2003년 3월 20일 발발한 이라크전쟁은 미국의 전통 우방국인 네덜란드의 대미정책의 현재와 미래를 가늠하게 한 중요한 사건으로 보이며, 탈냉전체제 이후 등장한 국제질서의 단극화 시대를 맞아 네덜란드 대외정책의 중심이 서서히 유럽연합으로 이동하고 있는 현실 아래에서 직면한 전쟁이기에 시사하는 바가 크다고 본다. 미국이 주도한 대 이라크전쟁에 대해 네덜란드정부가 취한 외교적 입장을 살펴보는 것은, 영국과 더불어 유럽 내에서 가장 친미성향인 국가로 분류되어 온 네덜란드정부의 대미외교정책이 21세기 신 국제질서체제 하에서도 여전히 유효할 것인지에 대한 질문의 성격을 가지고 있으며, 이에 대한 답을 지난 이라크전쟁 중 네덜란드가 취한 입장의 분석을 통해 밝혀보고자 한다. 또한 이는 전통적 동맹인 한국정부에게 이라크전쟁 뿐 아니라 향후 국제분쟁과 관련한 대미외교정책에 주는 시사점이 작지 않을 것이다. 1991년의 걸프전과는 달리 지난 이라크전쟁은 국제적 명분이 취약했으며, 동시에 신 국제질서의 단극(unipolar)인 미국의 주도로 진행된 만큼 네덜란드의 외교적 선택은 과거와 달리 매우 경직될 수밖에 없었고 이는 전통적 친미외교정책의 정당성과 유효성에 대한 성찰의 계기가 된 것 같다. 그럼에도 불구하고 미국의 네덜란드의 안보와 국가발전에 있어 여전히 절대적 위치를 차지하고 있으며, 바로 이 점에 있어 이라크전쟁에 대한 네덜란드의 입장, 특히 대미정책의 근본적 한계를 잘 보여주고 있다고 할 것이다. 이 논문에서는 네덜란드외교정책의 전통적 특징과 대미외교정책의 역사적 발전과정을 우선 살펴 본 후 이라크전쟁을 둘러 싼 양국 관계를 네덜란드의 입장에서 분석하고, 이를 바탕으로 향후 대미관계를 전망해 보고자 한다.

The Iraq War in 2003 can be perceived as a test case in the Dutch contemporary foreign policy. As staunch ally of the United States of America the Netherlands government had to choose its political standpoint in accordance with its traditional allies concerning the war in Iraq. The Hague decided to back up the American coercive policy against Saddam Hussein, although its contribution would be merely political support, in other words, the moral support. The Netherlands, geographically one of the smallest states, had begun to pursue the guarantee of its national security through the atlantic alliance consisting of the USA and UK, after the World War II which had shown the fragility and invalidity of the traditional neutral policies. As member of the Western Bloc led by the USA, the Dutch government has taken part in the UN and regionally in the NATO and several European Institutions as a full member from the beginning. Under the newly appeared international order, the Cold War, the Dutch diplomacy tried to show its loyalty to America through the liberation of its former colony Indonesia, participating in the Korean War and fervent support to the US Middle East policies, and so on. These kind of active engagement in the international affairs, of course, brought the losses to the Netherlands. Generally speaking, the Dutch diplomacy traditionally has had some profound values, the maritime-mercantilism, the neutralist-abstentionism, and the internationalist-idealism. On the base of these deep-rooted values the Dutch traditional neutral policies had been built up and successfully implemented until 1945, which should be transformed into the active alliance politics afterwards. The newly emerged Dutch attitude against international conflicts and regional affairs asked the nation`s willingness and preparedness in its turn. In other words, the Dutch government could get the national security through this strong Atlantic alliance, but it had to admit the reality of being influenced by its strong partner. The struggle of the government in the Hague was that this could harm and limit in some extent its own diplomatic maneuverability, in other words diplomatic dependence on the US world policies. As full member of the European Union, of which significant members like France, Germany and Belgium expressed their utmost discontentment and objection against the American military intervene in Iraq, the Dutch government had to declare the legitimacy of this war, based on firm belief that nation``s interest could only be protected by the uncompeting Super Power, the USA. The Dutch has shown its willingness to fulfil the moral obligation as staunch ally and member of the NATO, with political back-up for the US military engagement in Iraq. Considering the fact that the ultimate aim of the Dutch diplomacy has been always focused on forming and securing the balance of power state in Europe in the one hand and in international order in the other, it will be quite logical that the efficiency of its foreign policy will be carefully examined in terms of the results achieved and expectation in the forthcoming era, where the US`` domination as unipolar in the international politics will be inevitable. Maybe the retrospective attitude in the nation`s foreign policy, the neutralist politics, would be able to get more broad and solid ground in order to get rid of the country``s dominant position in the international affairs, and the pro-European voices position in the international affairs, and the pro-European voices for enhancing the solidarity in the EU as counter-balancing power would get more chances to be heard. All these, just for the restoration of the balance of power, regionally and globally, as the forefathers of the Dutch diplomatic history had been advocating.