Afghanistan Analysis: Dutch Government Falls Over Troop Withdrawal

UPDATE 0810 GMT: Afghanistan government officials say at least 33 civilians have been killed by a NATO air attack on a convoy of vehicles in Uruzgan. Nato confirmed that it fired on Sunday on a group of vehicles that it believed contained fighters, only to discover later that women and children were in the cars.

On Friday, our colleagues at The Holland Bureau --- one of the up-and-coming blogs on political issues in and beyond The Netherlands --- wrote:

We still have a government, for the moment. Opinion polls taken today indicate 45% in favour of Uruzgan [Dutch troops in Afghanistan] being worth a crisis, 35% against. Supporters of [Geert] Wilders’ PVV and the Socialists are above 60% in their hope that the Cabinet falls, as are – significantly – 55% of Labour. Yet overall 54% still come out hoping the Cabinet stays together, economic concerns being the main reason. It's rare that a foreign policy issue can be so divisive, and potentially so decisive.

Transcript: General Petraeus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Other US Conflicts (21 February)

Indeed. Less than 72 hours later, and the Government of Jan Peter Balkenende is no more. Balkenende, of the centre-right Christian Democrat CDA, wanted to extend the August deadline for withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan by a year. He miscalculated, possibly because of misleading signals, that he would the support of his coalition partner, the Labour Party; Labour leader and Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos announced:

A plan was agreed to when our soldiers went to Afghanistan. Our partners in the government didn't want to stick to that plan, and on the basis of their refusal we have decided to resign from this government.

With elections likely in May, the immediate issue is whether all 1,600 Dutch soldiers leave Uruzgan, southwest of Kabul and north of Kandahar. NATO's Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, filed an official request for the extension of the Dutch mission earlier this month.

The crisis exposes the too-common perception, at least in the US and UK press, of a military intervention in Afghanistan led by American forces, supported by a British junior partner. While 1600 Dutch troops may not seem much, compared to the 100,000+ that the US intends to have in place after its current escalation, any loss of soldiers --- especially in central Afghanistan --- is a blow to military plans.

Even more important, however, is the symbolic impact of this news. It comes in the middle of the vaunted US-led offensive, Operation Moshtarak, to clear the Taliban from Afghanistan's center and put in Afghan forces to hold the area. The vital support, beyond the word "coalition", of non-American troops is not just that they share the fighting; perhaps more importantly, they offer the image of peacekeeping and rebuilding after the Taliban are vanquished. The political message from Holland is that some politicians, supported by a large section of their public, don't buy the rhetoric that this will be the long but decisive resolution of Afghanistan's political, economic, and social issues.

There will be a lot of damage limitation this week from US and NATO press offices, and within America, there is the bonus of simply ignoring the story. (In his interview on US television yesterday, General David Petraeus, the overall American commander for the region, was never asked about the Holland situation, and he certainly did not volunteer a reaction.) But beyond US shores and en route to Afghanistan, others will see this as a wobble in the narrative of "this time, we win Afghanistan".

Greece: Europe Tries to Contain the Economic Crisis

Aysegül Er writes for EA:

As the shock of the ongoing financial crisis in Greece spreads through almost all of Europe, tensions are rising. On Friday, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou criticized the European Union's response to his country's financial requirements as timid and too slow. Papandreou claimed that EU institutions, the European Commission, member states, and the European Central Bank have failed to coordinate over the crisis and have undermined Greece’s credibility.

EU leaders maintain that Greece must take further measures to overcome its huge debts and should cut its budget deficit, which at 12.7 percent is four times higher than the upper limit set in the Eurozone, by 4 percent this year.


Papandreou said after the Brussels summit that his country was ready to take the extra action needed to reduce its deficit. “I think that political will is very clear,” he asserted, “Let us allow for the instrumentation to be something as a theoretical discussion, because we hope we will not be there because we are ready to take all the measures as well as Europe in order to be credible and to have a credible exit out of this crisis.”

EU ministers subsequently considered exceptional steps and coordinated action, if needed, to safeguard financial stability in the Euro-area. The EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs Olli Rehn said, "Our view is that risks are materializing, and therefore there is a clear case for additional measures.” The European Commission approved the Greek austerity plan and agreed to work with the European Central Bank to monitor Athens.

Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou denied that his country needed to take further austerity measures to cut its debt. He said, “My guess is that what will stop markets attacking Greece at the moment is a further more explicit message that makes operational what has been decided at the European Council." He pondered, “If we announce today new measures, will that stop markets attacking Greece?” but he then assured, “If additional fiscal measures are needed, we will take them.”

Israel-Russia: Situation Now A-OK on Iran?

On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to discuss Hamas, the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, sanctions on Iran, and Russian's pending delivery of  S-300 missiles to Tehran.

