Before and during the NATO summit, the Randstad [the densely populated western region of the Netherlands including Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht] is being transformed into a militarised fortress. In total, 27,000 police officers—nearly half of the entire police force—are being deployed. From 22 to 27 June, various motorways between Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague will be partially or completely closed. People are being urged to work from home and not to organise events in the Randstad. And then the right complains about disruption from climate activists?

In the run-up to the NATO summit, Prime Minister Dick Schoof [who became Prime Minister in July 2024 following the formation of a coalition government] spoke out of turn. He revealed that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte [former Dutch Prime Minister who became NATO Secretary-General in October 2024] would push for more than a doubling of military spending by member states: from 2 per cent of gross domestic product to 5 per cent by 2032. This breaks down into 3.5 per cent ’hard’ military spending and 1.5 per cent supporting expenditure, such as infrastructure and cybersecurity.

This revelation underscores the hollow rhetoric of European government leaders like Friedrich Merz [leader of Germany’s CDU] and Emmanuel Macron about the necessity of European autonomy from Donald Trump’s United States. European states not only remain part of the US-led NATO, but by increasing their military budgets they are doing precisely what Trump demands. Even before his second term, he called on NATO countries to spend 5 per cent of their GDP on warfare.

Furthermore, the proposed distribution of the billion-pound investments, with billions also going to ’supporting expenditure’, shows how these can be deployed against their own populations.

History of Violence

After the Second World War, NATO brought European states together under US military leadership. This was meant to prevent new mutual wars and defend markets in Europe that had been partly built with American capital. The supposed threat from the Soviet Union was central from the outset.

By signing the North Atlantic Treaty, member states would commit themselves to defending ’democratic principles, individual freedoms and the rule of law’, but this was always hollow rhetoric. Member states like France, Belgium, and the Netherlands were still waging wars to maintain colonial possessions. Portugal remained a dictatorship until the anti-colonial freedom struggle culminated in a revolution.

In Greece, NATO even supported a military coup against democracy in 1967. The coup plotters activated NATO’s anti-communist emergency plan, ’Prometheus’, under the pretext of wanting to prevent a leftist uprising—although there was no such threat. The junta still imprisoned 10,000 leftist people in a prison camp on the island of Yaros.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, NATO remained in existence. Over thirty years, NATO expanded ever further into Eastern Europe and played a central role in various wars. In some cases, the alliance was directly involved, such as in the bombardments of Belgrade (1999) and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (from 2001). In other cases, such as the war against Iraq (from 2003), various NATO countries worked together.

These Western wars undermined support for the military alliance. When IPSOS mapped international public support for NATO in 2019, the results were cause for concern for government leaders. Although there was generally more support than opposition in member states, this support proved very limited in major European states: in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy it did not exceed 35 per cent.

Who Pays the Bill?

Western government leaders can thank Vladimir Putin for the impetus he has given to NATO. The Russian invasion of Ukraine enabled it to polish up the alliance’s bloody image without any obligations arising from this. Ukraine is not a NATO member. Germany immediately invested one hundred billion euros in weaponry. And the ReArm Europe plan would add another 800 billion euros on top of this.

It’s not the Ukrainian struggle for self-determination that is central for NATO countries, but their own economic and geopolitical interests. Trump wants to force Ukraine into territorial concessions because he hopes to work together with Russia against the imperialist challenger China. European NATO countries want a continuation of the war because Russian aggression enables them to further build up their military power.

This has not been without results so far. A poll in May by Kieskompas [a Dutch political opinion research organisation] shows that almost 80 per cent of the Dutch population favours further investment in weaponry. But this broad support is not set in stone. Almost half of respondents, 46 per cent, want the investments to be paid for by increasing the national debt. There is very little support for cuts to healthcare or education—3 per cent each. But for the right, militarisation and dismantling of public services are two sides of the same coin.

The same applies to support for the countless new barracks, ammunition depots, and military training areas. There is much support for this in general terms, but once the major consequences become more concrete—for example, helicopters flying over daily—this will change. At the beginning of April, 103 hectares of nature burned down near Ede [a town in central Netherlands] after a military exercise.

The Left

’Netherlands out of NATO’ was a central slogan of activist left from the 1960s-1970s. The CPN [Communist Party of the Netherlands] and especially the PSP [Pacifist Socialist Party], the party of ’socialism without the bomb’, pointed out that increasing armament did not make the world safer. But in recent decades, the slogan has disappeared from the parliamentary left, although NATO has not changed.

PvdA [Labour Party] leader Frans Timmermans [former European Commissioner] is open to raising the NATO norm to 3 per cent and even wants to enshrine this in law. The SP [Socialist Party] calls on NATO not to act as an ’aggressive intervention force’, whilst the PvdD [Party for the Animals] believes the Netherlands should be ’more critical within NATO’. But defending Western interests with violence is in the DNA of the military alliance.

Given the large-scale investments in weaponry in the coming years, it’s important that leftist organisations seize the NATO summit to organise themselves, as with the Counter-Summit organised by De Nieuwe Vredesbeweging [The New Peace Movement] on Saturday 21 June and the counter-demonstration on 22 June in The Hague.

The left can build on the experiences it gained in the massive anti-war movement against the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, but the political landscape has shifted strongly to the right. Parts of the far-right, such as Forum voor Democratie [Forum for Democracy, a populist right-wing party], now also claim to be against NATO, and campist sentiments [supporting authoritarian regimes simply because they oppose the West] have become more dominant on the left.

This also has its impact on De Nieuwe Vredesbeweging, which is largely driven by leftist organisations. During their peace conference, conspiracy theorist George van Houts spoke on the platform. De Vierde Golf [The Fourth Wave], which was part of the far-right corona marches, was even one of the initiators of the coalition. And in a critical interview by the NRC [a major Dutch newspaper], spokesperson Jakob de Jonge downplayed the Russian massacre at Bucha.

But in a context where imperialist power blocs are arming themselves to the teeth, it’s important that the left supports the struggle for national self-determination. Oppressed peoples, from Palestine to Ukraine, otherwise pay the price. Based on this international solidarity, the left should draw clear dividing lines from the far-right.

It’s therefore not self-evident that De Nieuwe Vredesbeweging forms the prelude to a leftist movement against militarisation and war. To achieve this, it’s not only necessary to self-consciously distance oneself from far-right networks but also to find broader connections. Connections, for example, with the struggle against cuts, local resistance to military infrastructure, but above all also connections with the militant movement in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Ewout van den Berg