Oil, the Dutch Iraq inquiry on the Iraq war, and the missing letter

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Oil, the Dutch Iraq inquiry on the Iraq war, and the missing letter
By Ann Talbot
22 January 2010

The Davids Commission, which investigated the role of the Netherlands
in the 2003 Iraq war, has declared that the war was illegal. The panel
of commissioners included experienced European jurists.

The report has also thrown up new evidence about the role of the
British government under Prime Minister Tony Blair in preparing the
war. In the course of the commission’s investigation, it was alleged
that in 2003 the British ambassador presented a letter from Blair to
Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister. He insisted that this
letter was for Balkenende’s eyes only, and that the Dutch prime
minister had to read it in his presence and immediately hand it back
to him.

“It was a surprise for our committee when we discovered information
about this letter,” Rob Sebes told the press conference at the launch
of the Davids Commission report. “It was not sent with a normal
procedure between countries. Instead, it was a personal message from
Tony Blair to our Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkanende, and had to be
returned and not stored in our archives. We asked the British
government to hand over the letter, but they refused.”

The committee had every reason to express surprise. This was a
remarkable breach of diplomatic procedure. Such communications would
normally be archived by senders and recipients. That is the basis on
which history is written and, perhaps more significantly in this case,
such diplomatic archives, along with other key government papers, are
the basis on which prosecutions under international law are built.

The British government have suppressed a key piece of evidence. The
extraordinary way in which they made the case for war to the Dutch
government suggests that Blair knew at the time that his arguments
would not bear scrutiny.

Other UK papers were made available to the Davids Commission. Until
Blair’s letter is produced, it can only be assumed that it contains
damaging evidence which the British government wishes to hide.

It is not known if the British Chilcot Commission, which is currently
investigating the Iraq war, has seen a copy of the letter, because
there is no published list of the documents that have been made
available to the inquiry. Chilcot may have been told, like the Davids
Commission, that this was a personal letter. But if a letter between
two prime ministers in a run-up to a war can be deemed personal, then
many other relevant documents can be similarly concealed.

The Netherlands gave political support to the war, but they did not
participate directly in the invasion. After the invasion, the
Netherlands was among the few European countries to take part in the
occupation of Iraq. Some 1,100 Dutch troops served under British
command in the south. But there have been persistent rumours that
Dutch special forces were involved at an earlier date.

According to the Times of London, Co Kolijn, a Dutch defence
specialist, has pointed out that Dutch forces were involved in three
other military operations in the area at the time of the invasion. It
would therefore have been comparatively easy to organise covert
military operations in Iraq.

Dutch special forces are currently serving in Afghanistan.

The Davids Commission said that it could find no evidence that Dutch
special forces took part in the invasion. It expressed concern that
commercial interests may have played a part in influencing the
government decision to back the war. It recognised that “the Dutch
business community stood to gain from the existence of a level playing
field in post-war Iraq.” These were the very words that Shell and BP
used when they met the UK government as the Iraq war began. They
called for “a level playing field” for all oil companies after the war.

Commercial interests vital to both Britain and the Netherlands are at
stake in Iraq. The Anglo-Dutch company Royal Dutch Shell has just won
a major oil contract in the Iraqi Majnoon field, defeating the rival
French company Total. Majnoon is thought to be the largest oil field
in the world. It may hold some 12.8 billion barrels of oil reserves.
Shell will have a major stake in it, alongside Malaysia’s Petronas.
Shell also has interests in the West Qrna Phase 1 field jointly with
Exxon Mobil.

As the Financial Times pointed out, “Royal Dutch Shell, in particular,
is counting its blessings that Baghdad has opened up the world’s
third-largest oil reserves more than 30 years after they were
nationalised and six years after Saddam Hussein was overthrown by a
US-led invasion force.

“Shell, out of all of its peers, is struggling most to step up its
production as old, profitable fields decline and new reserves are
proving increasingly difficult to secure.”

Shell’s role in Iraq goes back to the days of the British occupation
after World War I, when deals were signed that were to persist into
the 1950s and the overthrow of the British-backed monarch. The links
between Shell and the British government remain close. At least two
senior British civil servants have gone on to directorships at Shell
when they retired from the Foreign Office.

The Davids Commission commented on the fact that the Dutch government
had gone against the usual European orientation in its foreign policy
and had allowed transatlantic influences to dominate its decision on
Iraq. The report expressed regret that, “In the period examined by the
Committee the ‘Atlantic reflex’ prevailed over a Eurocentric
response.” As a result, the Netherlands has lost its ability to act as
an intermediary between Britain on the one side and France and Germany
on the other, the report concluded.

“The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose
purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy,” the report
stated. But it offered no explanation of why the government should
have acted in this way. “It may therefore be said,” the report
continued, “that the Dutch stance was to some extent disingenuous.”

It is not only the Dutch government that is being disingenuous. The
Davids Commission, which met behind closed doors, is also being far
from frank. The report does not directly criticize the conduct of
Shell or suggest that the close relationship between Shell and the
British government may have led the Dutch government to break with its
previous policy. Yet that is the inescapable implication contained in
the report.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/dutc-j22.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********