No.24. (26.09.03)

Dutchman at NATO, trying to bridge gap
Monday, September 22, 2003

AMSTERDAM Of the United States' friends in continental Europe, the Netherlands has emerged as perhaps the most confident and steadfast. So what? At a time when a Dutchman, Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, is expected to be named as the Atlantic Alliance's new secretary general in the next week or two, it emphasizes the Dutch desire not to let trans-Atlantic ties fray further, and - more pointedly - Dutch concerns about the attitudes of France and to a lesser extent, Germany.

Ahead even of Britain or Poland, the Netherlands, with 57 percent, registered the top score in Europe in response this month to a German Marshall Fund poll's central question of, "How desirable is it that the United States exert strong leadership in world affairs?" Overall, the results showed a general erosion of support in Europe for American leadership in the aftermath of the Iraq war, with majorities in France, Germany and Italy considering it undesirable.

The Dutch attitude may account for what appears to be strong American support for de Hoop Scheffer to take over running NATO from Lord Robertson of Britain. But it does not explain why the Dutch, founder members of the European Union, generally supportive of European integration, and almost mythically tolerant, yet backers of U.S. involvement in Iraq, remain so keen on the need for American leadership, even if their own embrace of it is shown in the same polls to have loosened. Part of the answer is awkward. It does not come easily or often on the record. It involves an obvious history of strong involvement with Britain and the United States, and a less comfortable, less readily articulated fear that a diminished American role means more reliance on France and Germany.

In addition, part of the explanation may relate to the demise in Dutch politics of a certain kind of political correctness concerning Islam and the Middle East that is still intact most elsewhere in Europe.

The firmest public statement defining Dutch unease about the two big continental players came in April after France and Germany, along with Belgium and Luxembourg - the minority core of NATO member opposition to the war in Iraq - announced that they would set up their own military operations center in a Brussels suburb next year.

De Hoop Scheffer said then what troubled the Dutch during the conflict's run-up about the French-German moves to halt activity within NATO, to foil the United States and Britain within the United Nations, and to announce a defense headquarters that could be taken as a rival to the Alliance. "Belgium and France will not guarantee our security," he said. "Germany will not guarantee the security of the Netherlands." And he added, "I cannot imagine a world order built against the United States," a reference to the French goal of a multipolar world in which Europe would be a pole conceived in rivalry with America.

At the same time, the Dutch never signed the letter of eight NATO members openly criticizing French and German attitudes as Europe fragmented over the degree of support individual nations wanted to give the United States on Iraq. Instead, the government said it did not want to inflame contradictions among Europeans, and its caution then has seemingly made de Hoop Scheffer acceptable now to France and Germany as NATO chief.

The foreign minister has described himself as favoring a single European voice and "multilateralism with teeth" - defined here as keeping the United States as close to the United Nations as possible, and having the UN function with a much firmer hand on such issues as nuclear proliferation. Still, delineating Dutch support for the United States in full openness does not come easily. In preparing this article, among the opinions sought were those of two highly visible Dutchmen, one a high government official and the other active in international affairs. Both responded readily to questions, but on the condition of anonymity.

"The truth is simple," the international figure said. "Trans-Atlantic feelings remain very strong. Basically, people in the Netherlands would prefer that after consultations that Washington rather than Paris decide."

He said there was absolutely no interest in the Netherlands in a Europe divided from the United States and Britain that would be run by France and Germany. The high government official said that in backing UN Resolution 1441 as a basis for war in Iraq, the Netherlands had to choose for the first time in its postwar history either the United States or France and Germany. The polls, he said, showed people agreed clearly with the government's decision. But he stressed what the government regards as significant elements differentiating the French and German attitudes toward international security and the United States.

The French view of a multipolar world, he said, is a structural one that has its roots in virtually the entire French political spectrum, whereas Germany had a large segment of its political leadership in the Atlanticists' camp, regardless of the poll results. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the official said, was not present in that camp during the Iraq conflict but was now making "all kinds of moves" to return.

For the official, it would be de Hoop Scheffer's job to try to bridge the gap between the rest of NATO and the four countries setting up the rump operation center. Belgium, which publicly backed de Hoop Scheffer's candidacy, is making movement to close the breach, the official said, and he considered Germany on the same wavelength. As for France, he said, he thought it would be difficult for President Jacques Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to continue pressing in the same divisive direction. Another part of the relative Dutch comfort in relation to the United States would appear to relate to the Middle East. In response to the German Marshall Fund poll questions, a majority of the Dutch agreed with a majority of Americans that "Israel deserves our support because it is the only democracy in the Arab world."

In contrast, there was no majority to support this proposition among those polled in Britain, France, Germany or Italy. Had the Dutch been members of the Security Council, the high official said, the government could not have backed a reprimand motion last week against Israel's effort to expel Yasser Arafat because it was considered unbalanced. (The United States voted against it, France in favor, and Britain and Germany abstained.) The context for this may be what Ine Megens, a professor in the department of Modern History at Groningen University, called a sea change in Dutch politics in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001.

Unlike other European countries, Dutch public opinion expressed open concern for the first time about a perceived failure of its Muslim community of about one million, largely Turks and Arabs, to accept the Dutch political and humanitarian model. In the end, during national elections this spring, almost all the mainstream parties developed platforms with proposed laws requiring increased levels of engagement for Muslim immigrants in Dutch life.

In other aspects of the polling, of all the continental countries canvassed, the Netherlands showed the highest level of agreement with the proposition that "under some conditions war is necessary to obtain justice." In response to another question based on the hypothesis of a United Nations-led attack on North Korea in the event they acquired nuclear weapons, a majority of the Dutch said they would support such action, the only clear favorable margin in continental Europe. Sixty-six percent in Germany rejected the proposition. Fifty percent in France were in favor.

(International Herald Tribune, by John Vinocur)