"Dutch parliament against longer Afghan mission", was the title of an Associated Press wire report released on Tuesday evening after a motion to that extent was supported by a majority of parliament. This was exactly what foreign minister Maxime Verhagen didn't want the world to hear: just when the Americans are busy debating the new strategy for Afghanistan, including a considerable troop surge, a faithful ally announces to call it quits.

"The cabinet has to abide by the earlier decision to withdraw all Dutch military from Uruzgan by December 1, 2010," said the motion, which was sponsored by Labour and the Christian orthodox party ChristenUnie, both coalition partners in the Dutch government. It also pointed out that the government has promised that "the Netherlands will not undertake a new mission in Uruzgan after 2010".

'Pass the buck'

The Netherlands currently has about 1,450 troops in the southern province Uruzgan, where it has been the 'lead nation' in Nato's mission since 2006.

Nato chief: withdrawal plays into Taliban hands Nato secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at his monthly press conference in Brussels on Wednesday that "any decision to withdraw [from Afghanistan] plays into the hands of the Taliban". Rasmussen was responding to news that the Dutch parliament had vetoed an extension of the Dutch mission in Afghanistan. "We have reached a critical point," Rasmussen said. "There should be no doubt about our determined involvement in Afghanistan." Rasmussen said he respects any decision by a Nato member, and he praised the Netherlands for its efforts and results in Afghanistan. "The Dutch contribution in Uruzgan has really made a difference on the ground," he said. But he also said it is time for all European countries to show they are prepared to do more in Afghanistan. If the US should doubt that European countries are true partners in Nato, Rasmussen said, this could in the long term be "harmful to transatlantic relations". The goal in Afghanistan, Rasmussen said, is to transfer responsibility for the security to the Afghans themselves. "It would be valuable if the Dutch could continue to help make that transition possible."

An extension of the mission is unacceptable, not just in Uruzgan, but elsewhere in Afghanistan too, said Labour member of parliament Martijn van Dam after the vote. "You can't withdraw from Uruzgan and start a similar operation somewhere else in Afghanistan."

It will be hard for the cabinet to ignore such a strongly-worded statement from a coalition partner. Minister Verhagen had something quite different in mind when he told a reporter, two weeks ago in New York, that the Netherlands couldn't simply "pass the buck" in Afghanistan. Verhagen was looking for room to manoeuvre, but Tuesday's motion in parliament countered that attempt.

Snowball effect

Last week, Verhagen pointed out in parliament that things have changed since the 2007 decision to end the Afghanistan mission at the end of 2010 was taken. A new administration has moved into the White House, and conditions on the ground have changed too. "Are we not allowed to think anymore? Do we really have to say: what was decided two years ago stands?" Verhagen asked.

The minister also warned against a snowball effect if the Dutch were to leave Afghanistan – as the first nation to do so. He was looking for a solution whereby the 2007 government decision might be respected without leaving the allies in Afghanistan in the lurch. Verhagen thought he could do this by handing over the command in Uruzgan as planned, while leaving a number of Dutch troops in Afghanistan to assist a so-called provincial reconstruction team.

By going through the media Verhagen had hoped to give new impetus to the Afghanistan debate, which had become stuck within the government, but he got the opposite effect.

Now his hands are tied by the motion in parliament. Technically, the government could ignore the vote: according to the Dutch constitution, deploying the army does not require the approval of parliament. But that would be going against the common practice that a government doesn't send the troops abroad if there is no broad support for it in the parliament. As of Tuesday that broad support clearly doesn't exist.