[Dutch stamps supporting democracy in Iran, 2009: Tribes.org]

A few weeks ago I received an invitation for a reception at the Iranian Embassy in The Hague. Unusual, to put it mildly. Since the Ahmadinejad regime came along, cultural outreach from the Iranians has been somewhat limited. Being a diplomat of a pariah regime can’t be an easy business. My initial reaction was positive – I generally have no problem in establishing dialogue with those who seek it. And there is obviously some curiosity involved to see how the Iranians might go about such an event. And – what is on everyone’s mind in this kind of situation – the urge to see who else would show up.

Yet there was a major catch that made me uneasy. The reception wasn’t called for the Ambassador’s birthday or something fairly neutral, but to celebrate the 32nd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. Now, I am pretty open to different viewpoints. I invited the Cuban Ambassador to give a lecture to students a couple of years ago, and he did, with some style (main security threat to Cuba, according to him? The fall-out from drug flights coming up from Latin America towards the US market). But the Iranian Revolution? A lot of people have died in recent years at the hands of an Iranian state determined to preserve their power in the name of that very Revolution. The violent police clamp-down following the presidential elections in June 2009 , which have temporarily flattened any hope of change, is still lingering. With all my interest in cultural diplomacy, I have no wish to support any of that.

On top of all this has come the case of Zahra Bahrami, the Dutch-Iranian executed on 29 January. Arrested in December 2009 for drug possession, the participation of Bahrami in the post-election demo’s also points to her being singled out as a ‘threat to the state.’ The status of her double nationality was rejected by Ahmadinejad himself. On 5 January she was sentenced to death.

The case has caused the Dutch ambassador to be recalled from Teheran and brought bilateral relations to a halt. Uri Rosenthal faced criticism from the entire Parliament last Friday after the execution was carried out, and he admitted, somewhat grudgingly, that more could have been done to save her. As far as is known, neither Rosenthal nor Rutte sought direct contact with their Iranian counterparts to try and intervene. An attempt by D66 to mobilise support within the European Parliament last year was the most visible response. According to a lawyer connected to the case, reported through a human rights NGO, the speed with which the execution was carried out almost certainly has to do with the fact that there was insufficient (or falsified) evidence and there was no desire on the part of the regime to have any kind of an open process.On Friday 28 January the Iranian Ambassador in The Hague had even reported to Rosenthal that the case was still not decided: “All legal means are not yet exhausted.” Yet a day later the Ambassador instead confirmed the complete opposite.

The reaction of the Iranian Embassy since suggests that they want to avoid major fall-out. The case should not affect bilateral relations, is the message. Zahrami was treated properly by the legal system, and regrets were expressed that ‘an iranian citizen committed a crime which resulted in the death sentence.’’ The insistence that she was Iranian indicates that for Teheran the Dutch government actually has no say in the matter. The Dutch Ambassador in Teheran also received an explanation of Iranian drug policy, as if that was sufficient to explain the whole case.

But whatever the initial thoughts of Rosenthal, the political response in The Hague has ensured that relations should not remain as normal. The breaking of diplomatic contact means the Iranian Ambassador and his staff have restricted travel rights in the Netherlands and must seek written permission for any contact with Dutch government officials. Some have been prompted to make imaginative suggestions in this situation: Joël Voordewind (Christen Unie), for instance, proposed that with major public spending cuts in the offing a slice could be made by simply slosing the Dutch Embassy in Teheran. The Netherlands Iran Committee , a strong opponent of the current Iranian regime, fully agrees and goes further by proposing to rename the street on which the Iranian Embassy is situated Zahra Bahramilaan.

The case illustrates the dangers faced once again by Dutch-Iranians or indeed any Iranians with two passports who run the risk of deep suspicion from the Ahmadinejad regime if they visit the country. It also puts into starker perspective the economic links between the netherlands and Iran that have surfaced via Wikileaks in recent weeks. While Shell’s interest in Iranian oil and gas fields is the major example, there have been other more specific cases, such as concerning the apparent sale of Dutch technology for Iranian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in 2005 and again in 2006. Dutch banks ABN AMRO and ING divested themselves of Iranian investments and accounts in 2007, under guidance from US advice in the context of UN sanctions against the Iranian nuclear programme. Yet the interest of Dutch business in UAV sales continued, for instance from Inter Connection Technologies and Aviation Services International. Then there was the export ot Tritium gas in December 2007 – against IAEA regulations. And Credit Europe Bank’s continuing Iranian transactions were defended by Dutch government officials against US pressure in 2008, under the guise that these transactions were known and were being monitored. And UAV related trade continued, this time by AMT Netherlands, into 2009.

