[Thanks to Healthview for image]

There is a growing academic research and consultancy industry on the issue of nation-branding, specifically: how a nation-state can improve its impact in the world by building a credible, recognisable brand-name for itself. Classic examples are Spain leaving Franco behind and re-creating itself as an idyllic, culturally-rich Mediterranean hotspot, and Norway earning a reputation as a quiet but effective behind-the-scenes conflict-resolver (otherwise known as ‘niche diplomacy’). But brands, as with anything in the marketplace, are not permanent and need to be constantly nurtured, otherwise the credibility soon dissolves. Spain has run into trouble as its hotspot image hits the financial buffers, but Barcelona remains ultra-cool. Norway has entered a period of major soul-searching now that Anton Breivik has shattered the domestic peace, but it remains an effective diplomatic force.

While there are plenty of recorded success stories, it is more interesting to watch the complete fragmentation of a national brand up close, in real time. Welcome to the Netherlands in late 2011.

When Uri Rosenthal became Foreign Minister just over a year ago, there was a sense that his reputation as a heavy-weight domestic political fixer and trusted advisor to Mark Rutte would carry some momentum into foreign affairs. Together with State Secretary Ben Knapen (‘The Nonconformist’), it was a noticeable change of tack for the Ministry. But the writing was already on the wall in the Governing Agreement between VVD and CDA that identified Israel as the only land that the Dutch minority government would strengthen relations with.

Overall, the Agreement declared that the Netherlands would “pursue international stability and security, the supply of energy and raw materials, the promotion of international law, and the trade and economic interests of the Netherlands and Dutch companies.” One year down the line and it is clear that Israel and economic interests – very narrowly defined – dominate everything coming out of The Hague. The long tradition of the Netherlands being on the side of a just, balanced international system, with development aid and peace-keeping as central parts of this, is being left behind for a petty nationalism lacking any vision except for immediate selfish gain. The Dutch brand is in free-fall.

Rosenthal has been repeatedly criticised for his ham-fisted determination to push national interests abroad. A discreet survey by the NRC, published yesterday, of Dutch diplomats and civil servants has produced a highly negative insight into the diplomatic apparatus. The pro-Israeli standpoint had led to the isolation of the Netherlands in the EU and the loss of one of the central planks of the Dutch brand, the support of human rights. The minimal Dutch contribution to NATO’s Operation Unified Protector – compared even to Denmark, or Belgium, which still doesn’t even have a government – and the hardly-worth-bothering-about ‘police training mission’ in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz has reduced The Hague from a worthwhile trustworthy ally of Washington to a small insignificant inward-looking country that the Americans don’t care about any more. G20 participation is long, long gone. The blinkered focus on economic interests has reduced the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to little more than an appendage to the Ministry of Economic Affairs under Maxime Verhagen.

In short, the current leadership of foreign policy is dismantling the Dutch brand, piece by piece, norm by norm, value by value. This is not totally down to Geert Wilders either – Rosenthal has long been an Israel supporter and does not need heat from the PVV to follow that line. This is simply his style. Typical is his reaction to the NRC‘s expose on Binnenhof today, disliking the fact that civil servants had spoken to the paper anonymously and dismissing them as the no-hopers most afraid of their jobs with the coming 75m Euro cuts at the Ministry. Not a response that suggests much self-reflection, or a willingness to accept criticism. He reacted equally negatively at the end of October after interviews with various ambassadors in the NRC sketched the Netherlands as an increasingly provincial land where small issues dominate the political scene.

As Juurd Eijsvoogel reminded everyone a week ago, the Dutch ‘Alleingang’ is a costly business. The promotion of economic interests relies on maintaining positive relations with your partners. Demanding results for oneself while ignoring the standpoints of others is a rapid way to de-friend yourself. As the Belgian ambassador put it – the Dutch could start by listening to others more (listening is not a Dutch strong point). Having spent the past decade nurturing a brand of international repute, the Dutch Foreign Ministry is now reducing everything to simplistic chauvinism.

[Radio Netherlands Worldwide 17-11-2010]

The promotion of human rights. Its a cause that is associated with many countries, but only one or two make it a set-piece for their purpose and image in global politics. The Netherlands is at the forefront of this small group. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs places it as one of the “cornerstones” of Dutch foreign policy, on a par with key concerns such as security and development. 118m Euro has been allocated in the Ministry’s 2011 budget for ‘Strengthening international order and respect for human rights’ – up from 90m this year. The location of international legal institutions in The Hague adds to this aura of striving for a better world.

This position is so deeply ingrained that the Netherlands also takes on the role of presenting awards to those in other nations who work towards this goal. The annual Mensenrechtentulp prize is awarded by the Dutch government on 10 December, the international day for human rights. The Dutch, plus americains que les americains as the Gaullists used to say, also draw on Franklin Roosevelt’s legacy to award the Four Freedoms prizes, again to those who have worked to secure a better existence for others. Meanwhile, in classic ‘new public diplomacy’ style, the emphasis has also been place on raising awareness within the Netherlands for human rights, particularly in education. Teach them young, as they say, and it will stick. In 2011 this will be backed up by the opening of a Human Rights Institute to monitor and advise on domestic human rights issues, something that the UN has been requesting of its member states since 1993 but which has finally been agreed in the Netherlands – the place which up till now didn’t consider it necessary.

