an Peter Balkenende has enough support in parliament to stay in office, but his problems are far from over.

For the first time in Dutch parliamentary history on Tuesday, a prime minister was confronted with a motion of no confidence that targeted him personally. Opposition members of parliament accused Jan Peter Balkenende of undermining public trust in the government.

The Christian democratic prime minister survived the motion though, as a majority of the lower house still supports him: the motion was rejected 96 to 40.

Tuesday’s parliamentary debate over the findings of a special committee that investigated the reasoning behind the Dutch support for the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was special for another reason. The meeting closed the book on the issue after seven years, sixteen debates and ten motions that asked for an inquiry into the Dutch involvement and the Davids report that resulted from it.

Read more >> | NRC- Handelsblad International

Discussing the Chilcot Inquiry into the invasion and occupation of Iraq on BBC Radio 5 on 20 January this year, John Rentoul, quoting Nick Cohen, challenged ‘the anti-war mob’, and more specifically Philippe Sands, to tell him how any war could be ‘illegal’. Cohen, like Rentoul, is an apologist for the Iraq War, petulant about critics who insist it was illegal. His petulance, elaborated in the article quoted below, is rooted in his (entirely correct) insistence that the murderous Sadaam Hussein regime was itself acting in ways which were plainly illegal. But my concern isn’t with whether two wrongs make a right. Rather it’s with Cohen’s ‘simple question’:

I am growing old and grey waiting for John Humphrys or Jon Snow to show a spark of journalistic life and ask Nick Clegg, Philippe Sands and all the rest of them the simple question: “What do you mean by an ‘illegal war’?”

Read more >> | openDemocracy

he investigation into the reasoning behind the Dutch support for the US-UK invasion of Iraq may well mark a post-Cold War turning point for Dutch foreign policy. The days of the taken-for-granted US-European relationship are over.

One significant finding of the investigation into the reasoning behind the Dutch support for the US-UK invasion of Iraq, published earlier this month, was the decisive role of the ‘Atlantic reflex’. The committee chaired by former supreme court judge Willibrord Davids concluded the ministry of foreign affairs had treated the question primarily as an issue of alliance with its strongest international partner, rather than an issue to be decided on merits of international law.

Read on >> | nrc.nl – International – Opinion – The future of Dutch foreign policy

he attorney general’s change of mind on the legality of force against Iraq appears a tragic compromise of his independence

Lord Goldsmith’s appearance at the Iraq inquiry was just what one would expect from a leading lawyer who is used to appearing before the country’s highest courts. He was calm and reassuring – a bit like drinking hot chocolate, said a friend – and he was well-prepared and authoritative.

But did he do enough to dispel the doubts about the integrity and independence of the decision-making process that led to his eleventh-hour opinion that the Iraq war was unambiguously lawful?

By Philippe Sands

Read more >> | The Guardian

ony Blair only got the “green light” to invade Iraq after his Attorney General visited Washington and was told by US lawyers that he was wrong to oppose the war.

Lord Goldsmith told the Iraq Inquiry today that he altered his advice a few weeks before the bombing of Baghdad after a series of meetings with American legal advisors. He had initially warned that United Nations resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, did not provide a legal basis for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Read more >> | US lawyers persuaded Lord Goldsmith to change his mind on Iraq war – Times Online

oreign secretary resisted legal advice on invasion of Iraq
- Attorney general’s advice not sought until eleventh hour

While Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, was roundly dismissing the unanimous advice of his top lawyers that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal, officials in Downing Street were strongly resisting similar unwelcome advice, this time from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general.

Previously classified documents released today at the Chilcot inquiry offer a rare, perhaps unprecedented, insight into manoeuvring at the heart of government about one of the most serious issues to confront ministers – whether to go to war, and the lawfulness of it.

Read more >> | The Guardian

See also >> | Lord Goldsmith
See also >> | Straw’s clash with lawyers laid bare at Iraq inquiry – BBC News

he stark divisions at the heart of government on the eve of the Iraq war were blown open again today when Jack Straw hinted that he considered his position in the build-up to the conflict.

