Dutch courage deals double blow to US mission in Afghanistan, By Ameen Izzadeen

The Dutch government collapsed on Friday February 20 over the war in Afghanistan, sending shockwaves across Europe and across the Atlantic. The crisis underscores the fact that if democracy is in practice, governments cannot sham. The will of the people is reflected even in crises as shown by the Dutch example. If the people are anti-war, the government cannot be pro-war.

It was only recently that a commission appointed by the Dutch government ruled that the US-led war in Iraq was illegal. Some observers said the pro-war Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s government appointed the Davids Commission with the intention of obtaining a conclusion that would whitewash the Netherlands’ decision to join in the US invasion of Iraq.

But the commission gave a damning verdict. It concluded: “The [UN] Security Council Resolutions on Iraq passed during the 1990s did not constitute a mandate for the US-British military intervention in 2003…. Despite the existence of certain ambiguities, the wording of Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted (as the government did) as authorizing individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council’s resolutions, without authorization from the Security Council.”

Notwithstanding the embarrassment the Davids commission’s ruling brought on the Dutch government, the whole episode points to the strength of the democratic system in operation in the Netherlands. In flawed democracies, commissions appointed by the government usually give verdicts that please the head of state or the head of government.

August deadline

A government may make mistakes or take decisions that go against international law or even domestic law, but a democracy must have institutions to point out those mistakes and take corrective measures. This was exactly what happened in the Netherlands and is probably taking place in Britain also. We may disagree with Britain on policy matters or we may dislike its leaders, but the appointment of the Lord Chilcot commission to probe the British government’s decision to join the US war on Iraq shows that democracy is not only being practised there but is seen to be practised.

In the Netherlands, the Christian Democratic Party-led government of Prime Minister Balkenende broke up after Labour party leader Wouter Bos withdrew his party’s support for the coalition government on a matter of principle that upholds democracy. Pointing to a parliament vote in October 2009 in support of a motion that called for the withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan by August 2010, Bos slammed Balkenende for his decision to keep the Dutch troops there in deference to a US request. According to Bos, the prime minister had reneged on his promise and defied parliament.

A general election is to be held in June but it is unlikely that a government can be formed without the support of the left-leaning parties which are opposed to the Dutch military presence in Afghanistan. So it is more or less certain that the Dutch troop withdrawal will begin in August. Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, called the Dutch decision a disappointment. “To be honest, I heard the news with great sadness,” he said.

The apparently self-centred US comments failed to acknowledge the strength of democracy in the Netherlands where the government paid the price for reneging on its promise. In the collapse of the Dutch government, the triumph of democracy based on ethics and moral principles is visible. But sad to say the US has stopped seeing such positive aspects of democracy since it launched its war on terror – a war that has undermined the principles on which democracy stands. Undermined in this war were the freedom of speech, freedom from torture, respect for law and transparency in governance. President Barack Obama has taken some corrective measures, but they have been largely cosmetic. No wonder the US occupies the 18th place in a global democracy index compiled by the Economist magazine.

The United States apparently feels that the collapse of the Dutch government over keeping troops in Afghanistan could deal a major blow to Nato’s military mission.

Washington is worried that the Dutch anti-Afghan war sentiments may soon spread to other European countries at a time when the Afghan war is becoming increasingly unpopular and when the US is asking Europe to contribute more troops.

The war is also unpopular in the United States, which this week received the bad news that its troop casualty figure in Afghanistan had topped 1000.

Yet, the US has beefed up its military presence in Afghanistan by 30,000 troops. Public opinion polls carried out last year in the wake of US calls for more troops showed 75 percent of Britons and 86 percent of Germans opposed the surge. Subsequent polls throughout Europe show a growing number of people want their governments to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Henning Riecke of the German Council on Foreign Relations stated, “I would say it is the mood of the day. Everyone is talking about withdrawal from Afghanistan; no one is talking about trying to hold on. There is very little discussion about what our interests are in Afghanistan, or the effect of our policies on the people of Afghanistan.”

European nations, especially those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) sent troops to Afghanistan not only because they wanted to be on the side of the US in the war on terror but also because they did not want to legitimize US unilateralism in global affairs, especially when it comes to international intervention.

Many people in Europe and the US never expected a prolonged conflict. They thought the US and Nato troops would punish the Taliban regime in a limited military operation and withdraw. But it has become clearer to people in Europe that their troops are fighting a war for the US which wants to maintain a permanent military presence in Afghanistan with an eye on Central Asia’s oil and gas fields.

European questions

Perhaps, some European leaders willingly became partners in the plunder, hoping for a share. But it is becoming more obvious to Europe that the war has a US-centric imperialistic agenda and that US manoeuvres aimed at Central Asia have gone awry — with China and Russia moving into the region. Europe is asking the questions: Why are we in Afghanistan and why should we send troops and invest more money in a war that promises very little material benefits to us?

This reality is not lost on the United States. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday that public and political opposition to the military presence had grown so great in Europe that it was directly affecting operations in Afghanistan and impeding the Nato’s broader security goals.

Gates also warned Europe that its pacific outlook would only be an encouragement to the enemy, thus underscoring the need to eliminate the so-called Islamic terror.

It was also probably to reassure the war-weary people of Europe and also the United States that US generals a few weeks ago launched a massive military operation at Marjah in the Afghan province of Helmand.

Soft target

Marjah was probably chosen because it was a soft target and promised a resounding victory. The war in Marjah was a big sham. The Taliban warriors who had been operating from there had left when the 15,000 strong US and British force moved in. Roped into the sham operation were the still embedded US media. They report that the coalition troops are making advance, but there are no pictures of militants captured or killed. The pictures are largely of sparsely populated villages and their poverty-stricken people, who are pro-Taliban.

The Taliban say they are operating in the outskirts of Marjah. Their website — the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan — claims that the Mujahideen have blown up 53 tanks; shot down two unmanned drones and one helicopter besides killing tens of soldiers in Marjah.

US television pictures yesterday showed victory ceremonies in Marjah town. They will send a message to the people in the West: Give the Nato mission more time, more troops and more resources, it will clean up Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan, of Taliban and al-Qaeda elements.

But in the past eight years, the Afghan flag has been hoisted in Marjah several times. So has the Taliban flag. Can the Nato forces backed by Afghan troops hold a hostile town?

What will be the Nato mission’s next target? Definitely it won’t be Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban, for it is not a soft target.