But times are changing. Speaking at the announcement of the Institute in April this year, international law professor Theo van Boven noted that “the Netherlands has recently been criticised for putting asylum seekers with children onto the street.” So the image is vulnerable. And this is a longer story than just the arrival of the PVV.

The Council of Europe has been critical of Dutch regulations for asylum-seekers for the last two years, something which was emphasised by Thomas Hammarberg’s report in March 2009. Hammarberg would not comment on whether the Netherlands was better or worse than others in Europe, but the attention was hardly positive. Other NGOs have kept tabs on the state of Dutch detention centres for asylum seekers, and Amnesty International and the European Court of Human Rights have been active in focusing on the forcible return of such individuals to Iraq, Somalia, and other locations. And Amnesty’s full report on migrants and asylum seekers from 2008 doesn’t make uplifting reading either. The strict regime is treating anyone who enters this orbit as a criminal from the first moment.

Opinion is divided on this. Some have disputed that conditions are so bad in these centres. Others point to the fact that a perfect system does not exist. Meanwhile, surveys show 80% support for strict government policies towards illegal immigrants – and asylum seekers are regarded with suspicion as one element of this threat. So has Dutch opinion moved to the Right in the last decade. 

Perhaps the activities of the Foreign Ministry to raise understanding within the country on human rights are now more important for the domestic political environment than they are for promoting the cause abroad.  

Because according to the wonderful 2010 Country Brands Index, perceptions seem ok beyond the borders. The Netherlands has moved up from No. 31 to No. 25 in the global index. While the Med countries sink like their current account balance, Northern Europe is on the up – the Netherlands makes in into the top ten for both ‘doing business’ and ‘quality of life’. The image – so far – appears to be holding together.

In mid-March Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen reported the results of an opinion survey on how other nations view the Netherlands. The purpose was to discover to what extent the domestic debate over Islam (“het binnenlandse moslimdebat”) was affecting the country’s trade position. The report also included details of the Dutch public diplomacy activities designed to promote positive opinion abroad.

The report makes interesting reading. The starting point is that the Netherlands has for many years held on to a positive image abroad (‘Nederland is een sterke merk’). In terms of recognition and associated values, the country is rated alongside the larger nations of Europe. Simon Anholt’s Nation Brands Index regularly places the Netherlands around position 10, 11, or 12 out of a total list of 50 nations tested. Leaving aside, of course, the dubious merits of a nation brand index, the point here is that a positive image can support the capability to achieve a range of foreign policy goals – in particular in this case the securing of favourable economic deals.

In 2008-2009 the Dutch trademark was tested in 15 countries: Belgium, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, Egypt, Russia, Turkey, India, Indonesia, China, Brazil, USA. A mix of close European partners, BRICS, and important Islamic countries. Out of this lot the Netherlands received a positive judgement of between 5.9 and 8.3 out of 10. The scores – to the disappointment of the Ministry, were significantly lower in the non-European countries (with the exception of Brazil) than in Europe itself. In Turkey and Egypt the lowest scores were registered for Dutch moral standards and respect for other religions. Tough for the Ministry to take was also the fact that the Dutch are not recognised for being ‘open-minded’ or ‘tolerant’ – hard-working and friendly, yes, but thats as far as it goes. Lastly, the civil servants cannot be surprised to find that no-one regards the Netherlands as playing a leading role in the EU. The days of being one of the original path-finding Six are long, long gone.

Interesting result from the countries with a muslim majority: The values that the Netherlands likes to think it stands for - human rights, international law, international peace, and a reliable partner in international organisations –  are not accepted because they are selectively applied. The significance of this in the wake of the Davids report should not be lost. Likewise the Dutch are seen as predominantly pro-Israel, undermining its position as a credible partner in the Middle East peace process. And the ICC’s call to arrest Sudanese president Al-Basjir has gone down badly as well (the ICC’s location in The Hague placing it within Dutch foreign policy by proxy).

The response of Verhagen to these results was significant, because it didn’t take him long to draw direct links between some of the poor results and the ‘fear and hatred’ politics of Geert Wilders giving the Netherlands a bad name. So Wilders is damaging Dutch export capacity? This angle was explored by the Groene Amsterdammer in an article last week, which gave the word to among others the head of the Dutch employers’ association (Wilders damages the Netherlands “in an amazing way”). Funnily enough, the Groene didn’t have much interest in this approach, and instead focused on the damage to Dutch reputations coming from the impending withdrawal from Uruzgan. Is that going to have a negative effect in muslim countries? Unlikely. But it has in the US. Considering the trade balance with the US as compared with the Middle East, it is clear which is the most important trading partner – and where the Dutch trademark really matters.  

Incidentally, the NRC ran a nice reconstruction of the fall of the cabinet last weekend too. Biggest conclusion – it was complicated. Second conclusion – the crunch came when Verhagen, having obtained the letter from NATO Secretary General Rasmussen requesting an extension of the Dutch mission (with the acquiescence of Wouter Bos), then decided, without discussion, to send the letter to parliament and make it public. That careless attempt to force the issue and make Bos back down before the cameras exploded any trust between the two. So Bos, up to that point willing to find a way out, pulled the plug.

Final conclusion – Verhagen blew it, big time.