Arms sales to Arab countries have been a gold mine for the Dutch government, but now it seems the Netherlands is regretting its choice of trading partners; Dutch armed vehicles may have been used against protesters in the recent uprisings in Egypt and Bahrain.
Over the last two decades, the Netherlands has sold 730 million euros worth of surplus arms and material to the Arab world. In addition to Egypt and Bahrain, customers have included Morocco, Qatar, Oman, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.
The merchandise has consisted of armoured personnel carriers (APCs), navy frigates, F-16 fighter jets, anti-tank missiles, radar systems and self-propelled howitzers.
The Egyptian and Bahraini armies reportedly used the Dutch APCs against their own people. The vehicles were recognised on photographs made by news channels during the recent protests. The Dutch foreign ministry denies this, saying that it’s not clear whether the APCs in the photographs were actually supplied by the Netherlands.
Sold off
APCs, developed for the Dutch army in the 1970s, saw service in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan before being replaced and subsequently sold off to other countries. Figures provided by the Swedish research institute SIPRI show that Egypt and Bahrain bought 1,042 and 63 Dutch APCs respectively.
The foreign ministry granted permission for these exports, as is required for sales to non-NATO member states. Arms sales to countries which use weapons or military materiel to oppress their own people or violate human rights are banned. At the time of these exports, Egypt and Bahrain were seen as stable nations. And as loyal allies of the West, they were also suitable buyers.
No more licenses
Today, the situation is completely different. On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal said: “At the moment, nobody in the Western world - including the Netherlands - is thinking about selling weapons to Arab countries.”
On Wednesday, during an emergency debate in parliament, the minister said that, for the time being, no export licenses would be issued for weapons sales to Libya. Brussels is currently discussing imposing an arms embargo.
(gsh/ae)
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
If the Dutch Army would not have sold weaponry to Arab countries, other countries would have done it, not only western countries. China, Russia, India, Japan, Korea. They also like to buy oil and oil and oil...
If a car-dealer sells a car to somebody who is driving crazy into a crowd, killing and wounding people, who is responsable ?? Yes, indeed only the car-driver. And if this cardriver was unable to buy at one dealer, he would go to another one.. Understood ? Alles klar ?
Well, the use if the word if... introducing a clause of condition or supposition does not mean that the Dutch were right selling their military junk to the Middle East. I help out clients in legal matters and most of the time they lose their cases in Court; they blame it always on me, of course, and they say all the time "IF... you would not have helped me out, I would have won the case" and I use to answer"IF... YOUR AUNT HAD NUTS, SHE WOULD BE CALLED UNCLE'.
1. "If the Dutch Army would not have sold weaponry to Arab countries, other countries would have done it, not only western countries. China, Russia, India, Japan, Korea. They also like to buy oil and oil and oil..."..Response: Just because China, Russia, India, Japan, and Korea does something doesn't make it right. If, the Dutch country doesn't sell heroin because it believes the drug is harmful to it's citizens, it should not sell heroin to other nations and poision non-Dutch citizens. If the Dutch/EU will not allow it's citizen's to buy, own, and sell guns because of the dangers, why would they sell guns to other nations; especially knowing the dictators will use them against the citizens. 2. If they (EU and the Netherlands) practiced what they preach about gun ownership and safety, one might support their gun practices but they do not. They take away your gun rights because they are afraid of what would happen when they suppress your rights. 3. "If a car-dealer sells a car to somebody who is driving crazy into a crowd, killing and wounding people, who is responsable ?? Yes, indeed only the car-driver." Response: Who is responsible? The driver, the drug dealer who sold him/her bad drugs, and anyone the attorney might accuse. In this case, the Netherlands is partially response because they sold weapons to a person who is dangerous and disturbed. If you sell a person an auto and you know he/she is going to drive it into a crowd of people, you assume some responsibility. The Netherlands sold weapons to dictator who they knew had mental problems and was dangerous. He used and is using these weapons against innocent citizens who get in his way.
Wow!van de cremer, is there no difference between a weapon and a car?
Anonymous, both can be dangerous in the wrong hands but cars are not made with the intention of defending, hunting, and sporting events. Anything can be used as weapons. In the U.S. more people are killed by drunk drivers than guns but we not ban cars or alcohol. If we use the European logic of why guns are banned, you would think cars and alcohol would be banned. I am sure thousands of Europeans die every year from autos that are driven by drunk drivers. If so many lives are lost to drunk drivers, don't you think autos and alcohol should be banned? When someone murders another person with a gun, he should be punished. When someone kills another person by drinking alcohol and driving, he should be punished. The only problem is we don't want to hold the individual acountable but all of society. We don't ban alcohol and cars because they are not a threat to the government. Guns inthe hands of citizens who are supressed, just like in Libya, are what governments fear.
