What is the new Dutch foreign policy agenda all about? asks Giles Scott-Smith of The Holland Bureau.

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.