The Party for the Animals narrowly approved a motion deeming increased defense spending a “necessary evil,” amidst internal divisions over the issue at their party congress in Amersfoort. This decision comes as the outgoing cabinet seeks support for a significant increase in the NATO standard at the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague.

Party leader Esther Ouwehand secured the backing of 51 percent of members present for the motion, despite strong opposition from within the traditionally pacifist party. The vote grants Ouwehand conditional leeway to pursue her defense policy, pending further member consultations before the October 29 elections. These consultations will determine the party’s final stance for the election campaign.

Ouwehand clarified that her support for defense does not automatically equate to endorsing the cabinet’s proposed NATO standard increase, labeling it a “Trump standard, dictated by an autocrat.” She stipulated that she would only support increased defense spending if it is accompanied by investments in environmental protection and nature conservation.

The party’s internal discord stems from its historical stance against defense spending, consistently voting against the Defense budget in the House of Representatives. Ouwehand’s consideration of bolstering Europe’s military resilience has drawn criticism, particularly after the House faction approved the 800 billion euro ReArm Europe plan. Party founder Marianne Thieme and other factions voiced concerns that this “militaristic turn” betrayed the party’s voters.

The outcome of the Party for the Animals’ internal debate holds significance for the outgoing cabinet’s efforts to garner support for their NATO proposal in the House of Representatives. Prime Minister Schoof and Defense Minister Brekelmans need to secure sufficient backing, and while support appears likely even without the Party for the Animals, disagreements persist regarding the funding source for the multi-billion euro defense increase. The GroenLinks-PvdA faction has stipulated that their support is contingent on the increase not impacting the welfare state.