Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
Ladies and gentlemen,
Have you ever heard the parable of the two fish?
One morning they were out swimming in the sea when an old fish in the distance called out:
‘Hello boys, how’s the water?’ The two young fish smiled politely and said it was fine. When
the old fish had gone, one turned to the other and asked, ‘What the hell is water?’
In recent years, this parable (as recounted by the American writer David Foster Wallace) has
often sprung to mind when people ask me about security in the Netherlands. Security –
human security – is the fundamental building block of everything we hold dear in this country:
stability, democracy, prosperity, equality. Sometimes we are as oblivious of it as those two
fish were of the water.
Of course, I don’t need to tell you about the importance of security: you have chosen to study
it.
So I am not here today to play the wise old fish. But that simple story is a good reminder that
we sometimes take the most basic things in life for granted. Especially in a country like the
Netherlands, which has lived in security and managed to grow, build and develop almost
continuously since the end of the Second World War.
Perhaps every Dutch person shares some of the naivety shown by those two young fish.
Geographically, we are a privileged country, as many other foreign ministers have told me.
They are envious of our secure location far from the southern shores of the Mediterranean, a
source of instability. Far also from the East and the unpredictability of Russia. Securely
nestled in a ring of stable, prosperous states. And close enough to the heart of Europe –
Brussels, Germany, France – not to be prey to destabilising forces.
It’s undoubtedly a favourable position. But that geographical advantage has also nurtured a
certain sense of national apathy. Over the years it has intensified the traditional Dutch
neutrality reflex: the feeling that we can ignore events happening around us.
That we don’t have to invest in national security. That we in the Netherlands are above
naked, cruel international power politics because we aren’t affected directly.
1
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
We are therefore prey to our own geopolitical illusions. And throughout our history we have,
at regular intervals, paid a high price: 1672, (the ‘disaster year’, as we all learned at school),
1795 (the end of the Republic), 1940 (the German invasion). These were watersheds that
clearly showed we hadn’t invested enough in our security, our defence, our diplomacy and
our alliances.
These were years in which the Dutch fish were rudely awakened in an empty sea and
gasped and thrashed in shock.
Make no mistake, I’m not claiming the Netherlands in 2016 has simply dozed off strategically.
Only that we may have reached a turning point. At a time when, economically, we’ve never
had it so good. The Netherlands is a world leader in many fields: innovation,
competitiveness, social security, internet density, social engagement, the pension system
and press freedom.
But the Netherlands is also undergoing a number of systemic crises. Some with national and
some with geopolitical consequences. Take the euro crisis, the rapidly aging population, the
difficult integration of newcomers and the exhaustion of our gas reserves.
Politics, too, is changing fundamentally. Resistance to political and economic elites is
growing. They seem to have no thought for the inequality and uncertainty on the labour
market and in society. Undercurrents are coming to the surface and rightly demanding their
place on the democratic stage.
At such a turning point, I see it as my duty to offer a realistic analysis of our country’s
strategic environment. An environment that is more complex and acute than ever before –
the election of Donald Trump as the next US president has ramped things up a notch. To me,
and I hope I can make my position clear today, security is a progressive issue.
I will do so by looking at seven trends and then trying to present seven solutions that we will
no doubt revisit in the discussion afterwards.
Seven trends
1. Disintegrative forces and the need for security
2
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
Let’s begin by taking a big step back.
Since the Second World War, we have witnessed a gradual process of international
integration. The UN, the WTO, the EU, NATO: the international community has worked hard
in recent decades to manage its interdependence. It has set up supranational institutions and
pooled its sovereignty, with the EU leading the way. And it established a strong system of
collective security: NATO. The Netherlands was often at the forefront in this process.
With the slaughter of the First and Second World Wars still fresh in their minds, people
understood the need for integration. Europe had been to the brink of Armageddon. Never
again! A system of constructively interwoven interests and pooled strengths would see to
that. Post-war reconstruction went hand in hand with the creation of the welfare state and a
social and political compromise sustained by checks and balances. National sovereignty and
globalisation reinforced and restrained each other.
