Weather
Monday: Between 2º and 5º with light snow or sleet. Around zero at night. Similar Tuesday
|
||||
| Home | | | Opinion | | | Features | | | International | | | In Dutch | | | Dictionary | | | What's On | | | Jobs | | | Housing | | | Expats | | | Blogs | | | Books |
|
Weather
Monday: Between 2º and 5º with light snow or sleet. Around zero at night. Similar Tuesday
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No legal basis for Iraq war, says reportTuesday 12 January 2010 United Nations resolutions on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme were not a sufficient mandate to justify the invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain, a Dutch government committee said on Tuesday. The committee was set up last year to investigate the Dutch position, following mounting pressure from MPs and the press. The Netherlands gave political but not military support to the 2003 invasion, a decision largely based on claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Those claims later turned out to be false. The report contains a long list of criticisms of the government of the day - a coalition between the Christian Democrats and free market Liberals VVD. 'The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy,' the report states. It states that prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende was largely isolated from the decision making process and left the Dutch position up to the then foreign minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. According to the Telegraaf's report, De Hoop Scheffer drew up the Dutch line in a 45-minute meeting with civil servants in August 2002. The report says Dutch intelligence agencies had largely based their reports on information from the US and British secret services and that other, more nuanced assessments of the risks posed by Iraq's weapons programme were 'not reflected' by the relevant ministers and departments. 'Rather, ministers and departments extracted those statements .... that were consistent with the stance already adopted,' the report said. Parliament The report highlights the lack of parliamentary debate on threat posed by Iraq before the invasion and says that after the war, ministers played up the weight given to Dutch security service reports. It says the government did not disclose to parliament the full contents of the US request for military cooperation in November 2002. 'It is apparent that right up to the time of the invasion there was confusion as to what the US had asked of the Netherlands and what the policy was,' the report's conclusions state. On March 17, 2003, Balkenende told other party leaders 'no action would be taken to include the Netherlands as a member of the US-led coalition'. US support Yet the Netherlands was listed among the coalition members because the foreign affairs ministry had failed to inform the Dutch ambassador in Washington of the position. The US subsequently benefited from the political backing expressed by the Netherlands and other countries because it increased support at a global level, the report stated. Commission chairman Willbrord Davids stressed that the committee had had full cooperation from ministers and civil servants. The report does not give a political judgment, Davids said. 'That is up to parliament.' International lawyer Philippe Sands, who gave evidence to the Dutch inquiry, told the Guardian newspaper: 'There has been no other independent assessment on the legality of the war in Iraq and the findings of this inquiry are unambiguous. It concludes that the case argued by the Dutch and British governments... could not reasonably be argued.' © DutchNews.nl
Isn't it stunning the PM is still claiming to have informed parliament, were the conclusion is that he did not, and is it not more stunning that the same PM remains convinced that the legal basis of the invasion was present, were the ex-president of the High Council of the Netherlands (the highest legal body of the county) tells him it was not, and that the invasion in fact was in fact an illegal act? By Adrian Masters | January 12, 2010 4:26 PM This have been a 'Open Secrets' since the most unfortunate war(against Iraq) was started. The Dutch Public is not a naive nation as majority of us knew that its not based on honestly acquired facts and figures but instead A Global Action Plan of Mr.George Bush under the leadership of his vice president Mr.Dick Cheney. Our country's decision to participate came from few individuals under the leadership of the then foreign minister (who in return was appointed as NATO secretary general).What disturbs me that our Prime Minister Mr.Jan Peter Balkenende was kept out of this,and he had to continue with his statements 'nothing was wrong'!The question is "Is he a extremely naive politician who have been behaving very innocently or he knew that".The answer can be "Yes he knew that,like the majority of us from the very first day Mr.George Bush announced his adventure". Perhaps its a coincident that at the same time the government of the United Kingdom is facing almost the same situation,both situations have astonishingly a great resemblance about the decisions. The foreign policy of the US is based on their self-interests,and I have a question to my own Dutch Government "In whose interests a bunch of people under the leadership of Mr.Jaap de Hoop Sheffer decided to join a war based on lies? Why did they ignored the interests of their own motherland and the constitution? I am afraid that the story won't stop with this,we will have to wait for another inquiry commission on our participation in the ongoing war in Afghanistan,because that too have different motives then its being told! I am fully confident that that inquiry will be again a source of regret and criticism for the decision makers (although this time parliament was informed 'Why our participation in the Afghan War is required'). I hereby request our government,our parliament and other decision makers "For God sake reconsider the policies for the sake of our country and the public"!! The Dutch contribution in the global issues should be only for the peace making and nothing else,if we want,that our future generation should live in peace and harmony along with the International Communities,then in that case we will have to reject alliance with those willing to become the mightiest of this planet at any cost!! By Khalid Ahmed Chaudry | January 12, 2010 4:26 PM Both the article and the conclusion were very well written. It made it very clear that a lot of fudging of the facts and abandonment of responsibilities by the various parties has been going on. By m. tunney | January 12, 2010 6:05 PM A lot of mistakes made by many envolved,not forgetting being given wrong info and being mislead. If there is fault then many should be blamed or taken to account for making wrong decisions,if that is the conclusion.A lesson hopefully have been learned that careful consideration be given to future request to participate in military adventures and the possible consequences! By Eric M Johnson,Sr. | January 12, 2010 6:31 PM Let us not forget, Royal Dutch Shell got a fat oil field development contract. BushCo/Cheney got very little, as did the american taxpayers for all that blood and treasure. Poetic justice, to say the least. Now shut up and take your bags of gold, you morally bankrupted hypocrites. By Sid the ugly american | January 12, 2010 8:29 PM Huh; wonder what all those UN resolutions were about then? Or have they now been conveniently forgotten? Here they all are: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html Almost none were followed by Iraq (or by the UN for that matter). By YoMamma | January 12, 2010 10:04 PM Do not forget Iraq invaded 2 countries! Sadm was a Hitler in the making and was justifyable stopt in his tracks. By cor | January 13, 2010 2:38 AM Shame on the Prime Minister, what shame and disgust that he could openly lie to the faces of Dutch citizens and support an illegal war that spilled millions of innocent Iraqi families blood. By Sandra | January 13, 2010 7:01 AM "By cor | January 13, 2010 2:38 AM Do not forget Iraq invaded 2 countries! Sadm was a Hitler in the making and was justifyable stopt in his tracks." According to John Major, who was the PM at the time of the first gulf war, see also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437422.stm: "Sir John said the argument that someone was bad was an inadequate argument for war. "There are many bad men around the world who run countries and we don't topple them, and indeed in earlier years we had actually supported Saddam Hussein when he was fighting against Iran."
By PeterM | January 14, 2010 3:42 AM A political war for power, namely oil... By stevie | January 14, 2010 11:32 PM
Comments have been closed for this article. |
| Newsletter | | | RSS | | | Advertising | | | Business services | | | Mobile | | | Friends | | | Contact | | | About us | | | Tell a Friend |
|
"So far, there have been 15 debates on the issue but Mr Balkenende managed to block every attempt to hold an official enquiry. Until early in 2009, that is, when he had to give in and asked retired president Willibrord Davids of the Supreme Court to head an independent committee.
It is now up to parliament to decide whether the PM misled parliament, and whether the 350-page report will be followed up by a formal parliamentary inquiry."
So will parliament do the right thing and hold a formal inquiry now?
By bobsocks | January 12, 2010 12:10 PM