To the Review Committee CPB
Chairman prof. dr. A. Barten
c/o drs E.A. Oskam, SER
PO Box 90405
2509 LK Den Haag
The Netherlands

September 11 1997
In reply to your decision of September 5 1997



Dear Committee,

I hope that you allow me a short reaction to your decision of September 5 1997.

It may be that there are some misunderstandings.

  1. Firstly, I do not consider your Review Committee to be a court of law or similar body. I provided you with information that partly relies on legal sources, not for you to decide on the information itself as a court would do, but to consider the consequences for your task.
  2. Secondly, you are correct in observing that developments in my case started earlier, but you are incorrect in believing that they have ended. Very recently the CPB directorate stated (before the court) that it could block internal discussion by its own volition (notably by not allowing the use of a conference room). Some matters are still before the courts. So your qualification ‘remote past’ seens rather inadequate. In this context, it is both ambiguous and unfortunate that you mention that you did not see any evidence of a case similar to mine in the recent past: (a) does this imply that my case is grave indeed ? (b) and if so, do you really require people to go through my experience ?
An analogy may clarify matters. I enclose a newspaper klipping of a recent case of similar abuse by the government. In 1984 military officer mr. Ovaa died by a grenade. The Ministry of Defence (his superiors) judged that he caused the accident himself, calling him incompetent. You would call this a ‘remote event’, no longer worthy of your attention. However, by a long fight with the Ministry, Ovaa’s widow got established that the type of grenade was defunct, had been judged to be defunct long before, and had been kept in use only since the grenade had been developed by the Ministry itself. Just recently, the Ministry was forced to accept these facts publicly, and to restore Ovaa’s honour.

In the same way, the abuse by the directorate of the CPB still is a very actual matter, as is my protest against it. I do not ask you to do anything other than to do your duty as a Review Committtee, which may involve, as I wrote earlier, some public hearings and discussions with Dutch economists to better understand the consequences of my case.

As your decision now is as I understand it is, my impression is that you are failing in your duty. I kindly ask you to send me your final report, so that I can publicly state my reaction to it.

Yours sincerely,


Thomas Cool