This integration project is no longer accepted without question. On the contrary,
disintegrative forces are gaining strength. Last week, Le Monde referred to ‘Le fantasme de
la demondialisation’.
The benefits of interdependence are not tangible enough and are often at odds with the
public’s loyalty. People feel the need to ‘take back control’. It’s not their project but that of a
cosmopolitan elite. The fruits aren’t always shared fairly, and never have been, as Thomas
Piketty has convincingly argued.
The response is plain for all to see: Brexit, Trump, sovereigntist parties in Western Europe.
And it can’t be denied, the same sentiments can be seen in the Netherlands. The referendum
on the constitutional treaty in 2005 was the first sign. And the Ukraine treaty was rejected by
referendum last April.
Municipalities have declared themselves ‘TTIP free’, and protestors have taken to the streets
against CETA. People think the world is changing too quickly, their control is slipping away
and their very identity is at stake. And for what? What has globalisation ever done for them?
Did anyone ask them what they wanted? In this new world is our country nothing more than a
helpless province?
We have to recognise that globalisation has not benefitted all, especially in a socioeconomic
sense. The Netherlands has managed to address this, including under the current
3
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
government; thankfully we still have a working social contract. But here, too, migration is
eroding the idea of cultural identity. And some people are asking themselves, ‘Do we have to
give up our essence – regardless of what it might be – for an ‘elitist project’ that, apparently,
has no benefit for us? Who will look after our security, our safety?’
Bas Heijne wrote a thoughtful column about this in the NRC in September. He recognised,
and I quote, ‘the attraction of brutal simplification’. ‘The enormous increase in knowledge,
coupled with the global perspective that accompanies it, the realisation that everything is tied
up in a giant tangled knot,’ he continued, ‘makes the world incomprehensible and the
individual insignificant.’
2. Anglo-American disengagement from Europe?
We all know it, but there’s no harm in repeating it: Europe is set to decline as an economic
power in the decades ahead. Five years ago, the EU member states accounted for 20% of
the world economy. Forty years ago the figure was 45%. In five years’ time, it will be just
15%, and that’s without allowing for the impact of Brexit.
Enormous changes are under way, especially in the East. Of the world’s seven billion people,
four billion live in Asia. The shift towards China and Asia is essential for us too. A ‘pivot’ for
us, too.
Because here, too: make no mistake, the US’s interest in Europe will also decline. It would
have done under President Hillary, too. I’ve no illusions about that. The US will insist more
strongly that Europe take responsibility for its own security. Mr Trump said it loud and clear
during his campaign, but all US policymakers, including the Democrats, take the same view.
And, I would add, they are not entirely wrong. Why should the US be signing off such a large
chunk of Europe’s security cheque in today’s world?
Sharing the burden and sharing control go hand in hand and are in all our interests. I’ve
already mentioned that sense of taking back control.
Of course, this is about more than just security policy. It’s about our entire investment in
international public goods such as food and energy security, clean water and clean air, and
caring for the climate – a task we should share much more fairly. Free riders in this area, too,
4
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
will eventually erode the system, put the Sustainable Development Goals out of reach and
jeopardise our security.
Brexit will further reduce Europe’s strategic importance. When the UK leaves, the EU will
take a big hit: 30% of its fleet, 20% of its trading capacity, 30% of its expeditionary military
capability, 16% of its GNP, and 20% of its official development assistance.
Brexit doesn’t necessarily mean British disengagement but it’s something we can’t rule out.
One thing is certain: a new ‘splendid isolation’ – withdrawal from Europe – is not in the
Netherlands’ interests, and certainly not now. The Netherlands has always had an interest in
the Anglo-American contribution to the balance of power in Europe. And Europe has been
weaker when the Anglo-American powers have withdrawn, such as in 1919, when the US
Senate refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles.
We must keep the Americans and the British engaged, above all through the transatlantic
alliance. This has always been the case. Lord Ismay, the NATO Secretary-General from
1952 to 1957 put it as follows: ‘The purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the
Russians out, and the Germans down.’ And that was still the general feeling in 1980, when I
became politically active.
