Showing posts with label Netherlands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netherlands. Show all posts

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Travel Observations, edition 37

On my way back to Ottawa after a productive few days in The Hague.  What have I learned/re-learned/observed?
  • My habit of watching bad movies on flights works out pretty well.  Stuff that I really want to see I will see with Mrs Spew via netflix or our Canadian movie channel.  Bad stuff?  Probably not, so why not see Hercules, Into the Storm, Maze Runners, The Other Woman, and their ilk?  They are not good movies but they are entertaining/diverting.  Indeed, Leslie Mann proved yet again that she is very funny.  
  • I remain a big fan of Nexus (had the right passport this time) as it allowed me to GOES through the passport line in Newark quickly.  Also love being TSA prescreened---keeping shoes on, computer in bag, belt on body--so much less trouble.  On the other hand, the US Embassy in Ottawa has done too good of a job promoting NEXUS as the machines in Canada had a long line (maybe two machines are not quite enough).
  • Time while traveling is relative but still felt wrong to booze up at the lounge (gold status pays off!) in Amsterdam.  On the other hand, a beer garden for lunch in Newark?  Please... with a nice view of NYC.
  • I remain a big fan of Indonesian food which I almost only get in the Netherlands--not much in Ottawa or in Montreal.  
  • Something always happens when I am gone.  We have had furnaces crap out. This time, not just a heap of snow (Mrs. Spew got by without New Snowblower 101), but also possessed toilets, gurgling not unlike the fireswamp.  Thus far, no ROUS's but we shall see.
  • I lost a second neck pillow.  Damn, must staple these things to the back of my head. 
  • Oh, I am finally giving into electronic submissions of papers.  The final paper for my Civ-Mil class was due the day I landed in Amsterdam, so I had the students send them to me via email as pdfs.  I found it actually easier to whip through the grading of about half while flying back, as I could read them on my ipad (which I no longer have to turn off when taking off and landing).  
  I do need to keep learning, as I do keep on traveling.  As soon as I got home, I got a new invite to go to Belgium in April.  I will not be driving around Brussels this time.... that is one lesson I learned from the last time.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Dutch Travels for a NATO workshop

I am in/at The Hague for a two day workshop on what we can learn about ISAF's performance in Afghanistan.  I had no idea there was a NATO office in this city until last month.  I remember seeing SACEUR Craddock (the military head of NATO) complaining in 2008 about having confusing metrics (measures) about progress.  Apparently, his response to that was to create this office.

It is my second time here, as I interviewed Dutch officials/officers/etc in January 2011 for the NATO book.  Last night, I had dinner with two professors who teach at the Dutch military academy, who were most helpful over the past few years.  One of the best parts of writing a book is giving copies to those who were of assistance.  We met in Leiden, where the Pilgrims hung out between England and Plymouth.

One of the interesting happenstances of the NATO project has been that researching and talking about it has led me to a bunch of interesting historical places.  I got to speak about Afghanistan in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, which is near Plymouth Rock.  So, this book project took  me to both the departure and landing of the Pilgrims.  Funny that.

What have I learned/re-learned thus far?
  • I don't remember this city being as bike crazy as it apparently is--very Copenhagen-ish.  I am amazed I have not been hit.  
  • My favorite Dutch word is rijsttafel--refers to rice table---where you get a pile of tapas like dishes at an Indonesian restaurant.
  • I felt like the movie "The Birds" was inspired by a scene here.  Last night, I walked past the loudest trees--populated by so many very loud birds. 
  • I have seen ads for kickassmas, but have not yet had a chance to search for it. Hmm.
Gotta run to my workshop.  

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Responsibility to Protect Indeed: Srebrenica Continued

A Dutch court ruled that Dutch peacekeepers were partially responsible for the deaths of more than 300 Bosnians when the Srebrenica "safe haven" was attacked by Bosnian Serbs in 1995.  This is not anything particularly new as the Netherlands has taken its responsibility in this matter far more seriously than pretty much everyone else.

In 2002, the Dutch government fell after its entire cabinet resigned due to a report on events in Srebrenica seven years earlier.  Can you imagine an American or Canadian or British government reacting to events seven years earlier after a critical report is released?  No.  I didn't think so.  Has anyone in Belgium resigned in the aftermath of Rwanda? 

The Netherlands developed a series of reforms to try to prevent a similar disaster in the future.  Among these reforms are the Article 100 process where the parties in parliament must approve of a letter that explains the purposes and the means of a military deployment before the troops are sent.  This is an incredibly transparent process--pretty handy for the researcher that happens to be in town the week this is going on.  It might mean too much legislative influence on what actually goes into a military deployment (don't send tanks, they are too aggressive looking), but the letter requires a clear statement of purpose, clarity about the rules of engagement and so on.

This latest ruling is consistent with a previous one--that the Netherlands is responsible for those Bosnian Muslims who had been in the UN compound (that the Dutch had been staffing) and who then were expelled.  The courts have ruled that the Dutch are not responsible for those that never made it into the compound. 

