The Dutch Army Oversea - On Numbers and Budgets · 4 January 2008, 18:57 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Currently I’m reading some literature on the decolonization of the former Dutch East Indies / Indonesia and what strikes me is the number of soldiers that the Dutch were able to field outside of the Netherlands, in Sumatra and Java. In his ‘Afscheid van Indië. De val van het Nederlandse imperium in Azië’ (Amsterdam 2000) historian H.W. van den Doel lists the numbers involved on the eve of the first Dutch major military offensive against the Indonesian insurgents on 20 July 1947. (page 201) According to Van den Doel the Dutch army comprised about 5,000 marines, 44,000 soldiers of the Royal Dutch East Indies Army (Dutch: ‘Koninklijk Nederlands Indisch Leger’, or in short: ‘KNIL’) and 70,000 soldiers of the Royal Netherlands Army (Dutch: ‘Koninklijke Landmacht’, in short ‘KL’). The KL constitutes the land forces element of the military of the Netherlands and, at the time, included a considerable amount of conscripts. (Stef Scagliola, ‘Last van de Oorlog’ (Amsterdam 2002), pages 50-52] The KNIL was the colonial army of the Dutch East Indies, of which the main purpose was to suppress revolts and which consisted of both ‘Indonesians’ and Dutchmen, of whom many had an ‘Indonesian’ (‘Indische’) look. [Scagliola, ‘Last van de Oorlog’, page 38] Altogether the Dutch were able to field 119,000 soldiers more than 10,000 kilometers away from the motherland.
Let’s put this number in perspective. According to Wikipedia the United States army was able to send 250,000 soldiers to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq at the start of the Second Gulf War. This means that the amount of U.S. soldiers which were directly involved in the invasion of Iraq is only more than twice the amount of Dutch soldiers deployed on Sumatra and Java in 1947. ‘Only’, because the population size of the Netherlands amounted to about 9,000,000 people during the mid-forties of the 20th century [‘De Grote Geïllustreerde Bosatlas’ (Groningen 1983) page 75 and CBS Statline], whereas, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the United States amounted to 282,909,885 in 2003. This means that the U.S. population was more than 31 times bigger in 2003 than the Dutch population around 1945. Considering the fact that, as stated above, the Royal Dutch East Indies Army also consisted of indigenous men, my calculation is incorrect, however. Unfortunationaly, I don’t have the resources at my disposal to determine which part of the Royal Dutch East Indies Army drew on the indigenous population and how many soldiers were Dutch. Therefore, let us make another calculation based only on the amount of marines and Royal Netherlands Army soldiers.
Together the number of Dutch marines and the Royal Netherlands Army soldiers which were available on Sumatra and Java in 1947 amounted to 75,000 men. This means that the U.S. army that invaded in Iraq in 2003 was almost 3 and half times bigger than the Dutch army on Sumatra and Java in 1947. This still means, however, that the Dutch army was relatively much bigger than the U.S. invasion force of 2003. That is, only 0.088% of the U.S. population was sent to Iraq in 2003 whereas 0.83% of the Dutch population was sent to Java and Sumatra. If the U.S. had sent the same percentage of its population to Iraq the invading army would have amounted to 2,348,152 soldiers! But what about the ability of today’s Dutch military to project power overseas?
In 2007, according to CBS Statline, the Dutch popupulation amounted to 16,358,000 people. If the Netherlands would send 0.83% of its population on a military mission oversea this expeditionary force would comprise 135,771 soldiers. Currently, as a NATO member, the Dutch army is involved in the ISAF-operation in Afghanistan. To be more precisely, in Uruzgan. Hence the name of the operation ‘Task Force Uruzgan’, TFU in short. TFU, which officially started in March 2006, is considered to be a major operation by the Dutch. As such Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad terms TFU the biggest military expedition for the Netherlands since the above mentioned war in the former Dutch East Indies / Indonesia [Mark Kranenburg, ‘Eindelijk groen licht, na half jaar denken. Kamer stemt in met verlenging Nederlandse missie in Uruzgan’, NRC Handelsblad, 19 december]. But to what extent is the Dutch military preoccupied by TFU? Originally the Dutch Ministry of Defence estimated that two years in Afghanistan would cost 340 milion euro. In May 2007, however, it was estimated that the whole operation would cost 580 milion euro. [Maarten van der Schaaf, ‘Het ‘naïeve’ budget voor de Uruzgan-missie’, NRC Handelsblad, 25 mei 2007] NRC Handelsblad reported that the budget for TFU implied an enormous burden for the Dutch military, as a result of which it is forced to shrink the rest of its army, by selling armoured fighting vehicles (tanks, ‘pantserhouwitsers’) and F-16’s and cutting manpower (1,000 of its 70,000 jobs). [Steven Derix en Jaus Müller, ‘Defensie krimpt drastisch om in Uruzgan te blijven’, NRC Handelsblad, July 2, 2007] But how many soldiers are involved in TFU?
