Five years ago, Derk Boswijk, as a candidate member of parliament for the CDA, along with other CDA members, called for legally establishing that the Netherlands adheres to the NATO standard. For too long, the Netherlands and Europe have benefited from the Americans for our security.
Due to the many conflicts and great unrest in the world, eyes have been opened, and investments in defense are being made again. Because safety is the foundation for freedom and connection. Things are moving in the right direction, but rebuilding what has been dismantled due to years of cuts is slow.
It is high time we take responsibility for our safety and get the basics in order.
Derk Boswijk
With this law, we prevent significant cuts in defense in the future, but we guarantee that Defense can keep us safe today and for generations to come.
During the debate in the First Chamber, Senator Madeleine van Toorenburg stated that the CDA faction fully supports the initiative law: Legally establishing the obligation to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense in our own legal order ensures a stable, adequate armed forces that are better able to defend the entire territory of the Kingdom. It also sends a clear signal to allies that the Netherlands is a reliable ally that keeps its commitments. Finally, a legally established minimum percentage of defense spending prevents the armed forces from being easily minimized again in the future due to cuts. These three arguments have fully convinced my faction.
Read the entire contribution from Madeleine van Toorenburg here
Chairman,
In reading documents, in preparation for a debate, there are always a few sentences that are so simple yet striking that they linger in your mind for a while. Now again, and I quote:
“In the years following the Cold War, there were significant cuts to the armed forces, but at the same time, the ambition to participate in international crisis management operations remained very high. This combination led to a war of attrition.”
End quote.
I fully recognize this, I also remember the sessions we held years ago to make significant cuts. Departmental committees wielded the demolition hammer. Everyone immediately shouted in chorus: cut defense!
When I think back on that... Especially given the fact that we participated with equal enthusiasm in foreign missions. Take Afghanistan and Mali.
While defense had actually been running on empty for a long time.
Fortunately, the tide has turned, and with this proposal, we anchor our obligations to our citizens, defense, and our allies.
I quote again:
“Legally establishing the obligation to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense in our own legal order ensures a stable, adequate armed forces that are better able to defend the entire territory of the Kingdom. It also sends a clear signal to allies that the Netherlands is a reliable ally that keeps its commitments. Finally, a legally established minimum percentage of defense spending prevents the armed forces from being easily minimized again in the future due to cuts.”
These three arguments have fully convinced my faction.
We are wholeheartedly in favor.
Only two points.
The strength of our international commitment to peace and security is still the 3D approach, which stands for the combination of Defense, Development Cooperation, and Diplomacy. This approach emphasizes that an effective security strategy goes beyond mere military means and also requires the use of other instruments such as development aid and diplomacy. Development cooperation in a broad sense, my own deployment to Kosovo, under UNMIK, for example, served to strengthen the rule of law there.
Is the financing of such an effort (we often send police officers, for example) now also to be counted under that 2 percent? I ask this because some countries mainly defend and fight, but we do so much more. Could that now fall under the 2% (or is such a contribution primarily interesting when we look at the discussion about the 3.5% plus 1.5% that defense also benefits from.) Please provide more clarity on what exactly falls under that 2%.
A second question, specifically to the minister, concerns the entry into force of the bill, given the early elections for the House of Representatives. Is it correct that if this bill is passed, it must be established immediately in the Spring Memorandum of 2026 what amounts must be made available at a minimum for 2026 and the four subsequent years? Does this not also mean that well before that, even this calendar year, a Strategic Monitor and a Defense Vision must be drawn up?
Only then can a good connection be made between policy and budget, allowing the House of Representatives and us to perform our supervisory work well.
Can the Minister therefore assure that a Strategic Monitor and a Defense Vision will be drawn up this calendar year? I can imagine that this requires a lot of work, so I can understand that the 4-year Strategic Monitor and the 15-year Defense Vision are combined once. Please provide a response from the Minister.
And then I can conclude again, chairman. But not before I sincerely thank the initiators on behalf of the CDA faction for this proposal.
It really matters. For now and in the future.
Thank you.
Photo: Robin Utrecht/First Chamber