History of the Netherlands Peace Movement
Memorial stone: “Vrede Zij Dezen Huize (Peace Be to This House), 1949”, Robert Scottstraat 36 – Stadsarchief Amsterdam
The Dutch Peace Movement: A History Since World War II
Post-War Foundations (1945-1960)
The Netherlands emerged from World War II deeply scarred. Five years of Nazi occupation had left lasting trauma. As a result, initial peace efforts focused on reconstruction and reconciliation. The Dutch people embraced the slogan “Never again war” with profound conviction.
In 1949, the Netherlands joined NATO despite some public hesitation. The government viewed the alliance as essential for security against Soviet expansion. Meanwhile, grassroots peace initiatives began to take shape. Religious organizations, particularly Protestant and Catholic churches, led early peace advocacy efforts.
The Interchurch Peace Council (IKV) formed in 1958. Founded by Catholic and Protestant churches, it became a cornerstone of Dutch peace activism. Their initial focus centered on dialogue between Eastern and Western Europe. Through educational programs and publications, they raised awareness about nuclear threats and militarism.
Prominent political figure Willem Drees, Prime Minister from 1948 to 1958, pursued a balanced approach. He supported NATO membership while advocating for diplomatic solutions to international conflicts. His pragmatic leadership helped shape early Dutch peace policy.
Cold War Activism (1960s-1970s)
The 1960s brought significant changes to the Dutch peace movement. Anti-nuclear sentiment grew stronger. The Vietnam War sparked widespread protests. Furthermore, a new generation of activists emerged.
The Ban-the-Bomb movement gained momentum in the Netherlands. Thousands marched in Amsterdam and The Hague. PAX (then called Pax Christi Netherlands) expanded its activities during this period. Their Catholic roots informed their nonviolent approach to conflict resolution.
Student activism flourished in universities across the country. Young people questioned military spending and nuclear policies. Notable activist Mient Jan Faber began his career during this era. Later, he would lead the IKV through its most influential period.
The government maintained its NATO commitments. However, public opinion increasingly favored nuclear disarmament. Prime Minister Joop den Uyl (1973-1977) represented this shifting perspective. His Labor Party government showed more sympathy toward peace initiatives than previous administrations.
Vrede (Peace) by Hans Reicher, 1962
Radioweg, Watergraafsmeer
photo Jack de Nijs – Stadsarchief Amsterdam
The Nuclear Disarmament Peak (1980s)
The early 1980s marked the height of Dutch peace activism. NATO’s 1979 decision to deploy new nuclear missiles in Western Europe triggered massive protests. More than 550,000 people gathered in Amsterdam for the November 1981 demonstration. This remains the largest protest in Dutch history.
The IKV launched its powerful slogan “Help rid the world of nuclear weapons, starting with the Netherlands.” This campaign gained extraordinary support. Local committees formed in nearly every Dutch town and city. Church basements, community centers, and private homes became organizing hubs.
Women for Peace emerged as an influential organization. They established a peace camp at the Soesterberg Air Base. Their persistent presence highlighted opposition to military expansion. Similarly, the Women’s Peace March brought thousands to the streets annually.
Politicians responded to this groundswell. The Labor Party (PvdA) openly opposed new missile deployments. Even within the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), divisions appeared. Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers navigated these tensions carefully. His government delayed decisions on missile placement while pursuing diplomatic alternatives.
Prominent peace advocate Max van der Stoel served as Foreign Minister during crucial periods. Though supporting NATO, he advocated for arms control negotiations. His diplomatic efforts reflected the Dutch desire for both security and disarmament.
Post-Cold War Transition (1990s)
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 transformed the peace movement’s focus. Traditional anti-nuclear campaigns lost urgency as Cold War tensions eased. Nevertheless, activists quickly adapted to new challenges.
Peacekeeping became a central concern. The Netherlands contributed troops to UN missions in former Yugoslavia. However, the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, where Dutch peacekeepers failed to protect Bosnian Muslims, profoundly affected national consciousness. This tragedy prompted deep reflection on military intervention and humanitarian protection.