But how times have changed! Intensive US involvement in European security can no longer
be taken for granted and the Netherlands’ interest in a strong Germany has never been so
great.
The interests of the Netherlands and Germany run parallel in so many areas: from
agreements in the EU to a strong euro and an open economy. And that’s more important
than ever now that the UK is set to leave us. Through its history and location, Germany is
also a bridge to Central Europe and Russia.
What’s more, Germany is taking more and more responsibility for security policy. It has been
active in Afghanistan, of course, since 2001. And, partly at the request of the Netherlands
and France, it is also playing its full part in Mali. Germany is daring to ‘act out of area’ again –
although this understandably remains a politically sensitive issue in Germany.
I would argue that the Netherlands must help Germany accept its leadership role in Europe –
especially now.
5
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
Despite their differences, France, Germany, the UK and North America, together with the
Netherlands, are members of the same community of values. They stand for international
law, freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
It is important to reflect on this at a time when those freedoms seem to be under increasing
pressure in an uncertain, more insecure world.
3. Growing uncertainty and hybrid threats
It goes without saying that the world has become more uncertain. This brings me to my third
trend: growing uncertainty and hybrid threats.
Let’s jump back in time again. Less than 30 years ago, the greatest threat that kept us awake
at night was serious but manageable: a large-scale conventional Russian tank invasion
through the Fulda Gap. This was the low-lying route between East and West Germany, the
route Napoleon had taken after his defeat in Leipzig, and the route American troops had
followed in their advance eastwards in April 1945. Would the Fulda Gap reaffirm its historical
significance during the Cold War?
The prospect was terrifying – fear of a nuclear Armageddon was never far away. But it was
also easily comprehensible. NATO had prepared for this scenario. Geography and state
action were still the main determinants.
Today, increasingly, that is no longer the case. Today a huge game of chess is being played
simultaneously on many boards. The pieces are not only states but also non-state actors.
And the game is increasingly being played in the newest dimension: cyberspace.
This complex, manifold, ever-changing threat has a name – a hybrid threat – and it demands
a sophisticated response. Everything about this threat is in flux, even the dividing line
between ‘war’ and ‘peace’. The opponent hides in the shadows. It acts asymmetrically. Its
armoury includes spurious humanitarian aid, NGO financing, minority and linguistic politics,
radio propaganda, Facebook and Twitter sock puppets. It delivers smartly packaged
misinformation directly to the public, and it spreads malware. Digitally savvy Western Europe
is very vulnerable to this type of manipulation and cyber threat.
6
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
What’s more, it is not always clear whose move it is. We’ve seen non-state actors grow up
very quickly in recent years: just look at ISIS. Groups that totally reject the Westphalian
system of states. And not only the system, but everything we in the democratic West believe
in.
In this sense ISIS defies description. The apocalyptic movement rapidly conquered an area
half the size of France using a devious combination of medieval methods, terrifying violence,
religious inspiration and a mix of both conventional and modern hybrid warfare.
The coalition has recently regained the upper hand but we must be realistic: we are still a
long way from slaying this many-headed monster.
Closely related to this is the fourth trend.
4. Instability on the southern border
We must recognise that Europe’s southern border has become the main exporter of
instability to our region.
The causes lie in deep political and socioeconomic crises in a region that has been badly
served by failing states and failing systems. But those failing states and systems have also
been caused, aggravated and badly served – and we should be honest about this – by the
West itself. Take the invasion of Iraq in 2003, for example, and the intervention in Libya in
2011.
These states are no longer capable of providing basic public services and their new leaders
often lack legitimacy.
The socioeconomic tensions in these countries are at breaking point. While the West is
struggling with an ageing population, they have an enormous ‘youth bulge’. There’s a whole
generation that’s reasonably well-educated but has no prospect of finding work. This is
fuelling enormous discontent, mass migration from the countryside to the city and shortages
of basic facilities such as housing and water.
