It is the “emphatic wish of the cabinet” to “make a difference in the world,” the new Minister of Foreign Affairs Tom Berendsen (CDA) said in the House of Representatives on Tuesday. But Berendsen confused the House about whether the Netherlands also wants to make that fist to protect international law.
The House had called the minister to the plenary room to hear what exactly the Dutch position is on the attack by the United States and Israel on Iran. Berendsen called that decision a “struggle.” The minister had previously said that it is not up to him to assess whether the attack complies with international law. But on Tuesday he said he had no understanding of “violation of international law” – as if, in his opinion, the US and Israel had been guilty of it. But he also understood the “need” for “intervention” for the United States and Israel. According to him, the situation is “not black and white.”
GroenLinks-PvdA MP Kati Piri wondered what exactly the minister understands, if not for the violation of international law. According to Volt leader Laurens Dassen, Berendsen is “bringing international law to the grave” by not taking a clear position.
From the right side of the House, Berendsen was accused of not immediately standing behind the US and Israel. PVV leader Geert Wilders saw too little appreciation for the American and Israeli “heroes” who carried out the attacks. Gidi Markuszower (Group Markuszower) would even like the Netherlands to provide “military support”.
Confusion
Confusion arose over the weekend about the government’s position. On Saturday, Berendsen called for “restraint” and de-escalation from Kyiv, where he was, among other things, to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Rob Jetten (D66), who had his first party conference as prime minister in Nieuwegein, responded at the end of the morning with a similar call for “restraint” – he repeated the word a number of times.
But later on Saturday, Defense Minister Dilan Yesilgöz, who was in Ukraine with Berendsen this weekend, responded with a different message. According to her, “one might wonder how realistic” de-escalation “is” in the case of Iran. She did not mean to say, she emphasized, that the attacks by the US and Israel are “the appropriate way” to deal with Iran.
Also read
A statement in Kyiv, a crisis in Tehran. ‘We continue to support Ukraine’
On Monday afternoon, the government’s position appeared to have shifted towards Yesilgöz. Then Berendsen said no NU.nl to “understand” the “risky attacks” by Israel and the US, including because of the nuclear weapons program and Iranian support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. According to Berendsen, international law is “not the only framework” through which the situation can be viewed. “You also have to be realistic given the murderousness of the regime in Iran,” said Berendsen.
Piri from GroenLinks-PvdA wondered on Tuesday what had changed in the two days between Jetten’s first statement and Berendsen’s explanation on Monday. Berendsen has, he said on Tuesday, gone through “the same struggle in recent hours and days as many MPs”. According to Berendsen, Dutch politics will have to have “this conversation” more often, in the “changing world order”.
International law
This will also have to be discussed within his own coalition. VVD faction leader Ruben Brekelmans called the cabinet’s initial response “flat and neutral” and wondered “why it took more than 48 hours for the cabinet to express understanding for the American and Israeli efforts.”
He went one step further by wondering why this issue was so much about international law in the first place. “If anyone has flouted international law,” it is Iran, he said.
Also read
‘An attack on Iran is only allowed if there is an immediate threat. That was very clearly not the case’
Berendsen understood after the “initial response from the cabinet” that there was criticism. The government’s “response is now in order”, he believes. The “call for restraint” was mainly addressed to Iran, the minister said on Tuesday. But in doing so, he is rewriting history, according to a number of factions: in his initial statement he explicitly called on “all parties to exercise restraint.”
Various reasons
SP MP Sarah Dobbe asked what the minister thinks are the “motives of the US and Israel”. Berendsen found this “difficult to explain”. That is why “we have to make do” with the official US explanation. But that is precisely what is confusing. If only because Trump himself gave various reasons for the attack.
He mentioned Iran’s development of nuclear technology. According to him, Iran is also trying to develop long-range missiles that would endanger both Europe and America. He also told American media that he was pursuing “freedom for the Iranian people.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the US is not after ‘regime change‘. It remained unclear which ‘official explanation’ Berendsen was basing himself on.
Also read
The US Congress must learn Trump’s plans for Iran from the media