As I wrote earlier about a similar case, there is plenty of blame to go around.  Obviously, the actual killers are mostly responsible, with the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia taking those cases, including Ratko Mladic, the commander of the genocidaires.  Canada neatly dodged responsibility, as the Canadians had peacekeepers in Srebrenica before the Dutch but re-deployed because they saw what was going to happen and didn't want to be around.

The United Nations perhaps cannot get sued, but, in my mind, it has more responsibility than anyone besides the Bosnian Serbs in this case.  The Dutch peacekeepers were willing to fight, but needed air support since they were outmanned.  At the time, the NATO planes that could be sent were subject to a dual-key system.  Any decision to drop bombs required approval from both the local NATO representative and the UN Secretary General's special representative, and the UN rep said no. 

The lesson to be learned?  Well, the Dutch learned to always bring their own airpower when they deploy, so that they can get the support they need even if the international organizations say no. That's right--the Netherlands would de-flag their planes and fight under the command of the Dutch if their multilateral bosses were to get in the way.  Which is why we saw something very strange from 2011-2014--the Dutch police training mission included F-16's....

The articles on this suggest that the prospect of lawsuits might cause countries to decline participation in peacekeeping efforts.  Maybe, but there are already enough deterrents to participation in such efforts, including the lesson learned from Somalia and Rwanda--that the "bad guys" may first try to kill the peacekeepers so that they go home. 

What this case really reminds us is that the notion of responsibility to protect carries a very heavy burden, which is perhaps why the reality is that most countries tend not to actually bear the responsibility at all. 



Friday, May 2, 2014

A Dutch Take on The World

I spent this morning at a breakfast talk where the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans gave a talk on his view of recent events and the Transatlantic relationship.*  He was pretty open and quite interesting.  He did a nice job of tying Canada and Netherlands together, given their history, although I doubt that Canada is closer to the Netherlands and to the U.S..  However, more friction in the latter relationship precisely because of the proximity.
*  I am pretty sure I can post a summary and my reactions since (a) no one mentioned Chatham House rules; and (b) there were media folks there.

Timmermans argued that we need to focus on and behave according to our values, which would strengthen our claims, reduce the hypocrisy accusations that Russia and its friends raise.  This suggests that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and Iraq still undercut the US and its efforts, along with Snowden, which he mentioned indirectly.

Timmermans tied the left and the far right together in their anti-Americanism, which then leads to support for Russia.  Indeed, much of the talk addressed this rise of the far right and its anti-EU, anti-US stances.  A key difference, he asserted, between Canada and Europe is not just tolerance of immigrants and minorities but integration of difference.  He must not have watched Quebec very closely.

Timmermans referred to the age-old tendency to look to others to blame and then dehumanize: Jews then, Muslims now.  Indeed.  Anyhow, he was explaining something that had been puzzling--support in Europe for Putin.

He focused on need to fight Russia's propaganda--that the elites of Europe (and elsewhere) need to do a better job of explaining to their peoples what is at stake.  

A fun point: that Germany took a step in the EU that Russia would never do its faux economic bloc: be willing to be outvoted and expect losing on important issues.  

We may have seen the end of defence cuts but probably not the start of increased defence spending.

Timmermans raised smart defence obliquely, saying that countries need to overcome their concerns about sovereingty and cooperate more efficiently on defence.  I chose not to poo-poo this.

His stance on Ukraine in NATO?  Not good for Ukraine, as it would be divisive and not good for NATO.  He sees Ukraine as bridge between EU and Russia.  

Finally, Timmermans made a good point--that the lesson of Ukraine for Iran is: give up your nukes and bad things will happen.  Um, second time given lesson of Libya is the same.  

Anyhow, it was an interesting morning that got me thinking about a bunch of different things.  Tis fun living in a national capital.
 

Monday, December 26, 2011

How About Some Islamophobia for Christmas?

The xenophobia, anti-Muslim Party for Freedom in the Netherlands has recommended kicking Turkey out of NATO for its lack of support for France and Israel.  This would be funny if it were not so full of hate and political opportunism.

I am not surprised to see this party take such a stance, as it is very hostile to Muslims, and Turkey is, well, full of Muslims.  But the irony here is so very painful--this xenophobic party did not support the Netherlands' participation in the various NATO missions because its isolationism trumped its hatred of Muslims.  So, it is more than a bit strange to see this party criticize a country that has been a key NATO ally when the party has not been willing to support NATO in its most costly conflict. 

The Netherlands had trouble getting enough support in 2005-2006 to send troops to Uruzgan and then could not extend the mission in 2010 because there was not enough support.  Why? Because the Party for Freedom, otherwise a natural ally for the center-right coalition, would not support the mission.  Much haggling ensued in 2005 and again in 2011 to get support from left of center parties to approve the mission.  You would think that a party that has not been supportive of NATO efforts might just restrain itself from judging the NATO-worthiness of other countries. 

But then again, xenophobic parties are not known for their restraint.  Indeed, hypocrisy tends to be an essential element for such folks.  The Party for Freedom might be the third largest party in the Netherlands, but that does not mean that the entire country supports each and every contradictory element of the party's stances.  I just hope that the Dutch eventually realize that supporting a hateful party is an incredibly poor response to the economic crises of the day and that there are better ways to deal with immigrants.