But there’s more to it than that – it’s not just the economy, stupid! There are deep ideological
divisions in the region. Divisions between Shiites and Sunnis. Divisions involving the
7
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
unresolved Palestinian question. Divisions that bolster tribalism in many Arab and African
countries hampering the development of modern state institutions. Divisions that exacerbate
the anti-American, anti-Western feelings that are rapidly gaining ground.
This is all leading to an explosive mix: a young population that is receptive to radicalisation
and fed by a criminal undercurrent. ISIS and Al Qaeda, but also Al-Nusra, are the result. And
even when Mosul and Raqqa are liberated – hopefully soon – it won’t be the end of ISIS.
We have to be prepared for a long battle. As Winston Churchill said after the battle of El
Alamein in November 1942, ‘This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it
is perhaps the end of the beginning.’
A defeated ISIS will go underground as ‘ISIS 3.0’. The breeding ground for these kinds of
radical politico-military alternatives will unfortunately not be wiped out by ISIS’s military
downfall.
5. The re-awakening of empires
While parts of our southern border are imploding, other neighbours are flexing their muscles.
Russia, Turkey and Iran are breathing new life into their old imperial traditions. They are
displaying a new self-assuredness founded on their deeply-rooted and historically-anchored
national histories.
Thus, rather than embracing the global integration of economies and values that seemed to
start after 1989, Russia is reverting to core values reminiscent of Catherine the Great, who
also annexed Crimea.
In recent years Russia has taunted us with its involvement in Ukraine, its illegal annexation of
Crimea, its criminal military involvement in Syria, its placement of Iskander missiles in
Kaliningrad, its snap military exercises, cyber-attacks and hybrid threats.
Russia seems to be becoming less a partner and more a strategic opponent. This huge risk
must be avoided at all costs. Russia is a country with which we share many interests, such
as the fight against terrorism and energy security. It is a country we need, and a country that
needs us.
8
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
The same is true to some extent of Turkey, our NATO ally and a candidate country of the
EU. It, too, represents a complicated geopolitical reality. Turkey is a key link in the
geopolitical chain. A country with a very worrying record when it comes to human rights and
press freedom. But, just as Putin’s imperial tendencies cannot be denied, neither can
Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ideas, whether we like it or not.
And finally there is Iran, a country we now have closer ties with. It is an important regional
player that has to be reckoned with – in Syria, in Lebanon and in Iraq. It is the leader of the
Shiite branch in the Middle East, and it is not always ‘a force for good’. It also has a strong
cyber capability. I think the nuclear deal with Iran is a textbook success of international
diplomacy, provided there is strict verification. After all, we mustn’t be naïve about this either.
Which brings me to my sixth trend, one that’s closer to home.
6. Domestic affairs are foreign affairs
The influence of foreign factors on our domestic affairs has mushroomed in recent years.
This has enriched us. Never before have so many Dutch nationals enjoyed foreign holidays,
benefited from Erasmus grants, watched international television, made cheap phone calls to
relatives abroad, seized trade and investment opportunities, or benefited from the diversity of
products and services that have become available in the Netherlands. The ‘cross-border’
world has become a given, and many are enjoying the fruits.
The process has been boosted by the democratisation of information via the worldwide web,
the emergence of the middle class in developing countries, access to credit, the spectacular
drop in the price of airline tickets, the rapid spread (and fall in the cost) of mobile phones and
3G networks, the convenience of global banking, the internationalisation of education, social
media and 24-hour news…
But this interconnectedness also has less pleasant consequences. Conflicts are being
imported into Europe. Social and religious institutions in the Netherlands are receiving
foreign support, while their beliefs are completely alien to the core values of our democracy
and the rule of law. Unrest and sociopolitical conflicts in other countries are being imported
into the Netherlands. Take the Gülen movement versus the AKP, or the Kurds versus the
Turks.
9
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
The biggest impact of all, of course, has been made by the recent terrorist attacks. They
happened so close to home – Paris and Brussels – and are still so fresh in our minds.
The attacks have severely shaken our sense of security, partly because they were committed
not by ‘others’ but by ‘ourselves’. As President Hollande said after the Paris attacks, ‘French
people have killed other French people’ (‘Des Français ont tué d’autres Français’).