Hiram, your response to Lalaland is the most humerous I've seen you write in ages! I've always known that you've had a sense of humour locked away somewhere and its great to see it come out of hiding!!
David Berridge, I try my best to keep my humerous side locked away but some people like Lalaland draw it out. Thanks for the comment but do me a favour, lets keep it secret and not tell anyone else.
Yes indeed, even a fork can be a deadly weapon; my wife prods my butt with it, frequently, to make me move along faster and make more money.
Lalaland, are you sure it is a fork? It is probaly a spoon to help you move it or pass it faster? Try drinking more fluids. It works better than a spoon and I have "heard" it doesn't hurt. Oh, I hope she or you washes the forks before you use them at dinner. You were talking about a dinner fork and not a pitch fork, weren't you?
To tell you the truth, I first thought it was a stake fork, but it was a hayfork.
I always thought that it was a hayfork she was prodding me with, but now she told me that she bought an electric cattle prod to be more effective.
Lalaland, if you thought a fork felt like a hayfork, you are not going to like the affects of a cattle prod. At least I think you will not like it. You have several choices: Listen to what your wife has to tell you and obey her commands; get a divorce; change your ways; or go to a wholesale store and stock-up on batteries. It would be easier on you if you would just listen to and obey your wife's commands. But for some unknown reason, I think you are going to enjoy the affects of the cattle prod!
It is a matter of concern that the country that boasts of punishing regimes who kill people through ICJ Hague, is itself supplying weapons for the deed! Netherlands govt. thinks that people of the country they trade with are humans but their neighbouring countries have people who can be killed or maimed!!!!What kind of logic is this? Ah, the State We are In !!!!!
thanks hiram great point but i sometimes think a toothpick is a dangerous weapon or a barqueque lighter ... or a match or a thought?
"...i sometimes think a toothpick is a dangerous weapon or a barqueque lighter ... or a match or a thought?"...Tobias, a toothpick or a 'barqueque lighter' can be used as dangerous weapon if not properly used; whereas, dictators use weapons, bought from places like the Netherlands, not just to defend their nations from invasions but to quell it's citizens from defending their freedoms. Until all weapons are removed from the planet, humans have a right to possess and own guns in order to protect themselves from people and governments who would do them harm and supress their civil liberties. In closing, it is the human, who possesses the "thought' of freedom behind the weapon that is dangerous and dictators know it very well. This is the reason why governments don't allow citizens to own guns. Governments care nothing about the safety of the people; otherwise, governments like the Netherlands ,U.K., Germany, France, who restrict gun ownership for it's citizens, will sell them in other countries. They are afraid of the people who they suppress. Let the people in Europe riot in the streets (as they have done in other countries) and see how the government supresses the disgruntle citizens.
selling 40 year old APC's to countries like this is like selling 40 year old VW's except I think the VW's would be more effective
Well done, RNW: nor the sites of the VK or the NRC have an item on this typical Dutch sense of 'trade is neutral' thinking. Let the market do its free work!
Of course, hiding behind the back of the EU is easy, but if Switserland can freeze Libian bankaccounts, why can the Netherlands not do the same?
Quite inane to believe that weapons from the Dutch or any other nationality will not reach Arab nations. The middle-man, this being the black marketer, is always at hands reach ready to profit under the table.
Once Dutch weapons appear again during an embargo and documents start leaking of sketchy deals, the next resource will be, as always, to start beating one's own chest in repentance, condemning and repudiating such unlawful acts, and that action will be taken... but iut won't, and we'll be back to the same self-destructive patterns.
"Arms sales to Arab countries have been a gold mine for the Dutch government, but now it seems the Netherlands is regretting its choice of trading partners; Dutch armed vehicles may have been used against protesters in the recent uprisings in Egypt and Bahrain.'....If you don't your own citizens to buy and own guns because you say they are too dangerous for society, why do you sell them to dictators in other countries where you know the government will use them against their own citizens? The Dutch government does not regret selling weapons or otherwise you would not sell them. If they are too dangerous for your own citizens, don't you think the weapons are too dangerous to other humans outside of the Netherlands. You don't regret anything that makes you money or oil. It is the cost of doing business and you don't care what it costs as long as it doesn't cost you.
Better sell them Dutch tulips and dairy products.
For shame!!!
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.