Dutch government misrepresented case for Iraq war

The Dutch government was less than truthful in presenting its case for the invasion of Iraq to parliament, a report released on Tuesday noted.

Ministers cited justifications for the war they should have known were false. When the Dutch decided not to offer military assistance for the invasion, the US downplayed this lack of support.

A special committee of inquiry established by prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende has come to these conclusions after conducting an investigation into the run-up to the invasion that took several months. The committee, chaired by retired Dutch supreme court judge Willibrord Davids, found no evidence supporting the oft-reported rumour that the Dutch offered clandestine military support in the invasion.

In a compromise wrought by a caretaker government composed of Christian-democratic CDA and right wing parties, the Dutch government supported the invasion of Iraq “politically but not militarily” in 2003. The Netherlands did offer military support in the occupation of Iraq, stationing more than a thousand troops in the southern Al-Muthanna province from 2003 to 2005. The Dutch also deployed Patriot missile launchers in eastern Turkey well before the war. The government labelled these weapons “defensive.”

Since then, 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.

That committee released its report, which features a lengthy English summary, on Tuesday morning.

Dutch government 'disingenuous' report said

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.

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.

US indifferent to Dutch reluctance

According to the committee, the US benefitted from Dutch political support for the mission. Even though the Netherlands was keen to maintain a clear division between political and military support, “this distinction was not always made by the US,” the report notes. In 2003, the Netherlands even ended up on a document released by the US government, listing the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ that supported the Iraq invasion. A miscommunication with the Dutch ambassador to the US was to blame, the report said.

The presence of a Dutch officer at a press conference held by the American general Tommy Franks in Qatar on March 22, 2003 was similarly explained by a “misunderstanding”.

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.