At the end of the day, both leaders got what they sought. Medvedev did not put himself under any commitment to punish Iran severely but maintained a "threatening" position vis-a-vis Tehran. He  told Netanyahu that Russia will hold off on  delivering the S-300s to Iran. A spokewoman added: "The position of Russia regarding sanctions remains unchanged. [But] if Iran remains uncooperative, no one can exclude the use of sanctions."

Netanyahu was satisfied to return home with the "success" of the deferred delivery of the S-300s, and he ticked another  box in his "efforts to exhaust every possible chance to achieve peace" before "the necessity of applying a pre-emptive strike" against Iran in the future.



Netanyahu also sent another message in Moscow at a dinner meeting with Greek counterpart George Papandreo : "Turkey will go nuclear if Iran becomes so". Netanyahu added he was concerned Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would soon begin their own attempts to develop a nuclear weapon.

On Hamas-Russia relations, Netanyahu implicitly asked Moscow to limit its relations with the Gazan organisation. A senior source in Netanyahu's entourage said the Israeli leader told  Medvedev, "We are not pleased with your relations with Hamas. But since they exist, we can relay messages on humanitarian issues. Tell Hamas they won't get a better offer from us on the deal [for Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by Hamas]."

So, after some fuss, nothing changed in the position vis-a-vis Tehran. Moscow might use the deferment of the sale of S-300 missiles to urge Netanyahu to stop plans by an Israeli firm to close a major arms deal with Georgia, a proposal leaked by Russian intelligence on Friday. In the long run, if not in the medium-term, Moscow can use its third party role, both with Hamas and with Tehran, to increase its credibility and bargaining power in the region. However, the question is how long can tension between the West and Tehran continue without a breaking point for Russia's search for a more cooperative Tehran?

Middle East Analysis: The Iran-Russia-Israel Triangle

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leaving for Russia on Sunday. At his weekly cabinet meeting, he said that he will push Moscow, "an important power and ally", for crippling sanctions on Iran during his meetings with  President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. "If Russia agrees to sanctions, China will find itself alone and may be forced to line up with the Western powers," an Israeli official said.

Middle East Inside Line: “Organ Harvesting” Furour, Clinton in Gulf, Hariri's Death, and More
Israel, Hamas, and Russia: Who is in Bed with the Bear?

Undoubtedly Netanyahu will ask Moscow to freeze its supply of advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran and to give full support at the UN Security Council to sanctions. Yet that raises a question from the other side. Given that Russia is involved not only in Israel's Palestinian question but also in Israel's "Hamas problem", on which case is Tel Aviv ready to give concessions?

Then add Iran to the triangle. What might Moscow seek to gain in Middle East at the expense of loosening its relationship with Iran, a relationship which once could have been its spearhead in the region? Will Moscow run the risk of losing a "nuclear-going" Iran or limit its response by not accepting Netanyahu's demands?

Ahh, the risk of going bed with the bear....

Turkey, Bosnia, and Serbia: A Balkans Breakthrough?

Fulya Inci writes for EA:

Could this be a Balkans breakthrough? Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu announced that Bosnia will open an embassy in Belgrade as the result of a trilateral meeting held in Turkey this week.

Serbian, Bosnian, and Turkish foreign ministers gathered for the fifth time since October, with Turkey mediating to repair the diplomatic ties between two Balkan countries. There have been diplomatic relations between Serbia and Bosnia, but they were frozen for three years after Belgrade rejected Bosnia's ambassador. While low-level diplomacy had been conducted, the restoration of full relations is crucial for bilateral ties. Bosnian Foreign Minister Sven Alkalaj said, “The appointment of the ambassador is a concrete result. We’re looking for this achievement to continue. This is very important for prosperity and stability in the Balkans.”

Davutoglu said the meetings will continue, with discussions in Sarajevo next month and in Belgrade in April. He added that the aim is to make the Balkans the center of cooperation and stability: “Balkanization will mean stabilization in the future.”



Although leaders are showing willingness for a solution, overcoming the confusion in the Balkans, especially in Bosnia, will be difficult. The country is already facing a constitutional crisis, as the political system formed by the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995 is on the brink of collapse. Bosnia’s two autonomous entities,the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska and the Croat-Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) federation, have each demanded more authority and the system is deadlocked as a result of different interests. Recently, Bosnian Serbs pledged to hold a referendum abaut Dayton, but it is being interpreted as a threat of independence from the international community. Answering a question abaut the issue in the Ankara meeting, Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic emphasized his country's policy of respecting territorial integrity, “The solution in Bosnia should be found through dialogue. We’re not going to change our policy.”

Meanwhile, the international community, including the European Union and the United States have been silent abaut the current developments. According to some Turkish journalists, EU officials are plagued by Turkey’s mediation in the region.