The Justice Secretary, who was Foreign Secretary at the time of the invasion, handed a 25-page memo to the official Iraq Inquiry before he gave evidence this afternoon, which stated that he believed he had a “profoundly difficult” moral dilemma when he was asked whether to support the war.

“The moral as well as the political dilemma were profoundly difficult,” he wrote. “I was also fully aware that my support for military action was critical.

Read more >> | The Times Online

See also >> | The Jack Straw Memorandum (pdf)

See also >> | Chris Ames – The Guardian
See also >> | I could have vetoed UK military action in Iraq, Jack Straw tells inquiry – The Guardian
See also >> | Jack Straw at the Iraq war inquiry – The Guardian
See also >> | Jack Straw says 45-minute Iraq claim has ‘haunted us’
See also >> | The Iraq Inquiry Timetable

hairman of Iraq inquiry also suggests then-attorney general was discouraged from expressing his doubts about war in writing

Lord Goldsmith was not convinced that war in Iraq would be legal even after the UN security council passed resolution 1441 in November 2002, Sir John Chilcot said today.

Basing his remarks on papers he has read but which have not been made public, the chairman of the Iraq inquiry said that the then-attorney general, “immediately after 1441 had been secured, said he would need some time to reflect on it. And it appears from what we read that he did not feel convinced at that time – I’m talking about post-November, before March – that standing on its own it would be a secure base.”

Chilcot also suggested that Goldsmith had been discouraged from expressing his doubts about the war in writing.

Read more >> | The Guardian

See also >> | The Times: Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair over legality of the Iraq war
See also >> | Iraq Inquiry Digest
See also >> | Telegraph: Iraq Inquiry: Lord Goldsmith ‘materially’ changed legal advice in days before war

etter to PM from foreign secretary challenged gravity of threat from Saddam in lead-up to pivotal meeting with Bush

Jack Straw privately warned Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq was legally dubious, questioned what such action would achieve, and challenged US claims about the threat from Saddam Hussein, it was revealed today

Read more >> | The Guardian

he Labour party (PvdA) emerged victorious from political scuffles surrounding the Iraq inquiry report. But it may yet pay a price.

Deputy prime minister Wouter Bos was finally allowed to address parliament an hour after midnight during the debate Wednesday night. Until then, the leader of Dutch Labour party PvdA had sat silently beside prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende, his head bowed modestly, constantly fidgeting with his Blackberry. The body language of the leaders of the two largest governing parties revealed a fissure between them that words did not express.

Bos’ Labour party, PvdA, was trying hard not to wallow too much in its victory, striving to remain cool and collected, and not aggravate the prime minister’s Christian democrat CDA party any further.

Read more >> | nrc.nl – International – Background – Prime minister disgraced, governing coalition strained

nternational law was sacrificed to political interests. Don’t pretend otherwise.

Anyone who believed international law had an influence on issues of war and peace is an illusion poorer after the report of the Davids commission on the Dutch support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In 2002, international law carried no weight in the Dutch political capital, The Hague, we discovered yesterday. Legal arguments were subordinated to political interests. According to the commission, there was no adequate legal mandate for the military operation. The legal argument that was employed by the Netherlands “could not be defended”. And there was also no thorough or real legal preparation. At the ministry of Foreign Affairs, moreover, officials were radically divided on the matter, an “extremely unfortunate” state of affairs.

Read more >> | nrc.nl – International – Opinion – International law took back seat to politics

rime minister Jan Peter Balkenende has written to parliament to say the cabinet now accepts that ‘a more adequate legal mandate’ was necessary for the US and Britain to invade Iraq.

The statement comes just one day after the prime minister responded to a highly critical report on the Dutch involvement in Iraq by saying the legalities of the war were ‘a difference of opinion’.

Read more >> | DutchNews.nl – Iraq report: PM now accepts criticism

e brief, bron; Marcel Kruijer. Zie ook desite van AZ

Onder verwijzing naar de regeling van werkzaamheden van uw Kamer van heden hecht ik eraan om te bevestigen dat ik gisteren na afstemming met de vice-ministerpresidenten en de meest betrokken bewindspersonen, namens het kabinet een eerste verklaring heb afgelegd.