Organizations like PAX shifted toward conflict prevention. They developed programs addressing the root causes of violence. Similarly, the IKV merged with Pax Christi to form IKV Pax Christi (later simplified to PAX). This consolidation strengthened their impact on Dutch peace policy.
Prime Minister Wim Kok’s “Purple Coalition” government (1994-2002) emphasized international cooperation. Foreign Minister Hans van Mierlo championed multilateralism through the UN and European institutions. The Netherlands positioned itself as a mediator in international conflicts.
The Dutch campaign against landmines gained significant momentum. Activist Jody Williams, who later won the Nobel Peace Prize, found strong support in the Netherlands. The government eventually signed the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines in 1997.
New Century, New Challenges (2000-2010)
The September 11, 2001 attacks dramatically changed the landscape for peace activism. The subsequent “War on Terror” sparked renewed protest energy. Dutch peace organizations opposed the 2003 Iraq War despite the government’s initial support.
Jan Peter Balkenende’s government provided political but not military support for the Iraq invasion. This position reflected both NATO loyalty and domestic peace sentiment. The decision triggered heated parliamentary debates and public demonstrations.
The Platform Against the New War formed as a coalition of over 50 organizations. They organized weekly protests throughout 2003. Thousands gathered regularly at Dam Square in Amsterdam. Meanwhile, established organizations like PAX conducted research on civilian casualties and human rights violations.
The Afghanistan mission presented complex questions for the peace movement. Many organizations recognized legitimate humanitarian goals while criticizing military approaches. The Dutch deployment in Uruzgan province (2006-2010) became particularly controversial.
Bert Koenders, as Minister of Development Cooperation (2007-2010), advocated for the “3D approach” (Defense, Diplomacy, and Development). This integrated strategy aimed to address security concerns alongside humanitarian needs. His work represented a more nuanced government approach to conflict zones.
The Treaty of Utrecht Foundation revived the peace tradition of the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. Through cultural events and academic conferences, they connected historical peace efforts to contemporary challenges. Their work highlighted the Netherlands’ deep historical ties to peace diplomacy.
Shifting Focus (2010-2020)
The 2010s brought both challenges and opportunities for Dutch peace advocacy. Economic austerity reduced funding for many organizations. At the same time, new issues gained prominence. Nuclear disarmament returned to the agenda alongside new concerns about autonomous weapons, cyber warfare, and climate security.
The Nuclear Security Summit held in The Hague in 2014 spotlighted Dutch involvement in nonproliferation efforts. Peace organizations used this event to advocate for complete nuclear disarmament. The PAX campaign “No Nukes” highlighted the continued presence of U.S. nuclear weapons at Volkel Air Base.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans (2012-2014) strengthened Dutch commitment to international law and human rights. His emotional response at the UN following the MH17 tragedy, when a passenger plane was shot down over Ukraine, resonated globally. This incident underscored the human cost of international conflicts.
The refugee crisis prompted new forms of peace activism. Organizations developed programs supporting both refugees and host communities. Additionally, they addressed root causes of displacement through conflict prevention work in origin countries.
In 2017, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won the Nobel Peace Prize. Dutch peace organizations had contributed significantly to this coalition. Despite their advocacy, the Dutch government opposed the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, citing NATO obligations.
The feminist perspective gained influence in peace advocacy. Women’s rights organizations highlighted UN Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. The government responded by including gender perspectives in foreign policy. Minister Sigrid Kaag particularly championed this approach during her term (2017-2021).
The polar bear fountain, Danish gift to the Peace Palace, 1923
Contemporary Landscape (2020-Present)
The 2020s have brought renewed energy to the Dutch peace movement. Climate change, pandemic responses, and new conflicts have revealed the interconnected nature of global security challenges. As a result, peace organizations have adopted more holistic approaches.
