Defense must clearly explain why it needs the space

The Dutch armed forces are at the beginning of a growth spurt. The war in Ukraine has caused NATO countries to significantly increase their investments in defence. Minister Ruben Brekelmans (Defence, VVD) wrote to the Lower House this month that the treaty organisation would like to see the Netherlands spend between 16 and 19 billion euros more on its armed forces each year. For the time being, the Netherlands will spend 22 billion euros on this in 2025, and the government has agreed to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defence goals. This will lead to a significant increase in the number of military personnel.

These people will all have to be educated and trained somewhere. The new equipment that the Netherlands is going to purchase also has to be housed somewhere. Last Friday, the government therefore presented its plans for housing the armed forces. Defence has dozens of locations in mind where it wants to build new barracks, ammunition depots, runways and training grounds, and where existing locations need to be expanded. Defence's claim on the available space will thus grow from the current 35,000 hectares to roughly 37,000 hectares in 2035.

Space is scarce in the Netherlands. Where the armed forces are housed, there is no room for housing, business, nature or recreation. It is therefore good that the Ministry of Defence has had extensive contact with provinces and municipalities in recent months to see where expansion is least painful. This type of consultation will hopefully prevent disagreement between the national government and lower authorities.

In the coming period, it is important that citizens are also included in this process. Because ultimately they will have to make room for defense – even literally when expropriating land – and they will have to deal with nuisance. Defense must be able to explain well why the choice was made for certain locations, but especially why its interests must sometimes prevail over other interests.

Why can a barracks be built somewhere, but not a residential area elsewhere? Why does a farm have to make way for a training ground? Why am I already startled by an F-35 flying over? In short: if the Netherlands and the rest of NATO fail to protect liberal democracy from external threats, then citizens will have no say in these kinds of matters in the future.

This argument will not impress everyone. It is therefore conceivable that citizens with legal objections to permit granting, for example on environmental grounds, will eventually find their way to the Council of State. The Council will then have to weigh the various interests against each other, as is appropriate in a constitutional state.

The Ministry of Defence is apparently not entirely reassured, because they are working on a law that offers the possibility to deviate from (European) environmental regulations by appealing to the "urgency" of the situation in the world. If that law is passed, the ministry would do well to invoke it with restraint. Defence will take a prominent position in society for a long time. Then it is better to win hearts and minds than to force your way.