Originally, the Dutch army sent 1,200 to 1,400 soldiers to Uruzgan, but in April 2006 the government deemed it necessary to send another 200 soldiers. On November 30 2007 the Dutch government decided to stay another two year period in Uruzgan, but now with 1,400 soldiers. (Jaus Müller, ‘Belangrijke gebeurtenissen rond de Nederlandse missie in Uruzgan’, NRC Handelsblad, December 17, 2007] The difference with 1947 is staggering. Instead of deploying 0.83% of its population in Afghanistan the Dutch deployed only 0.00978% in 2007. No doubt this calculation isn’t very accurate. Nonetheless, the difference remains staggering. Especially considering the fact that in 1947 World War II was barely over and the process of recovery of the Dutch economy had only just started (European Recovery Program / Marshall Plan, July 1947).
Off course, there’s nothing new here, but for the Dutch it’s good to be aware of. In Newsweek’s recently issued ‘year-end Special Edition’ Minxin Pei, ‘director of the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’, states in an article entitled ‘An Unlikely New Ally’ that a group of Chinese thinkers are concerned about ‘the recent decline in U.S. prestige and leadership’. (pages 22-23) This group, ‘made up of the most cosmopolitan elites’, acknowledges the role of the United States as keeper of ‘some sort of stable order’ and provider of ‘public goods (...) as free trade, safe sea lanes, technological innovation and regional stability’. The Dutch should be concerned too about a U.S. decline in power. For it might very well lead to a world, in which a much more active and assertive role for European Union countries is required for the maintaince of a stable world order and the protection of their strategic interests. And such a would might very well require a considerable increase of their defence budgets and a significant increase in military manpower.
afghanistan,
decolonization,
dutch army,
dutch east indies,
indonesia,
isaf,
java,
knil,
koninklijke landmacht,
minxin pei,
netherlands,
sumatra,
task force uruzgan,
tfu,
u.s. military,
uruzgan
Headscarf and Miniskirt · 28 November 2007, 23:13 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Being an inhabitant of Rotterdam, a city in the Netherlands with large Moroccan and Turkish muslim communities, it is hard for me to perceive the headscarf simply as an expression of piety or chastity, as young Rotterdam muslimahs often combine their hijabs with make-up and fashionable, tight jeans by which they reduce them to not much more than a religio-ethnic marker and a fashion item. Nonetheless, I was a little surprised by the outfit of a young woman which I saw in the Rotterdam metro this morning. Although on balance it didn’t looked trashy at all the length of her skirt, which she combined with black, transparent tights, seemed fairly at odds with the fact that she was wearing a headscarf. As it ended at least 10 centimeters above her knees and as she measured about 1.65 m one could easily call it miniskirt. However, I don’t think I’ve witnessed a harbinger of a cultural revolution this morning. Because when she left the carriage she desperately tried to pull her skirt towards her knees and as such she seemed very uncomfortable with it. It wouldn’t surprise me, therefore, if it ended up as cleaning-rag.
ethnic marker,
headscarf,
hijab,
islam,
miniskirt,
moroccan,
muslim,
muslimah,
netherlands,
rotterdam,
turkish
Geert Wilders's Call for a Ban on the Qur'an · 9 August 2007, 19:19 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Last Saturday Ehsan Jami, an Iran born (Mashad, 20 april 1985) Dutch PvdA politician and founder of the (Dutch) Central Comitee for Ex-Muslims, was molested by three men, probably because of his qualification of some statements of the prophet Muhammad as backward. Seemingly as a response on the assault on Jami populist frontman of the PVV (Party for Freedom) and MP Geert Wilders wrote an op-ed, which was published in yesterday’s edition of Dutch daily de Volkskrant. In this op-ed, entitled ‘Genoeg is genoeg: verbied de Koran’ (‘Enough is Enough: Ban the Qur’an’), Wilders compares the Qur’an with Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ and incites (I assume his fellow MP’s and / or the Government) to ban the Qur’an. By this Wilders harms the interests of the country he says he’s vindicating. He’s pouring oil on the flames and, as such, is forcing the Netherlands to use its resources for a fight that shouldn’t be fought. It could use its resources in a far better way.
