[Thanks to RoyalBlog]

Max Smeets and Giles Scott-Smith

The Dutch Queen Beatrix received some serious media attention this week due to the Islamic-style headscarf (hijab) she was wearing while visiting mosques in Oman, as part of her state visit to Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

For the Freedom Party (PVV) and its leader, Geert Wilders, this visit was an excellent opportunity to reiterate its anti-Muslim stance. Wilders immediately blamed Beatrix for legitimising the oppression of women by wearing a hijab. Alexander Pechtold, leader of the liberal party (D66), propelled the hijab debate on twitter. Soon other colleagues followed to ventilate their opinion. Uri Rosenthal, the Dutch foreign minister, said that the Queen’s actions were not wrong at all, because she merely adjusted herself to the places she visited.

Queen Beatrix responded to it herself, in a reaction that some regarded as ‘a slip of the tongue’ (if you can say her remark that its ”really nonsense” that the hijab is a sign of female oppression, then ok…..). Mark Rutte got drawn into the whole affair, being accused by Pechtold, the PvdA, and the Socialists (the Socialists!) for not defending the Queen enough against Wilders’ Tweet Terror. 

Kinda fun. But isn’t this missing the point slightly? It all seems to distract away from the bigger picture of the trip: the context of the Arab Spring, the role of the monarchy and its ‘freedom of movement’, and the economic diplomacy angle. Unfortunately, relatively few people addressed these kinds of questions recently. A more in-depth look at the justification for the trip is worthwhile.

The Omani sultanate in the Persian Gulf has also experienced deadly protests over the past year. It was also for this reason that a prior state visit, planned for March 2011, was called off.  These uprisings – mainly at the Globe Roundabout in Sohar – were about salary increases, unemployment, and fighting corruption.

As a response to the protests, Sultan Qaboos – Oman’s head of state, prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister and the head of the armed forces since 1970 – reshuffled the cabinet twice. Also other measures were taken – an independent authority for consumer protection in the country was set up, a second public university was created, and the first Islamic bank in the region was established. Nonetheless, many pressing issues have not been addressed at all. Women’s rights are still almost nonexistent and the idea of political parties has not yet formed in the Sultan’s mind. Hence, arguing in this vein, one might judge the trip of the Dutch Queen as morally wrong.

On the other hand, there are enough reasons to defend the trip.  Carol Riphenburg writes in the introduction to her book Oman: Political Development in a Changing World that the country serves “as sort of a bellwether for the region … as it faces the prospect of diminishing oil revenues.” She also states (p. 147) that because of religious and ethnic diversity, Oman is one of the most tolerant states in the Arabian Peninsula. In addition, the author observes that since 1970, “the sultanate has moved from a poor underdeveloped country toward a modern nation state.”

Riphenburg is also very much aware of the problems Oman still faces today; economic diversification in the country is limited, as is private investment. These are problems which the Sultan very much would like to solve by cooperating with innovative countries. Hence, the country provides numerous economic opportunities for the Dutch. The economic cooperation deal signed between the countries on 12 January confirms this statement. The hijab hysteria has only shrouded the more important and interesting details of the visit in the background.

Back in March 2011 the Volkskrant and one or two news outlets did give attention to one major issue behind the controversial visit: the proposed sale of four ships for the Omani navy, worth several million Euros, to be built by Dutch shipyard Damen Schelde. A Foreign Ministry official was quoted as saying that the interests of Damen Schelde literally defined the aim of the visit: “this cabinet strongly applies the idea of economic diplomacy.”

Cut to 2012 and Mark Rutte is flatly denying that economic interests lay behind the recent royal visit. The Groene Amsterdammer was one of the few outlets that revived the Damen Schelde issue this month, pointing out that Damen was an important Dutch company which has been facing major competition for the Oman deal from Goa shipyards and Singapore Marine. Shell and Rotterdam Harbour have also benefitted from Omani largesse for many years. So if in doubt, send in the Queen. Bob Nugent of shipping consultancy AMI International: “Beatrix often plays a role in the sale of naval ships.”