It feels like fratricide – what could be worse than that?
And that brings me to the seventh and final trend.
7. Pressure of migration
The direct consequence of everything I’ve just described is the recent influx of migrants. It
originated in war-torn Syria, but not only there. The demographic pressure from sub-Saharan
Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh is also a factor. The demographic explosion in
these countries will be one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century. Half the world’s
population growth in the next 40 years will be in Africa. And those countries themselves have
too little to offer.
The democratisation of information has suddenly made Europe seem very close. Its appeal
is obvious. The failing states on the southern shores of the Mediterranean are no longer able
to control the flow of migration and offer their people a future. Countries of origin have no
incentive to contain migration. In a country like Mali, foreign remittances account for 15% of
GNP. That’s a far higher percentage than the development aid it receives. For these
countries, migration is certainly not always a problem. Sometimes it solves a problem: it’s a
welcome escape valve to let jobless young people leave the country.
These factors will not change in the near future. Migration pressure on Europe is here to
stay. We can better be prepared for it and implement serious policy, as we are currently
doing with the ‘migration compacts’. But I am getting ahead of the:
Seven solutions
I hope you’re still with me and the panorama I’ve sketched hasn’t made you leap out of your
fish bowl in despair. Perhaps you’re thinking, ‘Mr Koenders, why couldn’t you just leave me
enjoying the water instead of telling me it’s in danger of spilling away?’
10
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
But no, you’re not thinking that. I’m sure about that because you didn’t choose this course for
nothing. You want to do something about all this. You believe you can – and I believe you
can, too.
I am an optimist. In so many respects, today’s world is richer, more innovative and better
than ever. Our society has the strength of a new generation. A generation that is aware of
change and wants to shape it. That doesn’t want to cling to the old politics but, fortunately, is
looking further afield for fresh dynamism. A generation that will take a different approach to
achieve the same goals: peace, security, human rights and the environment.
Let me share my seven potential solutions with you.
1. A different Europe
European cooperation can and must change and improve. We made a start during our
Presidency. The European Union is still too much of a legislative machine. Laws and rules
are necessary to shape the single market – the Netherlands is certainly none the worse for
them. But a legislative machine is no longer enough. We need to put politics and society
back into Europe. For years Europe could afford to concentrate on the single market, thanks
in part to the US security umbrella. And then, when the Berlin Wall fell, we thought we could
all take a geopolitical holiday.
But that holiday is over now. Our borders are seething and boiling, and the White House will
soon have a president whose personal motto is ‘America First!’ We Europeans must
therefore look to ourselves. And that means we need an innovative circular economy, a
Europe that performs and protects, and a Europe that invests heavily in defence and a
common foreign policy.
If we don’t learn quickly how to export stability, we will import instability from the countries
around us. The legislative machine has brought us a long way but Europe must now learn
how to pursue modern politics in the big bad world – and here I return to my central theme of
security.
It is not a simplistic choice between more or less Europe. We need a Europe that delivers
more and gets things done. Fewer rules, more impact. Big in the big things, small in the small
things.
11
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
And yes, that means acting in concert. Turkey is not going to negotiate with the Netherlands
about the refugee crisis. Russia will not be impressed if the Netherlands announces
sanctions. And a fence around the Netherlands will not make us safer. It will only bring
instability closer to home, because we will no longer be investing in the security of the EU’s
external border.
National security solutions are no longer adequate – no matter how much some would have
us believe otherwise, with simplistic calls to close the borders and leave the European Union.
In some areas, Europe has to dare to be bigger. For example, in counterterrorism, asylum
policy and security policy.
A. Counterterrorism – after every attack we come to the conclusion that important pieces in
the investigative puzzle were right there all along, but were hidden inside our national
structures. We really can’t afford to do this any longer. We should seriously think about
setting up a European FBI and a European CIA – a European intelligence service that puts
the pieces in place faster and acts on the information before it’s too late.
