[18 April 1951: Treaty of Paris establishes the European Coal and Steel Community. Dutch Foreign Minister Dirk Stikker second from right]

Foreign affairs is never much of a vote-winner, and often a vote-loser due to vague benefits, difficult to realise plans or, in the worst case scenario, body-bags. Considering the last Dutch cabinet fell in February over disagreements on the military mission in Afghanistan, one might expect some recognition of this in the party programmes for the 9 June elections. Not so, writes Mark Kranenburg in the NRC. “Foreign affairs? Public spending cuts.”

Kranenburg is right that there has been a tendency in the Netherlands to turn backs on the outside world. The biggest fall-out from this attitude has been the approach to the EU, with weak support for Brussels from the main parties matched by anti-European demands by Wilders’ PVV and the Socialists. Balkenende’s attempt to become the first EU president was hardly convincing following the Christian Democrats’ poor attempt to sell the original European constitution to the electorate (who promptly rejected it by referendum in 2005).

But Kranenburg’s further explanation – that “a small land like the Netherlands can only play a limited role in the world” – is a typical underestimation of Dutch influence that one hears often. For Kranenburg, the Netherlands only really appears beyond its borders as a member of either NATO or the EU. As a single nation, it doesn’t mean much. But this is a misinterpretation of Dutch influence. The Netherlands projects an important kind of ‘niche diplomacy’, similar to the Norwegians and the Canadians, based on conflict resolution and acting as go-between or mediator amongst larger powers. Think of the recent Dutch efforts to ensure a smooth ICC review conference in Kampala. It has always committed resources to ensuring an effective presence within international organisations. Think of the determination to make Dutch financial advice indispensable and so hold on to the invitation to the G20, or the aim to be part of the leading group within NATO to formulate the future of its nuclear posture in Europe. It has a leading role in key policy areas such as international law and international development, and its ‘knowledge economy’ in these areas, ranging from specialist universities (Institute of Social Studies in The Hague, agricultural technology at Wageningen university) to NGOs, is impressive. And while the population apparently turns away from interest in what goes on beyond the border, they still donate millions of Euros when an earthquake hits Haiti.  

A more complex picture than ‘we are small, therefore…..’. And this doesn’t even go into the importance of trade, when the nation as a whole earns 70% of its GNP abroad.

All in all, the Netherlands works very hard to be seen and heard on the global stage, even if it often unseen via international organisations, or deliberately media-staged as with the many efforts to choreograph the ‘special relationship’ with the US by Foreign Minister Verhagen. 

But cuts are on the way. Kranenburg reviews the manifestos – while the VVD (currently leading the polls) plan to invest 120 million Euro more in defence, the others see it as a money pot to be raided. Socialists: 2 billion cuts, Labour, GreenLeft: 1.5 billion cuts, PVV: 1 billion cuts, D 66: 800 million cuts, CDA (even CDA): 500 million cuts. This is all the more remarkable since, as Kranenburg reports, the general tone from CDA, Labour, even D 66 is that the netherlands should participate in future NATO missions, perhaps even in Afghanistan once more (if they can finally sort out amongst themselves what is a ‘military mission’ and what is a ‘civilian mission’). What all this points to – indeed, should point to – is ‘goodbye JSF’. But one wonders, even with a better concentration of investments in specific military capabilities, if the cuts are not going to undermine the constant Dutch wish to ‘do something’ for the greater good abroad.

Apart from the military, a sacred cow could be up for sacrifice – development assistance. The Netherlands has consistently maintained its 0.8% of GNP for development for decades, one of the few nations that is determined to deliver the UN norm, and it has become a kind of flagship to demonstrate the nation’s goodwill and positive intent in global affairs. But now its under fire from the VVD (halve it) and the PVV (completely cut it), and even the CDA are wobbly in their commitment. VVD, CDA, and GreenLeft even want to remove the ministerial position for development cooperation, downgrading the place of this policy area within the government. Considering these parties could well be part of a cabinet combination, the potential for upheaval in this sector is great.

In terms of the Dutch image around the world, this is no small matter. Meanwhile the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been conducting a wide-ranging survey of and discussion with stakeholders to find a path forward for a successful development policy (See The Broker site and ‘How to Develop Development’, 23 January, below]. Lots of debate about whether GNP is the best measure of development, and whether its a question of more growth or better distribution. But all of this, of course, will be decided by Dutch GNP and distributing cuts across the Dutch policy agenda. And at present, the prospects look grim.