Dutch jitters 'imperil' Afghan mission

PARIS - Nato and the EU are watching anxiously as plans to deploy a Nato force in southern Afghanistan are being shaken by a wave of violence.

Since the alliance agreed on December 8 to send a 6000-strong force to the region, insurgents there have carried out a string of suicide attacks and bombings, killing scores of civilians and a Canadian diplomat.

The escalation has had repercussions in Europe, prompting doubt in the Netherlands about the wisdom of contributing 1100 promised troops.

Nato already has 9200 troops in the more stable areas of north Afghanistan, which focus on reconstruction and policing under the UN International Security Assistance Force mandate.

But the south is a quite different place. Last year was the deadliest in Afghanistan since 2001. About 1500 people were killed, most of them in the south and east, while 85 US soldiers were killed, the highest yearly toll since the fall of the Taleban.

In the Netherlands, critics are lobbying parliament to veto the Government's promise, saying the new deployment is not a stability job but a de facto combat mission against Taleban and al Qaeda fighters.

Some worry that Dutch troops will not be sufficiently protected. Memories are being revived of Srebrenica in 1995, when poorly supplied and supported Dutch troops surrendered to Serbian troops, who then massacred 8000 Muslim men and boys.

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's three-party coalition is facing a revolt from one its components, D66. Leader Boris Dittrich recalled how doubts about Srebrenica were ignored in 1993, and vowed the railroading won't happen this time.

Sensing a defeat in Parliament, Balkenende called off a scheduled vote last month. He has given himself until February to convince doubters.

Opinion polls show 56 per cent of voters are against missions that support the so-called "war on terror".

EU ambassador to Afghanistan Francesc Vendrell last week warned that a Dutch u-turn would cripple the confidence of Afghanistan's Government and the credibility of the EU.

"We obviously need forces in places where there is insecurity," Vendrell said. "Occasionally, one wonders if some governments think sending forces to Afghanistan is like a parade down the Champs-Elysees."

"The Afghans [complain] we are perhaps a little bit too passive. This perception would be strengthened if the Netherlands found it impossible to send forces to the south."

The first phase of the southerly deployment involving troops from Australia, Britain and Canada, is scheduled to be completed in July. But the Dutch indecision has put planning on hold - no other nation has said it is willing to plug the gap.

"We still have time, but not much, and that's the reason I hope decision-making in the Netherlands will be speeded up as much as possible," said Nato Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, himself a Dutchman.

In Washington, the problem has revived views of Europeans as navel-watchers, quick to turn their backs on the world's messy problems.

"I am perplexed by the debate in the Netherlands ... Frankly I do not understand how the Dutch could pull out," said US assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Daniel Fried.

"The fight against terrorism is a war that concerns everybody. This is not America's war, just as World War II was not France's war or a Dutch war."


Dangerous times

* Nato agreed on December 8 to send a 6000-strong force to stabilise south Afghanistan.
* The area has suffered a rise in suicide bombings and rebel attacks in the past few months.
* The Netherlands planned to contribute 1100 soldiers.
* Dutch opponents say it is a de facto combat deployment and will result in many deaths.
* About 1500 people were killed in insurgent attacks last year, mostly in the east and south.
* 85 US troops died in Afghanistan in 2005, the worst total since the fall of the Taleban.