Let there be no mistake about it: there’s no place in the Netherlands for people who think they have the right to use violence against people who don’t share their (religious) beliefs. People who think otherwise and act correspondingly or threaten to do so, should be dealt with by the law. Furthermore, (potential) victims, like Ehsan Jami or Geert Wilders, should be protected against them at any cost. However, by constantly proclaiming that the existence of a moderate Islam is an illusion Wilders strains reality and offends the large majority of Dutch muslims who live normal and peaceful lives. Demanding a ban on the Qur’an can only be intepreted as an attempt to change this reality and to force the moderates to choose between apostacy and extremism. As such Wilders’s way of thinking closely resembles the obtuse, primitive black-and-white way of thinking of the ones he says he’s fighting.
But also out of sheer realpolitik a less hysteric and more considered response would be welcome. The exact outcome of a ban on the Qur’an in the Netherlands will be unsure. No doubt, however, it will result in unprecedented, societal instability, no doubt Dutch (economic) interests abroad will be seriously violated and no doubt it will put Dutch lives at risk. There’s no way the Netherlands could profit from such a measure. On the contrary, it will only harm the country. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 the United States decided to invade Iraq. This was a rash, badly considered decision as a result of which the country’s military capability and economy are dangerously strained, just at a time that ambitious countries as Russia, China and Iran are challenging its world-dominion. By this the Americans set a bad example. The lesson to be learned from it, however, seems to be wasted on Wilders. But as the Dutch live in the same, changing world as the Americans, they can’t afford to be dragged into a conflict that will drain all of their resources either. By renouncing Wilders’s statements, therefore, the Dutch government did the only right thing.
ban on the qur'an,
ehsan jami,
geert wilders,
jami,
netherlands,
pvda,
pvv,
qur'an,
the netherlands,
wilders
On Populism in the Netherlands · 23 April 2007, 20:38 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Two interesting statements both dealing with populism in the Netherlands I came upon in respectively last Saturday’s edition of Dutch newspaper NRC handelsblad and in Dutch weekly newsmagazine De Groene Amsterdammer (April 20, 2007, number 16, ‘Het Journalistendrama’, pages 24-26):
To start with, a statement by Bas Heijne in his column in NRC Handelsblad. In it Heijne argues that further European integration requires that nationalism, which is going through a rebirth in the Netherlands, shouldn’t be repressed but instead should be given some space. For nationalists and populists only gain from attempts to thwart them, from what he calls ‘the mysophobia of a not understanding elite which deems every trace of nationalism a form of treachery and every form of regionalism a form of backwardness’.
Secondly, a statement by Pieter van Os. According to Van Os the following rethoric figure of speech has become popular in the Netherlands lately: ‘It might be that everybody says B, but I say A, although only few would impugn A. That is: take a fashionable stance and then claim that you’re brave enough to do so, against the stream.’
bas heijne,
european integration,
nationalism,
netherlands,
pieter van os,
populism
Rita Verdonk Fair and Square · 18 February 2007, 12:11 CET by Charles Vermeulen
In last Friday’s telecast of Dutch current affairs program NOVA Minister for Integration and Immigration Rita Verdonk was offered the opportunity to prove her straightforwardness once more. This week some tumult ensued after new MP Sietse Fritsma of the party of Geert Wilders, the PVV, had tried to prevent the appointment of Ahmed Aboutaleb and Nebahat Albayrak (both PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party) as respectively Minister of Social Affairs and Justice State Secretary because of their double nationality. (Aboutaleb is of Moroccan and Albayak of Turkish descent.) During the telecast it appeared, not supprisingly, that the Minister agreed with the view of Fritsma. Because of this NOVA Interviewer Twan Huys asked the Minister if she thought it desirable that the very popular, blond Princess Maxima should end her dual nationality and give up her Argentine passport too. At first it seemed that she was ready to take on a tough stance once more as she replied: "I have the same opinion about her as I have Members of Parliament and Members of Government. I deem it important for everyone to give th[e] sign[: I’m in the Netherlands, Member of Parliament or Member of Government, and I possess that Dutch nationality and I’m proud of it]." She thought it ‘a chutzpah’ to have two passports. But after Huys tried to summarize her view as ‘Minister Rita Verdonk is of the opinion that crown-princess Maxima should surrender her Argentinian Passport’ she subtly took a safer stance. On a tone by which she seemed to express her approval of his summary she replied in a way by she in fact distanced herself from it as her words read as follows: "You know that Minister Rita Verdonk holds the view that laws apply for everyone in the same way in this country and that everyone should make his own judgement".
