Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:29:15.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parliamentary Control over Foreign Policy in The Netherlands*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Peter R. Baehr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE SUBJECT OF PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OVER FOREIGN POLICY IN the Netherlands has increased in importance in recent months following the latest Arab-Israeli war and the ensuing reduction in Arab oil production. In addition to their general cutback of oil production, the Arab states singled out the United States and the Netherlands as ‘friends of Israel’ to whom oil supplies were to be limited even further. While the United States seemed an obvious target for such an embargo because of its open political and military support of Israel, opinions still differ as to why the Netherlands received this dubious distinction. The most obvious explanation - the traditional political and moral support for Israel by all Dutch governments, whatever their political composition - has not been universally accepted. Some commentators, including Foreign Minister Van der Stoel, have assumed that the Arab states wanted to put pressure on the entire Western European economy by hitting the important oil retining capacity of Rotterdam. This it was hoped would lead to a demand from economic circles to support the Arab cause. Whatever the underlying reasons, the oil embargo has had important consequences for the economic life of the Netherlands.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1974 , pp. 165 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lipson, Leslie, The Democratic Civilization, Oxford University Press, New York, 1964, p. 569 Google Scholar. See for recent contributions to the debate on the meaning of democracy for instance: Bachrach, Peter, The Theory of Democratic Elitism, University of London Press, London, 1969 Google Scholar; Dahl, Robert A., After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society, Yale University Press, New York & London, 1970 Google Scholar.

2 John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, ch. XII.

3 ‘Of essential importance to each citizen domestically is the observation of the laws, the property of goods and the security of private matters. As long as everything goes well with these three points, the councils should negotiate and deal with foreign countries. It is not from there the dangers which should be feared most, will come.’—Jean‐Jacques Rousseau, Lettres écrties de la montagne VII, second partie, in: Oeuvres complètes de J‐J. Rousseau, Hachette, Paris, 1905, Vol. 3–4, p. 217.

4 Graber, Doris A., Public Opinion, the President and Foreign Policy: Four Case‐Studies from the Formative Years, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1968, p. 8.Google Scholar

5 Following Legg and Morison, we define foreign policy as ‘a set of explicit or implicit objectives with regard to world beyond the borders of a given social unit and a set of strategies and tactics designed to achieve those objectives’. Cf. for further observations on the general problem of democratic control of foreign policy: Peter R. Baehr, ‘Democratic Control of Foreign Policy’, paper prepared for presentation at the ECPR workshop on ‘Models of International Relations’ in Mannheim, 12–18 April 1973.

6 For relevant accounts in English of the Dutch political system, see Daulder, Hans, ‘Parties and politics in the Netherlands’, Political Studies, Vol. 3 (1965), pp. 1–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lijphant, Arend, The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley, California University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Baehr, P. R., ‘The Netherlands’, in Henig, Stanley and Pinder, John (eds.), European Political Parties (London, Allen and Unwin 1969), pp. 256–81Google Scholar.

7 Netherlands Constitution, article 58.

8 Netherlands Constitution, article 55.

9 Rales of Procedure of the Council of Ministers, articles 2b, c, and d.

10 Netherlands Constitution, article 59.

11 Article 61 of the constitution read as follows: ‘Approval is given either expressly or tacitly. Express approval shall be regarded as having been given, unless, within thirty days after the submission of the agreement, a statement has been made by or on behalf of either of the Chambers of the States General or by at least one fifth of the constitutional membership of either of the Chambers expressing the wish that the agreement shall be submitted also to the decision of the States General. The period referred to in the previous paragraph shall be suspended for the time of adjournment of the States General.’

12 Netherlands Constitution, article 63.

13 Netherlands Constitution, articles 65 and 66; see: van Panhuys, H. F., ‘The Netherlands Constitution and International Law: A Decade of Experience’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. LVIII, 1964, pp. 100–6Google Scholar.