The erstwhile lefties at the Groene also make the interesting argument that the more contacts there are, the more outside influences will enter Omani society, open it up, and gradually fuel the reform process. This is an old pro-free trade argument (if not a major Cold War debate – do you use trade as a way to open up communist regimes, or do the regimes simply benefit from the trade?) and its not entirely without merit, but there have been plenty of nefarious regimes over the years that have stayed in power while foreign investors looked the other way.

The monarchy as an international sales campaign for Dutch business – it sounds very 21st century modernist find-them-a-role, but its been a long tradition in the Netherlands. Beatrix has only to look at her late father, for example …… although, on second thoughts, as Gerard Aalders reminded us in The Lockheed Scandal at the end of last year, perhaps not. Bernhard was for several decades a roving ambassador for KLM, among other Dutch multinationals, which fits the Beatrix-Oman visit perfectly. But the Prince’s shift of allegiance to the US military aircraft manufacturer Lockheed kind of changed the roles around a bit….

Who knows….if the royal house starts promoting Omani dates and carpets, maybe…..

[Radio Nederland Wereldomroep]

When the leader of the Socialist party objects to the way the Queen is being treated, and the leader of D 66, a party with origins not so far away from the Provos, complains about the “unmonarchical” (“onhoffelijk”) manner in which the coalition talks have proceeded since last Friday, you know that Dutch politics have become pretty warped. Especially as the target of their criticism is the conservative Right.

In principle each stage of the coalition formation process must go via Palace Noordeinde. John Tyler had this to say on the Radio Netherlands Worldwide site back in June:

“[The Queen] alone signs the document appointing the ‘informateur’ and ‘formateur’, the two figures who drive the coalition building process.

The monarch’s role in coalition building is not stipulated in the constitution. Only the procedures dealing with the fall of a cabinet and the swearing in of the next one are determined by law. The procedures surrounding cabinet formation have evolved over time, but they are a widely respected tradition and not law.

There have been numerous attempts to change this. [In May] parliament passed a new non-binding rule stating that this year, the lower house of parliament should oversee the process.

Boris van der Ham, an MP from the reform-minded Democrat 66 party, was one of the new rule’s initiators. He says coalition building should be more transparent and more democratic. Therefore he wants the process entrusted to parliament, which is accountable to the people, rather than to an unelected monarch.”

But the Socialists are now abandoning republicanism and D 66 is now standing behind the throne. On the face of it, this could be no more than clutching at any straw that comes along in order to criticise the continuing VVD-CDA-PVV talks for not following the accepted (but not binding) convention. On the other hand, the Right can say that things were so finely balanced and developments so fast-paced over the weekend that any delay would penalise a potential coalition deal. So in the circumstances it made sense to seize the moment and shut the Queen out of the process.

The result of course is that Beatrix chose a PvdA informateur just at the moment when the departure of CDA’er Klink caused Wilders to say he could after all work with the CDA. The Volkskrant led off yesterday with a comment that as a result of these machinations the Queen was being pulled into a potentially damaging tussle with parliament over procedure. Extra spice is involved due to the Queen’s own concerns about the PVV’s outlook, as expressed in her reference to “coarseness in word and deed corroding tolerance” in her 2007  christmas speech (which drew a reponse from Wilders to remove the monarch from any political role).

There has been a rush to make clear that the return of Tjeenk Willink as informateur is completely by the book and not a Palace coup to bring the Left back in. This is true. As he said himself yesterday, its important to have an “above party element” to make sure that things are “properly resolved”.

But in other areas the monarchy and convention are not easy partners. While the Queen tries to maintain decorum in the coalition process, other members of her family pursue the free market with wilful abandon. So while the Volkskrant bemoaned the delicate political position of the Queen on one page, on another it announced that on the terrain of De Horsten in Wassenaar, Willem-Alexander and Maxima aim to knock down two farms and develop in their place three “single family dwellings” of 850 square metres (with a price tag of 5 – 7 million). Local resistance is currently blocking the council’s decision whether to allow it. There may be enough arguments to justify the move, but the pair now have quite a reputation for seeking out commercial enterprises, as the whole Mozambique story in 2009 demonstrated.