aboutaleb,
ahmed aboutaleb,
albayrak,
geert wilders,
maxima,
nebahat albayrak,
netherlands,
populism,
pvda,
pvv,
rita verdonk,
verdonk,
wilders
Saudi Students in the Land of Flowers (2) · 30 January 2007, 07:28 CET by Charles Vermeulen
In the previous posting I mentioned Saudi students who will be trained for physician during a seven years stay in the Netherlands. Part of their education will be an introduction into Dutch culture, which, apparently, also includes some attention for World War II, as the NOS Journaal report showed some students during a class who were asked if they could tell something about it. The answer of one of the students to this question was rather remarkable. Without batting an eyelid he replied: ‘it was actually between Japanese and also Americans. They killed many peoples (...) there in Hiroshima and Nagasaki’. Off course any account of World War II should be about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but why did the student start here? Did he also mention the bloodshed and destruction elsewhere in the world during the war? For example the atrocities committed by the Japanese in Nanking, China or the Holocaust? If he did so the report didn’t show it. However the fact remains that the student felt the need to start his answer with something which happened at the end of the war. But his mentioning of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might also have been his whole answer. Anyway, I would really like to see the history books which taught the boy about World War II.
hiroshima,
maastricht,
nagasaki,
netherlands,
saudi students,
university of maastricht
Saudi Students in the Land of Flowers · 29 January 2007, 21:32 CET by Charles Vermeulen
Today Dutch public television news show NOS Journaal reported about more than 560 students from Saudi Arabia who arrived in the Netherlands for a seven years stay during which they will be trained for physician. Later that night I sat on the couch to zap for a while and while doing so I ran into a show hosted by Dutch tv celebrities Patty Brard and Gerard Joling. Instantly my thoughts wandered to the Saudi students. What would they think of Patty Brard and Gerard Joling? Not very much right now, but they will be taught Dutch and then inevitably Dutch popular culture will penetrate their minds. This means that they will learn about Dutch minister for Integration and Immigration Rita Verdonk, about Geert Wilders who once said he eats headscarves for breakfast, about drunk, trashing hooligans flooding the streets after a soccer game. I could not help wondering what their final impression would be after seven years in the Netherlands? Will their stay bring the West and the Middle East together or will it fuel occidentalist sentiments? One student told the NOS Journaal reporter that she preferred a stay in the Netherlands to Australia, because, among other things, it was ‘lovely and quiet’. She wanted to stay in ‘the land of flowers’. I honestly hope she won’t be disappointed.
geert wilders,
gerard joling,
headscarve,
maastricht,
netherlands,
patty brard,
rita verdonk,
saudi arabia,
saudi students,
university of maastricht,
verdonk,
wilders
Detainees Captured by the Dutch in Afghanistan · 6 January 2007, 17:59 CET by Charles Vermeulen
In the previous posting I wrote about Dutch joint responsibility for human rights violations committed by the Americans. I mentioned the fact that sending Dutch troops to Afghanistan enabled the U.S. to continue to wage its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the support of non-U.S. troops in the ‘War on Terror’ provided the latter with some legitimacy. But off course there’s also the issue of prisoners of war (POWs), which might be captured by Dutch troops. Preceding the sending of the troops the Dutch government has decided that captured POWs will be handed over to the Afghan authorities. Furthermore, in a Memorandum of Understanding the Dutch government and the government of Hamid Karzai have agreed upon that those POWs, thereupon, won’t be handed over by the Afghan authorities to third parties, that is to the U.S. (source: NRC Handelsblad, ‘Wel skibril in Uruzgan, maar geen dwang’, 21/11/2006) But what if the Afghan authorities decide to officially release a POW and directly thereafter some obscure militia, secretely affiliated to the authorities, kidnaps the released POW to torture and / or kill him / her? Or to hand over the POW to the U.S.? Or that U.S. secret agents waylay the released POW at the prison’s gate? Technically the Dutch don’t need to violate their own agreements then to bring a POW in danger. Furthermore, it’s doubtful whether POWs are better of with their kinsmen than with the Americans. In Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad (‘Wel skibril in Uruzgan’, 21/11/2006) Human Rights Watch’s Asia research director Sam Zarifi said that prisoners who are assumed to be Taliban are detained by the NDS, the Afghan secret service, which beats them up and gives them electric shocks. Considering all this it seems hard to avoid that in the end the human rights of POWs captured by the Dutch won’t be violated.
