Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 1947 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
QA
YE YM YI

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 10THEHAGUE108, NETHERLANDS: CABINET FALLS OVER AFGHANISTAN

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #10THEHAGUE108.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
10THEHAGUE108 2010-02-20 10:10 2010-12-15 16:04 CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN Embassy The Hague
VZCZCXRO8662
OO RUEHDBU RUEHPW RUEHSL
DE RUEHTC #0108/01 0511053
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 201053Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3793
INFO RUCNAFG/AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
Saturday, 20 February 2010, 10:53
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 000108 
SENSITIVE 
NOFORN 
SIPDIS 
EO 12958 DECL: 02/18/2020 
TAGS PREL, NATO, AF, NL 
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS:  CABINET FALLS OVER AFGHANISTAN 
ELECTIONEERING
REF: A. THE HAGUE 097  B. THE HAGUE 15  C. 09 THE HAGUE 758  D. 09 THE HAGUE 663  E. 09 THE HAGUE 271
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Edwin R. Nolan for reasons 1.4 ( b) and (d)
1. (C/NF) SUMMARY: Following a marathon 15 hour Cabinet meeting, the Dutch Cabinet fell around 02:30 a.m., February 20 due to fundamental disagreements and Labor Party (PvdA) posturing ahead of local elections. Conflicts within the governing coalition have prompted several near Cabinet crises over the past several months, as the PvdA butted heads with coalition partner Christian Democrats (CDA) over the Joint Strike Fighter, decision-making during the 2003 Iraq conflict, and now the commitment of military forces to Afghanistan after 2010. PvdA has been trying to rally its base supporters by standing firm against a Netherlands deployment in Uruzgan after 2010. With PM Balkenende submitting his resignation to the Queen, the most likely outcome is new elections and months with a caretaker government. The immediate concern for U.S. interests is the future status of Dutch forces in Uruzgan. According to FM Verhagen’s staff Dutch forces will withdraw from Uruzgan in 2010, but it remains to be seen what a caretaker government could do on Afghanistan. Post will work to build support with the Dutch government on future deployment options that will meet Verhagen’s stated goal of a “significant Dutch contribution to the NATO mission.” END SUMMARY
2. (C) AFGHANISTAN THE LATEST IN A STRING OF IRRITANTS FOR DUTCH CABINET: Frustration among government ministers has been building for the past year (reftel A). In April, the Cabinet almost fell over a dispute over whether to purchase the Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft (reftel E). In the fall of 2009, the governing coalition parties split over a parliamentary resolution asking the Cabinet to pull troops out of Uruzgan in 2010 (reftel D). And in January coalition members bitterly disputed the results of the “Davids Committee Report” on the Dutch government’s decision in 2002-2003 to give political support to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (reftel B). Many of the disputes were prompted by public statements by members of the Cabinet characterizing internal negotiations between the parties. Resolution of the disputes required painstaking negotiations. In the JSF dispute, as well as debates over increasing the retirement age and approving the Lisbon Treaty, PvdA leader (and Deputy PM) Wouter Bos has been portrayed as backing down from his previous positions. These tensions and Bos’s weak position set the stage for a showdown on Afghanistan.
3. (C) POSTURING OVER AFGHANISTAN BROUGHT DOWN GOVERNMENT: During the past several weeks, Bos, motivated by perceptions of a weak defense of PvdA positions, has repeatedly and categorically claimed he would stand firm on PvdA’s pledge to end the Uruzgan mission in 2010. He has stuck with this pledge even as major newspapers editorialized against moving Dutch troops out of Uruzgan and questioned the logic of his position. In the last two days, newspaper headlines have trumpeted the Afghanistan controversy as a crisis for the government. However, the dispute was prompted more by Bos’s electioneering than the virtues of the mission. For example, during an eight-hour parliamentary debate on the evening of Qduring an eight-hour parliamentary debate on the evening of February 18, opposition parties pummeled the coalition government over contradictory statements in early February by D/PM Bos (PvdA) and FM Verhagen (CDA) over whether the entire coalition had discussed and approved a request to NATO for a letter on ISAF’s needs in Afghanistan. (Bos had originally denied he had been consulted.) Rather than addressing the needs of Afghanistan, the debate was a dissection of the coalition’s decision-making and public statements. Firebrand parliamentarians Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders called Bos a liar. More moderate Alexander Pechtold described the proceedings as akin to watching a divorce. Pechtold’s description proved apt as PM Balkenende today announced he would give Queen Beatrix his resignation, which if accepted will be followed by new elections in 1-2 months (see paragraph 5). The coalition-member PvdA insisted on the Cabinet making an immediate decision on the post-2010 Dutch deployment in Afghanistan. PM Balkenende’s Christian Democrats (CDA) refused, insisting on more time to weigh options to assist NATO allies. PM Balkenende stated, “We explored today whether trust could be restored--efforts to restore trust between the parties have failed--given the challenges facing the Netherlands, what is needed is strength, not the easy way out.”
4. (U) LIKELY OUTCOME: LONG PERIOD OF CARETAKER GOVERNMENT WITH LIMITED AUTHORITY: With the Cabinet’s announcement, the PM will submit his resignation along with that of the PvdA Ministers to the Queen. Most likely is that the Queen accepts the resignations, and the government falls. The remaining coalition parties of CDA and CU become a minority caretaker government with limited ability to pursue action on new issues and dependent on ad hoc parliamentary majorities for each proposed law/act. Elections would take place in 1-2 months. The caretaker government continues until the next government is formed, which requires several months of negotiations after the elections. If the Queen refuses the resignations she could appoint an outsider to work with the existing coalition parties to reach an agreement on how to continue to govern through the next scheduled elections in May 2011.
5. (C/NF) IMMEDIATE CONCERN FOR U.S. INTERESTS -- DUTCH FUTURE STATUS IN URUZGAN: FM Verhagen’s Chief of Staff Marcel de Vink told us earlier Friday that the Dutch government will be unable to retain troops in Uruzgan after 2010. There’s “no way the Dutch forces will stay in Uruzgan . . . that door is locked”. Asked about whether the Netherlands would provide force protection for the Uruzgan PRT, De Vink responded that even a minimal level of troops would be hard given the Labor Party’s stubborn position. Now, a caretaker government, even without the PvdA, will find it difficult, if not impossible to do anything in Uruzgan other than follow the set policy of withdrawal in 2010.
6. (C/NF) COMMENT: With the building tensions in the Cabinet, the government’s fall had become almost certain. Our efforts now turn to supporting FM Verhagen’s search for a future Dutch mission in Afghanistan that will make a significant contribution to NATO requirements. END COMMENT. LEVIN