So while Beatrix represents the bastion of tradition keeping the hordes in line, it looks like the next generation could be quite at home with a VVD-CDA free enterprise coalition with a programme that “Right-wing Netherlands will lick its fingers over.”

The ‘informateur’ Uri Rosenthal announced Friday that the first round of negoations for forming a cabinet were over and he had therefore completed his initial task. The expectation – and the advise of Rosenthal himself – was that two informateurs would be chosen, one representing the VVD and one the PvdA, to enable two-track negoations to continue next week. This would equitably reflect the stand-off between the two largest parties. It also indicated a long second round of talks in the offing.

Today however the Queen, whose task it is (having taken advice) to announce the informateur, pulled a surprise by declaring that there would be only one, and he is from the PvdA – Herman Tjeenk Willink, vice-president of the Raad van Staat (Council of State), the main political advisory body for the monarchy. This is quite a surprise, as it puts the emphasis squarely on a centre-left cabinet or at least a centrist cabinet involving both left and right. Significantly, Tjeenk Willink was informateur once before – in 1994, when Paars I (PvdA-VVD-D66) under Wim Kok came into being. Looks like we could be heading in the same direction.

The party leaders now identified to play a role in the second round – representing VVD, CDA, PvdA, D 66, and GroenLinks – have been invited today to speak with the Queen to discuss the state of play. So no Wilders, who reacted, predictably, that this was a scandal and a total rejection of ‘his’ voters. Since yesterday Maxime Verhagen of the CDA has suddenly shown an interest in taking part in cabinet discussions, after two weeks of holier-than-though sitting on the fence. The entire first round now takes on a sharper image – it was no more than manouevering to ensure that the PVV and Wilders could be shut out. By not including a VVD informateur and therefore not inviting Wilders to discuss matters at the palace, the message of the Queen today was crystal clear. This man Wilders is not ‘one of us’.

Wilders has denounced this ‘cordon sanitaire’, as well he might. What is so weak about this particular exclusionary tactic is that it has been accomplished with no single attempt to attack the PVV’s programme. This is a stupid mistake, mainly on the part of the VVD and the CDA. A head-on declaration of why they do not want to share a cabinet with the PVV on policy grounds would have given a clear message of principal and show where they stand. It would be pretty easy to do so – one really does wonder how many of the PVV voters have read the party’s programme, because its quite an unbelievable document. Instead both VVD and CDA pretended as if they might cooperate, passing the buck back and forth until the first round was over and Uri Rosenthal could report that there was no possibility for a cabinet that included Wilders. This simply gives Wilders all the ammunition he needs to tell his supporters that he’s being unjustly treated.

What makes the politically-tinted decision by the Queen today all the more interesting is the fact that Wilders has already spoken out against the existing political system in the Netherlands which continues to give the Queen an influential role behind the scenes. He favours the Swedish model that would keep the ceremonial aspect of the monarchy but remove them from the serious political scene. I suspect right now he might be thinking more along the lines of outright abolition.

The choice of informateur today, for instance, was not taken by her alone but on advice of others – however, the fact that she went against the advice of the first informateur, Uri Rosenthal, indicates already that something or other was being said and done in the last 24 hours that led to a different outcome. A PvdA informateur in current circumstances is truly a remarkable political decision. The intention of course is that this will narrow down the possibilities for a cabinet and get the job done. But the fear now is that its going to lead to a compromise cabinet either fudging things or being blocked by internal divisions. This is exactly what happened to Paars the fist time round, which led to the dramatic rise of Pim Fortuyn. Paars II could see the same happening with Wilders.   

And if it does, the already shaky ground for the monarchy could take a further jolt.