B. I believe we must work towards a true European asylum policy. EU member states still
use their own definitions of which countries are safe and which are not. This can’t go on. Just
as disastrous is the notion of ‘flexible solidarity’ in the receipt of refugees, as proposed by
Poland, Hungary and others. I will say it again: there can be no responsibility without
solidarity and no solidarity without responsibility if we want to reach a solution.
I am hopeful about this, I should add. The Turkey deal, which many have picked apart
without offering an alternative, has at least shown that when the tide is high Europe can
negotiate a solution.
C. We have to further strengthen the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy and press
ahead with military task specialisation and far closer cooperation.
It is also time we had a serious European civil and military planning capability. The foreign
and defence ministers had good reason for taking decisions on such a capability last
Monday. We must avoid expensive overlap with NATO, of course. But the EU’s control of its
military and civil missions is currently too fragmented. This is the strategic moment for
change.
12
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
Regarding the role of our British friends, whether article 50 is triggered or not, we must
anchor the UK in our European security and political cooperation. The EU benefits from a
security arrangement that includes the UK. We shouldn’t ‘um and ah’ about this.
D. If the EU becomes more political – and it will have to – we must abandon the idea of doing
everything together. By that I don’t mean an à la carte Europe. And I don’t mean
compromising our core values and commitments. I mean that leading groups will sometimes
have to be formed in order to make progress. Stronger cooperation and flexibility will make
Europe more effective.
One last thing on this point: the outdated UN Security Council. Its composition and
procedures seem to be stuck in 1945. I know how difficult this discussion is. But the
Netherlands’ term on the Security Council will have a ‘European’ stamp. There will be
Europeans in our team in The Hague. And in the longer term, I am in favour of a European
seat.
2.
Investing in the transatlantic relationship
It can’t have escaped anyone’s notice that America recently elected a new President.
I firmly believe that we must find a route to constructive cooperation with the new
administration. We have a lot in common in so many areas. There are so many facets to the
America we love. The country is about more than who its president is.
They say, ‘What divides the US and Europe makes headlines in the press, what unites us
makes progress,’ and it can’t be denied. Our relationship with the US has never been
unquestioned, but it has always been natural. We form a community of values and we
cherish our historical ties. That’s not a relationship that’s easily broken.
The course taken by this powerful nation is and always will be crucial to us, not least on
account of NATO, the most successful military alliance in history. Together, the US and
Europe still account for nearly 40% of the world’s GNP.
But the Western model is under pressure. More and more, countries like India, China and
Brazil are offering alternatives.
13
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
That’s why, together with the US, we must continue to invest in effective multilateralism.
We must also continue working on a new style of free trade, in which openness is
accompanied by sustainable growth and the protection of our values.
And on a two-state solution in the Middle East peace process – achieving such a solution is
key to the West’s credibility in the region. And the US has a vital role to play here.
In 1830 Alexis de Tocqueville wrote a groundbreaking book on America: De la démocratie en
Amérique. In times of uncertainty about the US, I would advise everyone to read it. One of
his observations is that ‘En politique, ce qu’il y a souvent de plus difficile à comprendre, c’est
ce qui se passe sous nos yeux.’ (‘In politics, the hardest thing to understand is what’s
happening right under our noses.’)
I realise that the election of a new US president marks the start of a new, perhaps different
transatlantic agenda. During the campaign, President-elect Trump was scornful of the twostate Middle East solution, the Iran deal, the seriousness of climate change, NATO, the
importance of a cast-iron security alliance. His comments on the refugee issue, the perceived
weakness of European leaders, his overtures to President Putin – a leader he admires –
didn’t pass unnoticed either.
But let’s judge President Trump by his actions and not get ahead of ourselves.
Naturally, we must remain in a critical dialogue with the US on those issues where we don’t
see eye to eye, such as the death penalty or the use of drones. This won’t change under a
new president. Alliance, ce n’est pas allégeance, as the French foreign minister, Michel
Barnier, once said. An alliance isn’t an allegiance, and I heartily agree with him, especially
when it comes to this new president.
And as I said in my first point, we must stop ‘umming and ahhing’ and take action ourselves.