UAVs, Tritium, and Banking – quite a list. And in the background all the time are the interests of Shell. Here is John Crocker, Head of the compant’s International Government Relations, in 2009:

“–Double Standard for China: Crocker said Shell was dismayed by the lack of US government criticism of China after Sinopec signed its 2007 deal with Iran to develop the Yadaravan field. According to Crocker, this underscored Shell executives’ fear that western IOCs will get shut out of Iran long-term to the benefit of Chinese, Russian and even Indian firms who disregard American and European pressure and make lucrative investments in Iran’s energy sector with impunity. He claimed that Tehran was crawling with Chinese eager to do business with Iran.”

And the US Embassy’s reply:

“In our dialogue with the Dutch government and private sector on finance and trade measures to combat Iran’s nuclear activities, they express frustration that international sanctions are only as strong as their weakest link, i.e., Russia, the Gulf states, and — especially — China. The Dutch think they are doing their fair share to implement sanctions effectively (and they see far higher trade volumes with Iran coming from Germany, Italy, and France).”

Its a difficult game. One wonders what really is at stake if Dutch-Iranian relations truly get frozen. Needless to say, in these circumstances it would be all the more interesting to see who the company would be at the Iranian Ambassador’s reception. But I won’t be there.

 [Left:Uri Rosenthal (Wikipedia); Right: Ben Knapen (Max Pam)]

The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a useful online overview of what its about: The 2011 Foreign Policy Agenda. The Agenda begins with a clear message – the Netherlands is obviously unable to “bend the world to its will,” and is only really able to have an influence on the world stage via its active membership in international organisations. Cross-border threats and challenges and the interlinked nature of 21st century politics and economics only demand this collaborative outlook even more. The Agenda spells this out in several places: “For the Netherlands to be strong, Europe must be strong”; “solutions must be sought jointly, rather than in isolation”; “creating a better future for others is not just about justice – its about creating a better, safer world for ourselves.”

Cut to the CDA-VVD Regeerakkord and the section on foreign policy. On the whole the two documents seem to fit. The cabinet accord directs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote international order, stability, law, and – above all else perhaps – the promotion of Dutch economic and financial interests abroad. As the Agenda makes clear, around 33% of Dutch GDP is earned through trade, and in 2010 the value of exported Dutch goods and services was equivalent to 72% of GDP. The reliance on a healthy global economy – and a quality Dutch trademark – is therefore very high.

Yet there are significant differences. The Agenda admits that the Netherlands can only mean something internationally primarily via the EU. But the EU doesn’t come out of the cabinet accord so well. Its powers must be held to “core tasks” on “economic sobriety” and growth,  better cooperation in legal and security cooperation, and a more coherent foreign affairs apparatus. Subsidiarity – the ceding of authority to member states – is emphasised. In the next round of EU budgetary talks, its clear that the cabinet aims to reduce the Dutch contribution (shades of Thatcher’s “I want my money back” approach from the 1980s here). And as for expansion, while the Agenda talks of standing by the accession criteria that prospective members must meet, the cabinet accord speaks significantly of  “absorption capacity”   (“absorptievermogen”), hardly a neutral term.

In short - a mixed picture on the EU. The cabinet know they need it, but they want to pay less for it and restrict its functioning. Its not calling the EU a “leftist hobby” (“linkse hobby”) as Geert Wilders suggested back in May (his  exact quote at the time of presenting the PVV party election platform was  “The cabinet must now cut back heavily in all the leftist hobbies such as the billions that are given over to the European Union, development assistance,…”). But its hardly standing by what is apparently a core element in the ability of the Netherlands to have an impact abroad, either. Judgement? B- (could do better).

[And as a blogger on the Groene Amsterdammer site points out, the cabinet accord is more a series of rightist hobbies anyway, such as the $ billions JSF, still hanging in there despite cuts looming across the rest of economic and social spectrum.]

