Seriously though, the article doesn't say why they're more "critical" but say that intel sharing remains "excellent". That's a lot of words without saying anything, these kinds of articles are fantastic for one thing and one thing only: reinforcing pre-existing beliefs.
The article they cite from De Volkskrant does mention the reasoning why some information is being restricted; the politicizing of information, and the violation of human rights.
I'm a subscriber of De Volkskrant and follow Huib Modderkolk. He is an investigative journalist in the area of (Dutch) intelligence services. He has uncovered that the Dutch agencies were involved in hacking Natanz, specifically in the last mile part of the operation. He also uncovered a strange motor accident of the alleged agent in the Middle East (out of my head Qatar or Dubai I don't remember and mix some of these countries up, mea culpa). He's done several interviews with former agents and has build up a network of sources.
That the leaders of AIVD and MIVD give this broad interview to him is unique, and a sign that they want to inform the voter before the election on 29th of October. These guys and services are normally very reluctant to share any information because they know the enemy reads it as well. After all, as you asserted elsewhere any idiot can use Google Translate which works quite well with Dutch for a very long time (since forever?).
That's a paywall, and I don't speak Dutch, what precisely are the human rights violations they're accusing the US of?
And these kinds of accusations go both ways, free-speech is under constant attack in the EU, the ruling class doesn't want citizens informed or even able to inform one another of critical political processes and actions without their thumbs in everyone's mouth, that much is clear.
They're very careful in not making any real political statements, which makes sense considering it's the heads of both the military intelligence service and general intelligence service. Here's the relevant quotes thrown through Google Translate:
*Are you more cautious about sharing certain information?*
Reesink: “I can’t comment on what that relationship is like now compared to before. But it’s true that we make that assessment and sometimes don’t share things anymore.”
*That’s a striking shift. What has been the most important change?*
Akerboom: “We don’t judge what we see politically, but we look at our experiences with the services. And we are very alert to the politicization of our intelligence and to human rights violations.”
*What does it mean in practice if there are risks in those areas?*
Akerboom: “Sometimes you have to consider each case individually: can I still share this information or not?”
That doesn't really clarify anything, but if I read between the lines, they're saying "we don't share information if we determine it will help (Trump) politically"
On one hand, this is the modus operandi of every political institutional from the CIA, to the CCP to city states to small towns in California, everyone acts in their own self-interest all the time. They're claiming nebulous "human rights" violations but don't state what they are. Could they mean blowing up boats suspected to be carrying drugs or precursors? I'd like to see Trump stop that myself, it's a pretty dangerous game he's playing.
On the other hand, I would expect the CIA/NSA have much greater potential value for the Dutch intel agencies than the reverse, so them prodding an administration after he was nearly assassinated twuce and many of his closest political officers and supporters were arrested and subjected to lawfare over the last 4 years doesn't seem like a particularly wise course of action. It's true this iteration of Trump is a lot more in tune with the way DC works so I wonder how wise the statement even is, they can accomplish what they're doing without announcing it, except now they announced what they're really up to and should probably expect some kind of retaliation.
I would expect anyone on this particular website right here to be able to let their browser do the translation. For Google Chrome that would even be the default, if it is setup knowing your language(s). The quality of the translation is excellent these days. There is no excuse.