‘Mr Trump’s election might be ‘very helpful to concentrate [Europeans’] beautiful minds,’ a
Polish think tank wrote this week. The uncertainty about the new American leadership
reinforces my belief that Europe needs to be strengthened strategically. A strong Europe is in
the interests of a strong transatlantic relationship. And here I’m looking specifically to our
eastern neighbour: the Germany of Angela Merkel. ‘Never before has so much ridden on the
Germans,’ I read this week in the New York Times – and that’s the truth.
14
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
3. A critical, objective Russia policy
Is Russia our enemy now? In a word: no! And the Russian people are certainly not.
I don’t believe in ‘reset’ buttons. A historical relationship cannot be reset. But I do believe in
critical, objective realism that respects our own principles.
What we need is a business-like relationship based on our interests. Russia is essential if we
are to solve the major challenges of our age (non-proliferation, terrorism, Syria, the UN
Security Council). But we must not be naïve. After all, Putin himself has said he has a 19thcentury view of interstate relations in the 21st century. This means naked power politics, with
the big countries forming a ‘concert of nations’ to share out the spoils.
That’s why I still support a relationship with Russia. One we shape together in a united
international alliance. There is no alternative. We must do this through the outstretched hand
(and by ‘we’ I mainly mean the OSCE), the fist of European sanctions and the muscle of
NATO (by means of deterrence and an enhanced forward presence in Lithuania and
elsewhere).
And also – again without being naive – we will continue to work for arms control. Including
nuclear arms. It is precisely in times of greatest tension that détente is just around the corner.
Above all, let us not forget that Russia is so much more than its leaders. There will come a
day when even closer rapprochement is possible. The Netherlands is already paving the way
through its people-to-people contacts and, for example, through its support for impoverished
civil society organisations and independent Russian-language media.
4. More funds for security – in the broadest sense
It will come as no surprise that defence will require more funding in the coming period. The
anti-ISIS coalition, for example, is a long-term undertaking that needs money not only to
defend our own territory but also to ensure that our armed forces can carry out crisis
management operations such as the current operation in Mali.
15
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
And I would stress here that, increasingly, the traditional distinction between ‘defending allied
territory’ and ‘crisis management operations’ is blurring. In Mali we are engaged in forward
defence to nip the rise of a ‘second caliphate’ in the bud.
But military capabilities alone are not enough. Security is sustainable only if it is allembracing. The UN has a vital role to play in prevention and deradicalisation. In giving peace
missions broad mandates – and yes, that costs money and takes time. We have to make
serious, long-term investments in institution building, migration control and socioeconomic
development. Especially on the southern shores of the Mediterranean.
This will also require a further change in our thinking about development policy, which is
more important than ever. Above all, of course, development cooperation must benefit the
poorest people in the poorest countries. And it must certainly benefit the countries in the
Maghreb and Mashriq, although strictly speaking they are not the poorest. Europe must offer
these countries more: fair trade, fair access to our enormous market and fair investment. The
development this triggers will strengthen not only our prosperity but also our security. So the
next government would be wise to increase development funding.
For that reason I am going against the trend and pressing for a further deepening of our
mission network in the arc of instability around Europe. That’s what the Russians, Turks and
Iranians are doing. We mustn’t be left behind – this government has made a start and the
next one will have to continue on that path. Why do we have no embassy in Niger? I
presume you have seen Bram Vermeulen’s television series on migration. I am convinced
that a limited but targeted diplomatic effort there could relieve migration pressure, for
example by developing smart projects to make the Niger police less reliant on people
smugglers.
But there’s also Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Chad. That’s where tomorrow’s problems are
brewing and I want to know about them in good time. I won’t read about them in the papers. I
need more diplomatic boots on the ground to identify our interests and seek out local
coalitions.
The same is true of Turkey: I want even better Dutch eyes and ears working in that society
and with the Turkish government in order to arrive at joint solutions to problems such as
terrorism, migration, human rights and press freedom, not to mention financing from Turkey
of prayer houses in the Netherlands.