Then there’s Israel. The Agenda talks of being committed to talks between Israel and the Palestinians for a “comprehensive peace agreement”. The cabinet accord begins the issue with a straight-out ”The Netherlands wants to invest more in the connection with the state of Israel.” What this is supposed to mean is not explained, as it is followed by the intention, similar to the Agenda, to pursue peace talks – only this time the Netherlands will be aiming to play “both bilaterally and multilaterally an active role” to achieve this.

Clearly the writers of the accord don’t understand that the first rule of diplomatic arbitration is to be non-partisan in order to maintain credibility to all sides. Judgement? D.  

But enough of these observations. Who has the task to explain the state of the nation to the rest of the world? The duo placed in charge of the Good Ship Foreign Affairs were something of a surprise. VVD’er Uri Rosenthal as Foreign Minister, and former editor of the NRC Ben Knapen as State Secretary.

Former editor of the NRC? Ok, first things first. Rosenthal is a VVD heavyweight and political troubleshooter, but principally on the level of domestic policy. He was also the first informateur after the June 9 elections who tried to mash together a cabinet (and failed, but then anyone would have failed back then). Placing him in the Foreign Affairs hot seat somehow sends the signal that he’s the best option for trying to explain the mangled Dutch political landscape to the rest of the world.

You can see it now, somewhere over the cointreau at the next NATO meeting: “So, Uri, how does it work with this Wilders guy?”

Then there’s Ben Knapen. Its unclear what his role will exactly be – the former ministerial position for development assistance (“leftist hobby”) has been removed, and European Affairs, formerly taken at the State Secretary level, seems to have been handed to the Minister. But Knapen – formerly a top journalist and currently guest professor for media and quality at the Radboud University in Nijmegen, is also quite an influential figure in terms of the reviewing and renewing of Dutch foreign affairs. He was involved in the large-scale review of the future of Dutch military forces earlier this year, and as a member of the advisory Scientific Council for Government Policy he has worked directly on a major overview of the purpose, tasks and apparatus of  Dutch diplomacy. Expectations are that when this appears (soon) it will herald a major change in revamping the traditional role and status of embassies and the practice of diplomacy in general.

So while Uri holds the ship steady and does the explaining, Knapen will be the reformer out to redefine what the Netherlands is all about abroad, and how it can best achieve it. Its an interesting mix.

Interesting turn in the cabinet formation discussions this week. As talks test out the possibilities for Paars Plus, the parties involved have floated the idea of reaching a minimal core agreement for governing but allowing ‘free issues’ to be decided by the whole parliament. The set-up has not been tried before. The thinking seems to be that this will remove difficult obstacles from the cabinet formation, speeding up a result. It will also be a positive response to the splintered election outcome – or, as formateur Uri Rosenthal put it, the ‘pulverised political landscape.’

The NRC has checked out what this could all mean in practice. The big question is of course what a ‘free issue’ might be. It would be remarkable, for instance, if the number one issue – public spending cuts – would be turned over to parliament. The big differences - VVD 29 billion, PvdA 15 billion – are not to be trifled with, and are surely at the centre of government business. The catch is that by excluding public spending, where the Left could unite with the PVV on certain fronts, the agenda is going to be dominated by the parliamentary majority on the Right (VVD-CDA-PVV). So issues such as immigration, criminal justice, and nuclear energy could potentially be decided in ways at odds with the views held by the majority in the cabinet.

The minus of all this is that it will produce many complications as governing parties weigh up possible voting behaviour and the win-lose value of specific issues. The plus, on the other hand, is a parliament taken more seriously in the business of governing. So democracy is strengthened but leadership is weakened. But there is more to it than this, and it comes back to Rosenthal’s comment about being pulverised. How to make the current parliamentary and party system work in a nation politically increasingly footloose and divided? How to create a governing majority with parties that all equally feel they legitimately should govern? 

The answer – expand the cabinet to include the whole parliament. Bring everyone in, exclude nobody. Everyone responsible, no howls of indignation from the opposition benches by the PVV. Balance the Leftist cabinet with the Rightist assembly. Most commentators asked by the NRC seemed positive. ‘It will be a very open and exciting political process’ said GroenLinks advisor Dik Pels. It is indeed a rational, decent, novel, and probably totally hopeless attempt to hold things together. In the media-frenzy that this situation will create, every move being tracked, where the instant sound-bite rules, it will be those who are able to react the fastest and the most glib who will call the shots. And who might that be?