afghanistan,
human rights,
karzai,
taliban,
uruzgan,
war on terror
Van Bommel Tendentious on Uruzgan Mission · 5 January 2007, 11:10 CET by Charles Vermeulen
The legitimicy of the presence of Dutch troops in Uruzgan, Afghanistan, has provoked only modest debate in the Netherlands. Harry van Bommel, a prominent MP of the Dutch Socialist Party, therefore rightly keeps the subject on the agenda. The way he deals with it, however, is in my opinion rather questionable and tendentious. In an interview in this weeks edition of Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland (page 14-18) he expounds his views.
On the one hand his line of thought seems an accurate one. In its ‘War on Terror’ the U.S. has committed several kinds of human rights violations including torture. Referring to among others the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay Van Bommel therefore coins this war a ‘dirty war’. Nonetheless, the Dutch government supports the U.S. in this ‘dirty war’ by sending troops to Afghanistan. Because of this the MP denominates the Dutch government a ‘subcontractor’ of the U.S. Although this is somewhat populistic, in my opinion the Dutch government has indeed become jointly responsible for human rights violations committed by the U.S. Firstly, by sending its soldiers the Netherlands helps the U.S. to continue to wage its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, of which especially the latter seems to have stretched the U.S. military capacity to the breaking point. Secondly, the sending of troops by U.S. allies provides the ‘War on Terror’ with some legitimacy, because it turns the ‘War on Terror’ into a more or less international effort.
On the other hand, Van Bommel easily puts aside some very good reasons for the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan. He acknowledges that the Taliban ‘ruled Afghanistan by means of violence’ and ‘unpleasant things happened during their rule with respect to the suppression of women and jurisdiction’, but ‘the situation isn’t all that simple’. (...) ‘Uruzgan is in fact a Taliban-province. The Pashtuns which live there are inclined to support the Taliban-warriors.’ According to Van Bommel this implies that ‘we are, in fact, waging a war against the local population’.
What strikes here, firstly, is that the MP uses a far more detached language to describe the crimes of the Taliban than to describe those commited by the U.S. Compare for example ‘unpleasant things happened during their rule with respect to the suppression of women and jurisdiction’ with ‘torture’ and ‘dirty war’. As a result of this the impression arises that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan was in fact worse than the violent Taliban have been for the country. Secondly, it might be true the Pashtun in Uruzgan are inclined to support the Taliban, but that doesn’t imply that the Taliban plan to confine their rule to the area of their supporters. Afterall, preceding the U.S. invasion their rule confined almost the whole of Afghanistan. Thirdly, by stating that Dutch troops are waging a war against the local population because they’re fighting the Taliban is really manipulative, for it suggests that Dutch troops deliberately and systematicly shoot at or throw bombs on civilians in Uruzgan. And last but not least: let’s not forget that the Taliban harboured Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda, which are responsible for thousands of deaths.
afghanistan,
al-qaeda,
harry van bommel,
sp,
taliban,
uruzgan,
van bommel
A Company Which Is Affraid to Lose Market Share · 3 January 2007, 21:42 CET by Charles Vermeulen
The biggest loser of the Dutch General Election of 2006 no doubt is the VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy). This party lost 6 seats in the Dutch Lower House and ended up with 22 seats. According to Patrick van Schie, director of the Telders Foundation, a think-thank affiliated with the VVD, the party has tried to much to attract voters from the political middle. This wasn’t a smart thing to do, the director says in today’s edition of NRC Handelsblad (page 3), because already too many other parties aim at the political middle. From the election-results, furthermore, it appeared that Dutch voters were attracted by parties who ‘dared to distinguish themselves’ from other parties. Van Schie, therefore, urges the VVD to embark on a more radical course and, in doing so, to borrow some ideas from the PVV (Party of Freedom), the far-right party of the VVD’s prodigal son Geert Wilders. Off course Van Schie would defend any change of course of the VVD as necessary to keep in touch with its voters, but somehow the impression arises of a company which is losing market share and which decides to sell different products in an attempt to regain its costumers. Whatever happened to parties which are dedicated to ideals and ideas and which try to win supporters over to those ideals and ideas?
geert wilders,
netherlands,
patrick van schie,
pvv,
teldersstichting,
vvd,
wilders