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine dramatically altered the European security landscape. Dutch peace organizations condemned the aggression while advocating for diplomatic solutions. Many groups organized humanitarian aid while continuing to promote nonviolent conflict resolution.
Defense spending increases received both support and criticism. The government committed to meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target by 2024. Peace organizations acknowledged legitimate security concerns while questioning whether military buildups enhance actual security. Instead, they advocated for increased investment in diplomacy and conflict prevention.
PAX continues as the Netherlands’ largest peace organization. Their work spans from community peacebuilding in conflict zones to advocacy against nuclear weapons. Programs in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, and Colombia demonstrate their global reach. Meanwhile, their domestic education initiatives engage Dutch citizens in peace issues.
The Peace Palace in The Hague remains a powerful symbol of Dutch commitment to international law. Housing the International Court of Justice and Permanent Court of Arbitration, it embodies the legal approach to conflict resolution. The Hague’s identity as the “International City of Peace and Justice” reflects this institutional strength.
Current Foreign Minister Casper Veldkamp navigates complex geopolitical tensions. While maintaining NATO commitments, Dutch diplomacy continues to emphasize multilateral cooperation. Peace organizations regularly engage with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through formal consultations and informal advocacy.
Young activists have brought fresh energy to peace advocacy. Movements like Fridays for Future connect climate justice to peace concerns. Digital platforms have enabled new forms of mobilization and education. These developments suggest the Dutch peace tradition will continue evolving with each generation.
The Israel-Palestine Conflict and Dutch Peace Advocacy
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been a significant focus for Dutch peace organizations since World War II. The Netherlands’ historical support for Israel, influenced by guilt over the Holocaust, has gradually evolved toward a more balanced approach. Throughout this evolution, peace advocates have pushed for greater recognition of Palestinian rights and international law application.
In the early post-war decades, Dutch support for Israel remained nearly unconditional. However, by the 1970s, peace organizations began questioning this stance. The IKV and Pax Christi developed contacts with Palestinian civil society groups. They advocated for a two-state solution long before it became mainstream policy.
The First Intifada (1987-1993) marked a turning point. Dutch peace groups organized solidarity campaigns for nonviolent Palestinian resistance. They brought Palestinian speakers to the Netherlands and sent delegations to witness conditions firsthand. These efforts gradually shifted public opinion toward greater sympathy for Palestinian civilians.
By the 2000s, Dutch peace organizations had established sustained programs in the region. PAX implemented conflict transformation initiatives in both Israeli and Palestinian communities. Additionally, they supported local peacebuilders working across conflict lines. Their approach emphasized human security over traditional military-focused definitions.
The Gaza wars of 2008-2009, 2012, and 2014 sparked significant protests in Dutch cities. Peace organizations coordinated demonstrations in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague. Furthermore, they pressured the government to take stronger positions against civilian casualties and blockade policies.
The Dutch government maintained its official commitment to a two-state solution. However, trade relations with Israel continued to expand. Peace advocates criticized this apparent contradiction. Groups like The Rights Forum, founded by former Prime Minister Dries van Agt in 2009, specifically advocated for Palestinian rights within Dutch foreign policy.
Post-October 7, 2023 Developments
The Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s subsequent military operation in Gaza created unprecedented challenges for Dutch peace organizations. The attacks, which killed approximately 1,200 Israelis, shocked Dutch society. The subsequent Gaza war, with its high civilian casualty count, further polarized public opinion.
In the immediate aftermath, peace organizations like PAX and The Rights Forum condemned violence against all civilians—both Israeli and Palestinian. They called for the immediate release of hostages and protection of civilian populations. Moreover, they emphasized the need for addressing root causes of the conflict.
As the Gaza death toll mounted, Dutch peace activists organized weekly demonstrations. Amsterdam saw the largest gatherings, with tens of thousands marching through the city center. Protesters demanded an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian access. Some demonstrations faced restrictions from local authorities citing security concerns.
The Dutch government’s response to the conflict generated significant debate. Initially, Prime Minister Mark Rutte expressed strong support for Israel’s right to self-defense. However, as civilian casualties increased, government statements gradually included stronger calls for humanitarian protection and restraint.
