Defense Minister failed to share critical NATO report with parliament: report

Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren failed to share a critical NATO document on the Netherlands' defense spending with parliament. In September, she informed parliament that with the extra billions the government is pushing into the armed forces, the Netherlands “largely” meets the NATO demands. But the NATO report, a draft of which she received in June, is very critical, Zembla reports.

The document is an evaluation of the Cabinet’s new Defense budget. The report speaks of “continuing, significant, qualitative shortcomings” despite the extra investments the Dutch government is making in defense.

NATO stressed that the Netherlands is still doing nothing to undo the damage caused by previous budget cuts. “Despite the Defense Memorandum of 2022, the Netherlands states that it has no plans to do anything about these serious shortcomings,” the alliance noted. “If the required capabilities are not fully delivered, other allies may have to account for a significant part of the Dutch contribution.” That especially applies in “the land domain,” according to the document.

During a parliamentary debate on the Defense Memorandum in September, CDA parliamentarian Derk Boswijk specifically asked Ollongren about the Netherlands' contribution to NATO. Ollongren said that the Netherlands is contributing by investing in a German-Dutch battalion. “We largely comply with what NATO asks of us,” said the Minister.

But the NATO document paints an entirely different picture than Ollongren did in the debate, Boswijk said to Zembla, so Ollongren informed parliament incompletely. “Apparently, there is a gap here between what has been told to parliament and what is now apparent from a document that already existed at the time.”

NATO Assistant Secretary-General David van Weel told Zembla that the alliance assesses member states based on their own contribution, not on the results of partnerships with other countries.

The Ministry of Defense told the program that it is considering a response to the questions Zembla posed.