The go-ahead for a new mission in Afghanistan dominates today’s Dutch dailies. But there’s also outrage at the murder of a gay activist in Uganda, a look at one of Amsterdam’s dirtiest hotels and doubts about a photo of Van Gogh.

Green light for new Dutch mission in Afghanistan
All of today’s front pages feature the news that the Netherlands is ready to embark on a new mission in Afghanistan. Under the headline “Mission goes ahead”, De Telegraaf presents the result of last night’s parliamentary debate as “a major triumph for the government”.

As recently as a few days ago it looked like the minority coalition might not drum up enough support for the mission, but a series of concessions to opposition parties Green Left, D66 and the Christian Union enabled them to win the day by what AD calls “a minimal majority”. NRC.next prints a picture of the three opposition leaders in a row above the headline “Key threesome backs mission”.

The Dutch parliament’s backing means that a 545-strong Dutch contingent can now head for northern Afghanistan to train Afghan police. In order to win over the opposition, the government had to provide written assurances that the “Afghan police officers will not be used in military operations”. But de Volkskrant casts doubt on such demands, arguing that ISAF officers simply shrug when they hear them: “Every country comes up with its own demands and restrictions, but in practice police trained by lots of different countries work at the same police academy, so keeping track of policemen trained by the Dutch is no easy task.”

NRC columnist Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer examines the concession that the police training given by the Dutch be extended from eight to sixteen weeks, so that trainees learn “important civic lessons” as well as how to handle a gun. Pointing out that “most of the trainees are illiterate”, Pfeijffer asks: “Why don’t we extend the training period to around eight years? And let’s train teachers, nurses, journalists, ombudsmen and poets while we’re at it. That’s a plan that might actually do Afghanistan some good.

Never mind Afghanistan, what about the Dutch implications?
While the rhetoric is all about helping Afghanistan, inevitably much of media coverage concerns the political manoeuvring that surrounded the debate. Much of it focuses on Jolanda Sap, brand new leader of the Green Left party. She played a central role in the debate and has given her backing to the mission despite serious objections within her party. In doing so, de Volkskrant reckons she is “playing a game with high stakes” by “braving a revolt among her own supporters”.

Trouw believes she must have opted for “death or glory ... she will either establish her leadership of the party in one fell swoop or her meteoric rise through the party’s ranks is over”. We’ll need to wait till the party’s conference next Saturday for the answer to that one.

While a trio of smaller opposition parties ended up backing the government, Trouw notes that the Labour Party “has been consistent from the word go” in its belief that “this mission serves no purpose”. The party dismisses the concessions won as “cosmetic” and only reflecting “a paper reality”. But Trouw also notes that while Labour “cannot be accused of lacking credibility” it now finds itself “isolated from its political allies”, while “the fact that anti-militarist Green Left did back the mission only magnifies the loneliness”. It asks “what happened to the Labour Party that always sought international solidarity and justice?

Outrage at killing of gay activist in Uganda
Several of today’s papers cover the death of Ugandan gay activist David Kato, beaten to death at his home after a concerted anti-gay campaign in a publication called Rolling Stone, which Trouw describes as “a scandal sheet”. It reports that Mr Kato’s photograph and address were among those published by the paper, whose 22-year-old editor-in-chief Giles Muhame insists that he is not out to encourage attacks on homosexuals: “We only want the government to hang people who promote homosexuality ... Besides we only mentioned that they should be hanged, not stoned or attacked.” Not exactly reassuring.

However, Trouw wastes no time in emphasising the connection between Mr Muhame’s campaign and the killing of David Kato, reporting that the crime has “prompted horrified responses from all over the world”. The paper also talks to Frank Mugisha, head of an organisation that supports Uganda’s sexual minorities, who points out that the problem goes further than the scandal sheet publication: “Politicians, religious leaders and the media have to stop demonising homosexuals – it creates a climate of violence that has now escalated with the murder of Kato.” He also points out that the issue is not unique to Uganda, with same-sex intercourse outlawed in 37 of Africa’s 53 states.

Surviving the Netherlands’ filthiest hotel
Today’s AD embarks on a bit of investigative reporting: “The filthiest hotel in the Netherlands: our reporter lived to tell the tale” is its front-page scoop. The inspiration for this adventure was the news that no less than four of the top ten dirtiest hotels in Europe are in Amsterdam. AD decided to check out the highest-ranked culprit, De Lantaerne.

The journalist who drew the short straw doesn’t miss a single opportunity to pile on the drama: “I am speaking to you as a survivor ... a survivor of a world that many of us may have suspected, but that no one believes can exists in the Netherlands. But I am here to tell you that this world of mice in hotel rooms, overflowing toilet bowls, unchanged beds and the impossibility of getting a wink of sleep actually exists ... and it’s closer than you think.”

AD’s not the only one complaining. The internet reviews it quotes feature such gems as “the worst hotel I’ve ever stayed at”, “unfit for humans” and “make sure you’re drunk”. And sure enough, our roving reporter devotes the best part of two pages to the story without finding a single redeeming feature. Except for the receptionist’s inspired attempt to play things down: “Admittedly, the quality is sometimes variable...”

Will the real Vincent van Gogh please stand up?
De Telegraaf reports on a school photograph of artist Vincent van Gogh. The very existence of the photo is something special, since the paper tells us that there are only five photographs of the artist in the world today. This makes it all the more frustrating that no one can say with certainty which of the lads in the photo is actually Vincent.

It’s not for lack of trying. One investigator explains: “I magnified the images of all the boys individually and sent them off to the Netherlands Forensic Institute, but unfortunately the photos were too grainy to prove conclusive.”

Experts have at least narrowed it down to two candidates, but the opinions are divided as to whether Vincent is the skinny blond boy in the front row or the lad in the second row with an impressive head of hair.
Hair is key to one of the theories put forward. One expert maintains the blond boy’s hairline matches that in another photograph of Vincent, while the luxuriant head of hair on the other candidate “would probably have been frowned upon by the strict minister’s family that Van Gogh came from”. The jury’s still out though, with others backing the intuition of a late relative of the artist, who begged to differ...