Jort Kelder, a regular on Dutch TV discussion progs, is guaranteed to produce political opinion of a controversial nature. The man who put Quote into the big time, and who runs a nifty website with his ever-present braces as trademark, Kelder has nurtured himself into the position of spokesperson for the Dutch business sector. Now that the Queen has finally named two informateurs – Uri Rosenthal for the VVD and Jacques Wallage for the PvdA – the path to Paars Plus is wide open. (Why we needed a week of formateur Tjeenk Willink to announce this is beyond me, but maybe I am missing some of the subtleties of the royally-ordained cabinet formation process). With this result now looming, Kelder seized the moment for a nice broadside in the NRC last weekend (‘stop de rituele formatiedans, installeer een zakenkabinet’).

During the election campaign Kelder took every opportunity to bang on about how stupid it was that the political leaders avoided the bad economic situation and kept on pestering each other about ‘incidentals’ like tax relief and immigration policy. Now, almost a month since the elections, he’s had enough. We knew well beforehand that it was going to be difficult to form a new cabinet. The elections produced exactly the splintered result that we expected. Weeks later we are still stuck, as Kelder puts it, in the ‘formation-dance’. And worse – even though the Right won, the Left are now going to govern. Scandal! Time for a change.

For Kelder its time to abandon all the parties, each with their own particular interest groups, for ‘a real meritocracy’ – a ‘business cabinet’, made up of professionals who know how to run things in the long term and who don’t get caught up in short-term media-hype (Hague) nonsense. Its time for real men! Disagreements are not to fought out endlessly in parliament but can be immediately solved by referendum. And the Left clearly hates the rich so much that they have made them ’the new Jews’ who can be blamed for everything.

Kelder does have some good points. The fluctuating winds of the Dutch electorate have produced an increasingly unstable situation, which opportunists like Wilders have benefitted from. The traditional Left-Right distinctions are fading out, so that voters no longer associate with one party (he rightly states that less than 2 % of the population is now member of a party) and shop around according to whim and wealth. So its time for a new entrepreneurial elite to break through the impasse and get things done: Jaap Maljers, Wiebe Draijer, Tex Gunning, to name a few. The Dutch political system also allows outside experts to be named to ministerial positions, so this is all within the bounds of possibility.

This is all very well, but he does mess up his argument with some real clangers. If he dislikes the way that the country has fallen into the hands of a constantly shifting under-layer (onderlaag), why give this group greater power through referenda? And if he is so worried that the Netherlands is slipping down the list of ‘knowledge-economies’, no longer the model country (gidsland) that it is supposed to be, are not those nations that succeed in this area – he names Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark – some of the most stable democracies around? Do we really need a business elite to sort out what bog-standard politicans can apparently do elsewhere? Especially when he complains that only in Scandinavia are income taxes higher. Thats right, Jort – maybe they invest the extra tax money in their successful knowledge-economies! No kidding!

And what about this – ‘Endlessly talking politicans have produced empty state treasuries and top-heavy welfare states for the parliamentary democracies.’ Empty state treasuries? I seem to recall this was due to the need to fill huge financial holes left by the wonderfully functioning private financial sector with public money……maybe I’m too cynical, but forgive me for wanting to avoid those kinds of poeple being in charge.

Whatever the blatant inconsistencies, it is still a joy to read Jort Kelder. He comes across as a kind of 21st century mix of T.S. Eliot, Plato, and Milton Friedman, calling for the new Guardians to seize control, maintain cultural standards, introduce a flat tax, and keep the plebs in line. Churchill, as ever for these kinds of thinkers, is the perfect model, the man who stood alone as the enemy was allowed to rise because of everyone’s ignorance. Churchill, scourge of the Nazis – and architect of the WW I Gallipoli disaster, violent oppressor of the 1926 General Strike, and supporter of eugenics for the lower classes. What about Kelder’s suggestion for a voter exam: ’Whoever is too lazy or too dumb to know the basics about democracy, economics and society, will not receive a ballot paper.’ This is great stuff, just when the cabinet discussions were starting to get boring. Thanks Jort.

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.