14 Cf. Baehr, Peter R., ‘The Foreign Policy of the Netherlands’, in Barston, Ronald P. (ed.), The Other Powers: Studies in the Foreign Policies of Small States, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1975, pp. 61–91.Google Scholar

15 Before becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1956, he served for four years as Minister Without Portfolio charged with foreign affairs under foreign minister Beyen.

16 His successor, Mr Norbert Schmelzer, was also a leading member of the Catholic People’s Party. He was in his turn succeeded in 1973 by a socialist, Mr Max van der Stoel.

17 See for instance Proceedings of the Budgetary Committee for Foreign Affairs of the Second Chamber of Parliament, 1st meeting, 1 December 1965, pp. C 602–8.

18 Proceedings Second Chamber, 27th meeting, 30 November 1971, p. 1432.

19 Proceedings Second Chamber, 28th meeting, 1 December 1971, p. 1498.

20 The fact that the foreign service is a division that is separate from the other divisions of the department, has been a permanent bone of contention. It has its own entrance examinations, which are formal and supposedly more strict than the usual application procedures for the remainder of the department’s divisions. Above all, the diplomatic service has a tradition and an esprit de corps of its own, which serves as a source of irritation for other people, both inside and outside the department. It still tends to attract members of the aristocracy and it has often been suspected that they could more easily enter the service than people of lower social background. A more recent form of antagonism between the diplomatic service and other divisions in the department concerns civil servants within the department who complain about being given insufficient opportunities to occupy positions abroad. On the other hand, it is regretted by some that the foreign service officers get only once or twice during their thirty years of service the opportunity of working in the department. This tends to widen the gap between the people who write the instructions at home and those who have to execute them abroad. (Cf. Boon, H. N. & Schneider, C. J., ‘Binnendienst en Buitendienst’, Internationale Spectator, Vol. XXIV, No. 17, 8 10 1970, pp. 1553–65.Google Scholar)

21 Proceedings Second Chamber, 27th meeting, 30 November 1971, pp. 1430–41.

22 Proceedings Second Chamber, 28th meeting, 1 December 1971, p. 1498.

23 Ibid., p. 1499.

24 Explanatory Memorandum to the Budget for 1973, chapter V, Foreign Affairs, p. 3. When the budget for foreign affairs was discussed in parliament in February 1973, the minister said again, as he had said more than a year before, that the matter was the subject of ‘intensive consultations’ with representatives of the personnel of both services. These consultations might take considerable time in view of the complexity of the matter and the manifold desires which had been expressed by the personnel representatives. (Proceedings Second Chamber, 17th meeting, 21 February 1973, p. 629.)

25 Proceedings Second Chamber, 26th meeting, 25 November 1971, p. 1376.

26 Proceedings Second Chamber, 27th meeting, 30 November 1971, p. 1426.

27 Proceedings Second Chamber, 26th meeting, 25 November 1971, pp. 1390–1.

28 Ibid.

29 Proceedings Second Chamber, 26th meeting, 25 November 1971, pp. 1375–6.

30 Proceedings Second Chamber, 26th meeting, 25 November 1971, p. 1390.

31 Cf. also: Wallace, Helen, National Governments and the European Communities, PEP European Series, 04 1973, pp. 33–5Google Scholar.

32 A similar allegation has been made with regard to the Netherlands delegation to the first UNCTAD conference in 1964; cf. van der Beugel, E. H., Nederland in de Westelijke Samenwerking: Enkele Aspecten van de Nederlandse Beleidsvorming, E. J. Brill, Leyden, 1966, pp. 23–4Google Scholar; the same author, ‘Vaststellen en Uitvoeren van Buitenlandse Politiek: Verhouding Buitenlandse Zaken‐Vakministeries’, Internationale Spectator, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, 8 January 1970, pp. 67–75.

33 Van der Beugel, Nederland in de Westelijke Samenwerking, p. 18.

34 Ibid., p. 24.

35 Proceedings Second Chamber, 1971–1972, nr. 11743, Brief van de Minister‐President, Minister van Algemene Zaken, 9 March 1972.