Ik heb in deze verklaring gezegd dat door de commissie Davids een gedegen studie is verricht naar de gebeurtenissen in 2002 en 2003. Daarbij is intensief gebruik gemaakt van al het voorhanden bronnenmateriaal. Uit de verantwoording van de commissie blijkt nog eens dat de commissie haar werkzaamheden in volledige onafhankelijkheid heeft kunnen uitvoeren. Zij heeft toegang gehad tot alle informatie die zij nodig achtte, inclusief de notulen van de ministerraad en informatie van de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten. Nooit eerder heeft een onderzoekscommissie zo uitgebeid kunnen putten uit onze informatiebronnen.

Het is zaak om het rapport van de commissie Davids de komende tijd grondig te bestuderen ten behoeve van een nadere kabinetsreactie. Daar zal enige tijd mee gemoeid zijn. In de kabinetsreactie zal vanzelfsprekend worden ingegaan op de conclusies van de commissie.

Daarnaast zullen aan de kabinetsreactie worden gevoegd de antwoorden op de door de Tweede en Eerste Kamer gestelde vragen voor zover die niet in het rapport van de commissie worden geadresseerd.

Onder verwijzing naar het verzoek van uw vaste commissie voor Buitenlandse Zaken van 1 december 2009 (kenmerk 2009Z21041/2009D60798) deel ik u mede dat het kabinet het voornemen heeft begin februari 2010 een reactie op het rapport van de commissie Davids aan de Staten-Generaal te verzenden.

Het kabinet zal het rapport van de commissie Davids leidend laten zijn bij een kritische terugblik op het verleden en het trekken van lessen voor de toekomst.

Een onderwerp dat zeker in de reactie terug zal komen is het volkenrechtelijke mandaat. Destijds was de Nederlandse regering evenals die van verscheidene andere staten van oordeel dat de betreffende VR-resoluties een toereikende grondslag vormde voor het – door Nederland politiek ondersteunde – militaire optreden van de door de Verenigde Staten en het Verenigd Koninkrijk geleide coalitie. Gebleken is dat dit standpunt in de internationale gemeenschap onvoldoende steun heeft gevonden en ook door andere landen niet langer wordt aanvaard.

Het toenmalig kabinet was er echter van overtuigd dat er toen een zuivere en integere afweging is gemaakt. Hierover is uitvoerig met uw Kamer van gedachten gewisseld. Een ruime Kamermeerderheid heeft het kabinet toen daarin gesteund.

In het coalitieakkoord dat ten grondslag ligt aan het huidige kabinet is reeds bepaald dat een adequaat volkenrechtelijk mandaat is vereist bij deelname van een missie met Nederlandse militairen. Deze bepaling is mede opgenomen tegen de achtergrond van de discussie die bestond over de rechtgrondslag van de inval in Irak (zie ook de brief van de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken en Defensie van 22 juni 2007). In het licht van deze ontwikkelingen en met de kennis van nu aanvaardt het kabinet dat voor een dergelijk optreden een adequater volkenrechtelijk mandaat nodig zou zijn geweest.

DE MINISTER-PRESIDENT,

Minister van Algemene Zaken,

mr.dr. J.P. Balkenende

e lang verwachtte brief van het kabinet is naar de kamer. Van de Tweed van Boris van der Ham….

“Ik heb in deze verklaring gezegd dat door de commissie een gedegen studie is verricht naar de gebeurtenissen in 2002/3(…)
Het is zaak om het rapport van de commissie Davids de komende tijd grondig te bestuderen ten behoeve van een nadere kabinetsreactie.
Daar zal enige tijd mee gemoeid zijn. In de kabinetsreactie zal vanzelfsprekend worden ingegaan op de conclusies van de commissie.
Daarnaast zullen aan de kabinetsreactie worden gevoegd de antwoorden op de door de Tweede en Eerste Kamer gestelde vragen voor zover..
..e niet in het rapport van de commissie worden geadresseerd. nder verwijzing naar het verzoek van uw vaste commissie voor Buza 1 dec 2009..
…deel u mede dat het kabinet voornemen heeft in februari 2010 een reactie op het rapport van de commissie Davids aan kamers te zenden
…Het kabinet zal rapport van commissie leidend laten zijn bij een kritische terugblik op het verleden en het trekken van lessen toekomst.
‘met kennis van nu aanvaardt het kabinet dat voor Iral optreden adequater volkenrechtelijk mandaat nodig zou zijn geweest’.

brief met instemming Bos en Rouvoet, ook al staan handtekeningen er niet onder [Jaap Jansen]

In CDA-top hoor ik: we hebben concessie gedaan aan pvda om kabinet overeind te houden… [Jaap Jansen]

id the British trick the Dutch after the invasion? Questions answered about the Iraq-report.