Dutch peace organizations coordinated humanitarian aid initiatives for Gaza. They partnered with local Palestinian organizations to deliver medical supplies and food aid. Meanwhile, they advocated for lifting restrictions on humanitarian access. Their efforts highlighted the catastrophic impact of the war on Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.
Legal accountability became a central focus for Dutch peace advocates. When South Africa brought a genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, peace organizations mobilized public attention. They organized educational events explaining the legal proceedings and their significance.
Campus activism emerged as a new dimension of peace advocacy. Students at several Dutch universities, including the University of Amsterdam and Leiden University, established encampments inspired by similar protests in the United States. They demanded university divestment from companies linked to the conflict.
The conflict also revealed deep divisions within Dutch society. Anti-Semitic incidents increased, as did Islamophobic attacks. Peace organizations responded by facilitating dialogue spaces for Jewish and Muslim communities. These initiatives aimed to prevent domestic polarization while maintaining focus on international policy demands.
Peace advocates criticized weapons exports that might contribute to the conflict. Research by peace organizations revealed Dutch component parts in weapons systems used in Gaza. This information fueled campaigns for stricter export controls and greater transparency in defense industry relationships.
The Dutch municipal elections in March 2024 partially reflected public concerns about the conflict. Some local candidates made Gaza solidarity central to their campaigns. Peace organizations produced voter guides highlighting party positions on arms exports, Palestinian recognition, and humanitarian assistance.
As the conflict continues, Dutch peace organizations face the challenge of maintaining humanitarian principles while navigating a polarized political landscape. Their ongoing work connects immediate ceasefire advocacy with longer-term visions for just peace. This approach reflects the Dutch peace movement’s historical commitment to both moral clarity and practical solutions.
May 18, 2025 – 100,000 people draw red line (#rodelijn) in massive Gaza demonstration, The Hague
Looking Forward
The Dutch peace movement faces significant challenges and opportunities ahead. Rising geopolitical tensions, climate change impacts, and technological developments will shape future advocacy efforts. However, the movement’s deep historical roots provide resilience and perspective.
Several key trends will likely influence future directions. First, the integration of climate security and peace work will continue growing. Peace organizations increasingly recognize environmental degradation as both a cause and consequence of conflict. This understanding prompts new coalitions between peace and environmental activists.
Second, technological advances present both risks and opportunities. Autonomous weapons systems raise profound ethical questions. Cyber warfare capabilities threaten critical infrastructure. Peace advocates must develop expertise in these complex areas while promoting international regulations and ethical frameworks.
Third, localization of peacebuilding will gain importance. Dutch organizations increasingly partner with local actors in conflict zones. This approach recognizes that sustainable peace requires community ownership. Future programs will likely emphasize capacity building and supporting indigenous peace initiatives.
Fourth, the peace-development-humanitarian nexus will strengthen. Organizations recognize these fields as deeply interconnected. Integrated approaches addressing security, governance, economic opportunity, and basic needs show the most promise for sustainable peace. Dutch policy increasingly reflects this understanding.
Finally, youth engagement will remain crucial for movement vitality. Young people bring fresh perspectives and digital skills to peace advocacy. Organizations that successfully integrate intergenerational leadership will prove most resilient. Educational programs connecting historical peace traditions to contemporary challenges will help inspire new activists.
The Dutch peace movement’s future, like its past, will balance idealism with pragmatism. Its strength lies in this dual commitment to principled advocacy and practical solutions. Through changing geopolitical landscapes, this distinctive approach continues to influence both national policy and international relations.
As global challenges grow more complex, the Netherlands’ peace tradition offers valuable lessons. The persistent pursuit of diplomatic solutions, commitment to international law, and engagement with grassroots concerns remain relevant. This balanced approach—neither naive pacifism nor militaristic nationalism—represents the enduring contribution of Dutch peace advocacy to global security discussions.