded with suspicion by some. Davids said at a press conference on Thursday that his committee had not been established as a means of “whitewashing” the run-up to the invasion. “No undue influence or pressure was exerted,” he said.
Read the rest of the article, which includes links to other reports, here.
UPDATE:
The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad is reporting that, after the release of the Davids Commission Iraq report, “a “crisis is brewing for [the] Dutch government;” that the Dutch governing coalition “has become divided” after the report which”lambasted the handling of the run-up to the Iraq war on Tuesday”:
The brewing crisis was set off by the presentation of a report by a special committee of inquiry chaired by the retired supreme court judge Willibrord Davids. The committee had been charged with investigating the decision-making process surrounding the run-up to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, which the Dutch supported politically, but not militarily.
And,
Prime minister Balkenende was quick to object to the committee’s conclusions, ticking off the PvdA’s [Dutch Labor Party] parliamentary representatives, who said they were ”disappointed and unpleasantly surprised” by the move. The PvdA’s parliamentary delegation promptly demanded “a different attitude,” from the prime minister “which better reflects the disquieting and harsh conclusions drawn by the committee,” as Mariëtte Hamer, the PvdA’s parliamentary leader, put it. Deputy prime minister André Rouvoet, leader of the ChristenUnie party, sided with prime minister Balkenende.
..
..The report’s political fallout became apparent throughout Wednesday. Many in Dutch politics are now asking whether the government will survive this incipient crisis.
The Handelsblad concludes:
Sources close to the cabinet suggested that the prime minister would be willing to accommodate the PvdA to some extent by publicly acknowledging the report contained some valuable lessons. But, according to the same sources, he was not willing to retract his statements regarding the mandate for the invasion under public international law. Balkenende had aligned his statement in this regard with deputy prime minister Wouter Bos of the PvdA, sources within the CDA said. Deputy prime minister Routvoet stated the prime minister did not confer with him before making his statement on the matter on Tuesday.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE II:
In a further twist on the recently released Davids Commission report, the UK Guardian reports that the UK government refused to disclose a key document requested by the Dutch Commission:
The document – allegedly a letter from Tony Blair asking for the support of the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende – was handed over in a breach of diplomatic protocol and on the basis that it was for Balkenende’s eyes only, an inquiry official told the Guardian.
“It was a surprise for our committee when we discovered information about this letter,” said Rob Sebes, a spokesman for the Dutch inquiry. “It was not sent with a normal procedure between countries – instead it was a personal message from Tony Blair to our prime minister Jan Peter Balkanende, and had to be returned and not stored in our archives.
“We asked the British government to hand over the letter but they refused,” Sebes said.
Details of the Dutch inquiry’s findings and the refusal of the British government to disclose the letter are likely to increase international scrutiny on the Chilcot inquiry, as it emerged that the UK was instrumental in influencing the Dutch decision to back the war
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.