36 Proceedings Second Chamber, 1971–1972, 57th meeting, 21 March 1972, p. 2817.

37 Ibid., p. 2820.

38 Ibid., p. 2820.

39 Ibid., p. 2823.

40 Ibid., p. 2822.

41 Ibid., p. 2824.

42 Ibid., p. 2853.

43 De Volkskrant, 12 March 1973.

44 Proceedings Second Chamber, 1971–1972, 26th meeting, 25 November 1971, p. 1377.

45 Proceedings Second Chamber, 1972–1973, 17th meeting, 21 February 1973, p. 653.

46 Proceedings Second Chamber, extraordinary session 1967, 21st meeting, 25 August 1967, pp. 683–4.

47 See speech by Mr Luns to the General Assembly, 3 October 1967.

48 Proceedings Second Chamber, 1971–1972, 91st meeting, 13 September 1972, p. 4287.

49 Remarks of Minister Schmelzer to that effect, Proceedings Second Chamber, 1971–1972, 92nd meeting, 14 September 1972, p. 4302.

50 Proceedings Second Chamber, 1971–1972, 91st meeting, 13 September 1972, p. 4283.

51 Richards, Peter G., Parliament and Foreign Affairs, Allen & Unwin, London, 1967, p. 159.Google Scholar

52 ‘PvdA leden: Chili Hoeft Schuld Niet Te Voldoen’, NRC/Handelsblad, 13 February 1973; Letters to the Editor, De Volkskrant, 19 February 1973.

53 The following observations are in part a revised version of an earlier study; see Baehr, Peter R., The Role of a National Delegation in the General Assembly, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York, 1970, pp. 79–90.Google Scholar

54 See Delegations to the United Nations: 27th session of the General Assembly, United Nations, New York, 1972.

55 Organisatie en Reorganisatie van bet Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken, The Hague, 1950, p. 92. Similar views are expressed by Beichman, Arnold, The ‘Other’ State Department, the United States Mission to the United Nations—Its Role in the Making of Foreign Policy, Basic Books, New York & London, 1968, p. 194 Google Scholar, and Carroll, Holbert N., The House of Representatives and Foreign Affairs, Boston, rev. ed., 1966, p. 343.Google Scholar

56 Cf. Alger, Chadwick F., ‘United States Participation as a Learning Experience’, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. XXVII, 1963, p. 423.Google Scholar

57 van Raalte, E., Het NeaerlanJse Parlement, Staatsuitgeverij, 1971, The Hague, p. 260.Google Scholar

58 Organisatie en Reorgaaisatie, p. 93.

59 See Vandenberg, Arthur H. Jr. (ed.), The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1952, p. 331.Google Scholar

60 ‘Kamerlid Wierenga: Kritiek op de UNO Delegatie: Wat Luns Heeft Bepaald Gebeurt’, De Volkskrant, 26 June 1969; see also Baehr, Peter R., ‘Kamerleden en Regeringsdelegaties: Een Oud Probleem Opnieuw Bezien’, Acta Politica, Vol. 1, No. 1, 10 1969, pp. 3–19 Google Scholar.

61 Cf. Cornelissen, Igor, ‘Touwtrekken bij de Nederlandse Delegatie in New York’, Vrij Nederland, 20 11, 1971 Google Scholar and ‘Adviseur UNO‐delegatie Van den Doel: China‐Politiek Dubbelzinnig’, De Volkskrant, 22 October 1971.

62 Statement by Mr Piket at a meeting of the Netherlands Association for the United Nations, 8 February 1973.

63 Tteviranus, Hans D., Aussetipolitik in deutschen Kechlsstaat. J. C. B. Mohr, Tübingen, Paul Siebeck, 1966, p. 88.Google Scholar

64 Treviranus, p. 95.

65 Destler, J. M., Presidents, Bureaucrats and Foreign Policy: The Politics of Organizational Reform, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1972, pp. 85–6Google Scholar.