Willibrord Davids was the chairman of the special committee of inquiry charged with the investigation of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He is also a master of understatement. When he presented his report to prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende on Tuesday, he dryly pointed out that the “sturdy tome” he bore had only one thing in common with a liber amicorum or festschrift, a gift commonly presented to friends in academic circles singing praises of its recepient: the element of surprise.

The report answers several questions that have burned on many a politician’s lips for years. Below, four of the foremost.

Read more >> | nrc.nl – International – Features – Report answers questions on Iraq

he Dutch governing coalition has become divided after a study lambasted the handling of the run-up to the Iraq war on Tuesday.

The brewing crisis was set off by the presentation of a report by a special committee of inquiry chaired by the retired supreme court judge Willibrord Davids. The committee had been charged with investigating the decision-making process surrounding the run-up to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, which the Dutch supported politically, but not militarily.

Read more >> | nrc.nl – International – After Iraq study, crisis brewing for Dutch government

utch MPs will this afternoon hold an emergency debate on yesterday’s hard hitting report on the Netherlands’ role in the Iraq conflict in 2003.

And there are growing reports of a serious rift between the Christian Democrat prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende and Labour MPs over the government’s initial response to the report.

A motion by the Liberal democratic party D66 was given unanimous support by MPs. Balkenende and deputy prime minister and Labour leader Wouter Bos have also been summoned to attend.

Read more >> | DutchNews.nl – Iraq report: emergency debate this afternoon

nquiry says conflict had no sound mandate in international law as it emerges UK denied key letter to seven-judge tribunal

The war in Iraq had “no basis in international law”, a Dutch inquiry found today, in the first ever independent legal assessment of the decision to invade.

In a series of damning findings, a seven-member panel in the Netherlands concluded that the war, which was supported by the Dutch government following intelligence from Britain and the US, had not been justified in law.

Read more >> | The Guardian

rime minister Jan Peter Balkenende does not agree with a number of the conclusions of the Davids’ commission report which heavily criticised the way the government came to support the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The prime minister told a news conference late on Tuesday afternoon that parliament was fully informed about the Americans’ request for help in preparing the invasion. The report said MPs had not been kept in touch with all developments.

Read more >> | DutchNews.nl – Prime minister disagrees with Iraq report

ommissielid en hoogleraar Volkenrecht Prof.mr Nico Schrijver geeft een toelichting voor nrc.tv en vindt dat het besluitvormingsproces geen “schoonheidsprijs” verdient.

ony Blair’s ex-spokesman Alastair Campbell has said he “defends every single word” of the 2002 dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Campbell told the UK’s Iraq war inquiry the dossier could have been “clearer” but did not “misrepresent” the threat from Saddam’s weapons.

Read more >> | BBC News

he Dutch government was less than truthful in presenting its case for the invasion of Iraq to parliament, a report released on Tuesday noted.

A special committee of inquiry established by prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende has come to these conclusions after conducting an investigation into the run-up to the invasion that took several months. The committee, chaired by retired Dutch supreme court judge Willibrord Davids, found no evidence supporting the oft-reported rumour that the Dutch offered clandestine military support in the invasion.

Read more >> | nrc.nl – International – Dutch government misrepresented case for Iraq war

See also >> | Conclusions and summay in English

en gesprek met Hans Steketee, in 2004 correspondent in Londen voor het NRC Handelsblad, naar aanleiding van het besluit van het kabinet eindelijk een onderzoek in te stellen naar de Nederlandse betrokkenheid in de oorlog tegen Saddam Hoessein.