On October 23 defence minister Eimert van Middelkoop described a possible Dutch withdrawal from Uruzgan as "a remarkable Alleingang, which is at odds with recent developments within the alliance". "If one of the most prominent allies, which the Netherlands is in Afghanistan, should take such radical action as to withdraw, this is worrisome for other countries,” Van Middelkoop said.

That is clear and prudent ministerial language. By contrast, it was unwise for the Dutch parliament to pass a motion recently which stated that the Netherlands must completely withdraw from Uruzgan after 2010. The only members of parliament who voted against it were from the Christian Democrats, the [right wing-liberal party] D66 and the [orthodox Christian party] SGP.

It is understandable that the Netherlands should cease to be the lead nation in Uruzgan next year. Such a position, with an extensive commitment of troops, is not sustainable over years. It is reasonable that another Nato country should assume that responsibility. But complete withdrawal would be extremely negative, for reasons that include those mentioned by the defence minister. It would create bewilderment in the rest of the alliance. And it would nullify the knowledge built up in this southern Afghan province, as well as the trust of the local population, undermining security and increased socio-economic development.

Now that the Afghan elections have taken place, it is important the Netherlands should continue to provide support to the democratisation process in Uruzgan. At this precise moment the continued construction and strengthening of Afghan governing institutions is crucial. This also applies to humanitarian aid and reconstruction, including in the areas of education, health care and infrastructure. The civilian component of international involvement will become increasingly important, but military support for this will be essential for a long time to come. Transfer of duties to the Afghan army and police is necessary, but will not be completed in 2010. For all these reasons the Netherlands must continue her military duties in Uruzgan.

It is regrettable that parties such as the [left-wing liberal party] VVD and Labour, which have long international traditions, are now abandoning Uruzgan. These parties idolise president Obama and subscribe to Dutch Afghan policy, but when it comes to the crunch they abandon both Obama and the people of Uruzgan.

The new American approach of development, diplomacy and defence deserves more material, including military, support from the Netherlands, which has been the source of inspiration for this policy, as secretary of state Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated. I cannot avoid the impression that parties which supported the Uruzgan motion are also lining up with [the populist politician] Geert Wilders’ inward-looking political course.

If the Netherlands withdraws from Uruzgan and no other country takes up its responsibilities, there is a great chance that the province will again fall prey to the barbarism of the Taliban. All Dutch investment in humanitarian projects will have been for nothing then, as well as efforts by our troops to make the region safer and more livable for Afghan citizens.

I hope the cabinet will decide to keep a Dutch presence in Uruzgan after 2010. It can ignore the Uruzgan motion because in passing it parliament unjustly assumed the cabinet’s role. If parliament should decide to hold on to its view after the cabinet formulates policy, the ministers must of course draw the obvious conclusions when that time comes.