Do you feel lucky, punk? [source here]

Quite a week. With Paars Plus buried on Tuesday evening, all eyes returned once more to Palace Noordeinde. Normal practice meant that the party leaders from parliament would once again troupe past the Queen to offer shreds of wisdom and hints of some way forward. Not so. A trio of trusted advisors came and went that evening: First Chamber chairperson Rene van der Linden, Second Chamber chairperson Gerdi Verbeet, and State Council vice-chair Herman Tjeenk Willink. Then at 10 o’clock former minister president Ruud Lubbers arrived as advisor, and left as informateur. Informateur? Lubbers? Time for a new round of comment on the role of the monarchy in the Dutch political system.

The NRC led off today with a piece on Lubbers’ wish that the leaders of the VVD, CDA, and PVV start talking, seriously. He left the door open for a VVD-CDA minority cabinet supported by the PVV from the parliament. Even though this is officially not within his brief. Pragmatism, desperation, take your pick.

Next came Mark Kranenburg and Pieter van Os on p. 3, doing the rounds of the constitution experts to check out if the Queen’s decision was legit. Huib Pellikaan pointed out that it is precisely in times of serious political division that the monarchy’s role is strongest, since the lack of a clear message from the party leaders allows the monarch to choose the path forward. We’ve seen that more than ever since June 9. Lodewijk Rogier added that this is really the last vestige of royal power within the Dutch political system, and therefore it is precisely during these periods that all (critical) attention turns to the Queen’s role. He has a point. Opening supermarkets and launching ships one day, setting the course for the future of Dutch politics the next. For some, it kinda grates.

Rogier then dropped a mega-hint that this problem can only grow. While he (and many) have faith in the qualities of the current monarch, “if this situation occurs with another head of state in the future, then you’ll see that the discussion will turn out differently.” A tough call for Willem Alexander.

But its one thing to focus on the monarchy, and another to consider for a moment that maybe the parliament is quite happy if she takes on this role and saves them from the headache. This point was rammed home, lastly, by the NRC editorial on p. 7. The monarchy maintains this influential role by cabinet formation because the parliament has allowed it to do so. There have been attempts to disrupt it. In 1971 parliament voted in favour of a motion to take over the appointment of the informateur. The legal basis for a democratic, ‘republican’ system exists – but is never used. Earlier this year the parliament once again agreed to discuss the naming of an informateur following the elections. Once again, this option was avoided when the chips were down. Moves to open up debate on a ‘modernisation’ of the monarchy (i.e. complete removal of the monarchy from politics) – as attempted by former D66 leader Thom de Graaf in 2000 – have so far led nowhere. The monarchy clearly still plays a crucial role, because the politicians are not willing to fill the space that would be vacated. Maybe royalty still is at the heart of Dutch national identity and political process. But by default. And if its based on personality not position – for how long?

So where is it all going? The day before the Paars Plus talks collapsed, Geert Wilders popped up with an op-ed – in the NRC ! – that was a translation of his response to the Muslims Debate site that wanted to know ’why he became anti-Islam’. The piece obviously caught a lot of media attention elsewhere – the original English version is available here. Wilders’ big statement before cabinet responsibility? Maybe.

Some trenchant details:

1) the inevitable quote from Churchill (all these right-wing Western civilisation types bring out Churchill, guaranteed every time);

2) Israel is clean and well-run while all Arab states are dirty, poor and chaotic (maybe divide US civil + military aid – $3 to 4bn a year, unconditional – by the Israeli population – 7.5m – and you’ll find out why, Geert).

But the big message of course is that Islam – and the all-powerful but unknowable Allah – takes away individual freedom, to the detriment of all:

“The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.”

A call to freedom! Enough to clear the air and lever his way into the government? Its not a million miles away from Maxime Verhagen’s human rights mantra, after all. Except for some minor details that the CDA might struggle with. Such as Mohammed being referred to as “a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile.”

So the question is – will Maxime swallow this, for the good of the nation? Or will he spit it out – for the good of the nation?

[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.