27 857 Missile Defence

27 925 Combating international terrorism

No. 4 REPORT ON A GENERAL CONSULTATION

Adopted 16 April 2002

On 28 March 2002 the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Standing Committee on Defence consulted with Foreign Affairs Minister Jozias van Aartsen and Defence Minister Frank de Grave.

The reply by the ministers

The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not share the members' view that the Americans have now embraced unilateralism. On the contrary, in all his contacts with the American administration he sees a willingness to operate with and consult with allies. What should be borne in mind, though, is that the attacks in America on 11 September came as a shock and that this is having an effect on policy. The US realises more than ever that the threat has changed   and that an answer to that changed threat has to be found in a different strategic concept. The American government has not, however, neglected to seek out allies in its fight against terrorism. Europe should respond to that position by making an unequivocal investment in the transatlantic relationship. This is the very point on which the American side has some concerns. They relate to NATO's headline goals and the transformation of defence capabilities in some NATO member states. From their side, the Americans need signs from the EU that it is prepared to make the necessary effort in support of the alliance. At the same time, Washington does appreciate the policy of the 'purple cabinets' on this point.

The minister also denied that the Netherlands tends not to be critical when it should be. Comments have been directed at the Americans on their unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty, the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and their restrictive measures on steel imports. The Netherlands is critical when criticism is warranted, but must also declare its support when there is reason to do so.

The minister also maintained that the US nuclear concept has not changed. He believes that members wrongly see reports that do not come directly from the American government as an interpretation of the policy. The NPR, however, is not a schedule. It is a broad, conceptual analysis initiated by the administration at the request of Congress. It has not changed the nuclear doctrine, and the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons has not been lowered. The aim is, in fact, to raise the nuclear threshold. The development of weapons capable of destroying bunkers deep underground is certainly on the agenda, but the aim here is to reinforce the arsenal's deterrent effect. So the US is not intending to move away from the test moratorium either. The US and the Russian Federation are now holding intensive talks about a legally binding instrument to regulate the proposed reductions of strategic arsenals, including verification based on START I. They are also discussing the promotion of transparency, the implementation of confidence-building measures, cooperation on Missile Defence, and non-proliferation. This consultative process therefore contradicts the assumption that these powers are intent on starting an arms race and would endeavour to build their stocks of missiles with multiple nuclear warheads.

The new threat to the US has underscored the importance of the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime). One of the major themes of the MTCR is the adoption of an ICOC (International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation). The ICOC would be the first step towards reducing the risk of the spread of missiles. Its success will depend very much on the level of support it attracts. The Netherlands has been very active on this front. It is trying, in the EU and bilaterally as well, to maintain the commitment of the parties that was clearly in evidence at the Paris conference in February. Iran's presence at the conference was extremely significant.

Reports have appeared in the press that may indicate that the problems the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) is experiencing could have something to do with the organisation's policy towards Iraq. But the OPCW does not have a mandate to carry out inspections on its own account in Iraq. There is some concern, though, about the OPCW's financial situation and management culture. A solution will be sought at the meeting of treaty partners in April. The minister stressed the importance of a quick solution to the question of weapons inspections in Iraq. The Secretary-General of the UN is in contact with the Iraqi government and will be holding further talks with government representatives in April. This meeting will not include negotiations on implementation  of Resolution 1284, but the resolution will be elucidated. The ultimate aim of negotiations will be the unconditional implementation of this resolution. Negotiating the implementation of Resolution 1284 is, however, only one aspect of American policy towards Iraq. The other aspect concerns the goods that Iraq is allowed to import. Naturally, the termination of the current mechanism for controlling the importation of goods into Iraq would require its replacement by an agreed list of goods to be controlled. The hope is that agreement on this will be reached in May. The outcome will depend largely on the negotiations held by the permanent members of the Security Council, especially the dialogue between the US and the Russian Federation. Military action is therefore not on the agenda. On the contrary, the US wishes to invest in consultation. In response to an interjection by Mr Harry van Bommel the minister said he stood by his view that the fight against terrorism should not be confused with the question of weapons inspections in Iraq. He did not believe, however, that it would be wise to set any limit on those inspections at the moment, because that could have an adverse effect. The minister also pointed out that a mandate could be agreed for discussions on unexploded devices in former war zones under the terms of the conventional weapons treaty chaired by the Netherlands. Worldwide, the number of landmine victims is falling. The Netherlands is actively working to address the problem of small arms. The minister would inform the House of the result of the Pretoria conference. Finally, in response to interjections by Mr Jan Dirk Blaauw and Mr Bert Koenders, the minister said he would provide the House with a written account of the government's view on the future of NATO.

The Minister of Defence added that the TMD project, whereby short and medium-range defence missiles would be deployed on ships, cannot currently be put into effect because the costs are too high. The American administration claims that the project's underlying objectives are still valid. The US is keen to discuss the question of how those objectives might now best be achieved. NATO is coordinating its policy on this point. The US will define its position in mid-May. The House can then be provided with more specific information. The minister will inform the House in writing of any changes to the new air defence and command frigates to be built. The minister also said that there is a clear distinction between MD and TMD. TMD is about protecting military units in the context, for example, of a peace mission. The scope of MD would extend to protection against the threat of long-range missiles from high-risk countries. MD plans, which therefore relate to space defence, do not form part of Dutch defence plans. There has been no change in Dutch policy as far as the use of cluster weapons is concerned. In conclusion, the minister also underlined the importance of transatlantic cooperation. He pointed out that both sides need to signal their willingness to invest in the relationship. In his view it was true to say that the US could pursue a broader security policy, for example by linking it to development cooperation. He was surprised, however, by the fact that there are members who reproach the US for its unilateralism while at the same time pressing for an end to NATO membership. Those whose aim is to withdraw from membership are the very ones who could be reproached for unilateralism.

Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

Chairman of the Standing Committee on Defence, Mr Gerrit Valk

Clerk of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, T.J.E. van Toor

House of Representatives, Parliamentary Session 2001-2002, 27 857 and 27 925, no. 4