16
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
Lately we’ve got better at integrating collaborative efforts at national level. And in the coming
period too, we – Defence, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, and
Security and Justice – will have to integrate our efforts further. We must break down the
barriers and work together even more closely than before.
And perhaps, in the longer term, a future government could set up a national security council
based on the American model to replace the current multitude of security platforms. We will
then be able to answer security questions more strategically.
A national security council would concentrate on all facets of national security, including
intelligence coordination and a coordinated defence and foreign security strategy in the
broadest sense, covering not only national security but also diplomacy, development
cooperation, operations, the climate and the environment.
5. Smart coalitions and multilateralism
If the first part of my speech sounded a little gloomy, then I’d like to brighten things up now.
It’s not all doom and gloom. It’s just that our successes often receive less attention than our
failures – including in the press.
Thanks to coalitions and multilateralism, we have achieved some great things in recent
years. The list is long.
Without those coalitions there would have been no nuclear deal with Iran, no peace in the
Western Balkans (including the EU-brokered Kosovo-Serbia deal), no democratisation in
Myanmar, no solution to the Ebola crisis in West Africa, none of the fantastic progress on the
Millennium Development Goals (in education and health care). Without coalitions we would
not have stopped the jihadists in Mali, ISIS would not have been forced onto the back foot in
both Iraq and Libya, and we wouldn’t have been able to make the migration problem more
manageable, as we have done against all expectations. Without coalitions it would have
been impossible to consolidate democracy in Tunisia. And we wouldn’t have reached that
impressive climate agreement, which will soon enter into force.
These are not small achievements, yet we forget them too quickly. That’s why I am recalling
them here. We worked hard to achieve them and we now have to build on them. The entire
system of multilateral institutions is of vital importance. It might not be perfect but if we
17
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
abolished it today we’d have to recreate it tomorrow, beginning with the UN. With its new
Secretary-General, António Guterres, the Security Council must institute far-reaching reforms
– fundamental improvements are needed in its legitimacy and effectiveness.
Look at Syria, which now seems so hopeless. Where so much of what we don’t want has
converged. Where the fine principles of Responsibility to Protect have come to nothing.
Where the international community has allowed itself to be paralysed by the blocked Security
Council. Where a coalition of countries and groups apparently enjoys impunity, despite
continuously violating international humanitarian law.
Once Raqqa is liberated (which may be sooner than we think) I would urge the UN to play a
role in the vacuum that will arise. It shouldn’t be the Kurds taking the lead there, and it
certainly shouldn’t be the present Syrian government, which by its actions has lost any right
to have a say in the country after its liberation.
6. An ethical foreign policy
An objective and pragmatic foreign policy does not exclude principles and ideals. On the
contrary, realism and idealism are two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the
other. Without legitimacy, there can be no effectiveness, especially in a time of autocracy,
neo-nationalism and terrorist threats.
We must stand up for our values at home and abroad. Doing so commands respect, even if
our opponents think otherwise. Even if we sense opposition building, we must continue
pursuing the goals we have always put first.
What does this mean?
Firstly, that we consider human rights to be paramount. Especially in light of the threat posed
by autocratic regimes and the apparent failure, at least in Syria, of the doctrine of
Responsibility to Protect.
Secondly, that we enforce a strict policy on arms exports.
Thirdly, that we generously support civil society organisations and a new generation abroad.
18
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
Fourthly, that together with like-minded countries we uphold international humanitarian law,
even if respect for it is dwindling in countries like Syria, Yemen and South Sudan. Countries
are seemingly getting away with violating international law, killing citizens, using poison gas
and ripping up the international rule book. They are not being adequately held to account. As
a country that champions peace, security and, above all, justice, we cannot accept this.
The Netherlands, and Europe too, must and will continue to pursue these goals. And this will
be a feature of the Netherlands’ stance in the UN Security Council. Just as we will uphold the
fundamental principle of the ICC – no peace without justice – as I wrote in an article in Trouw
today.
7. A resilient Dutch society
To close, I would like to say something that might surprise you coming from a foreign
minister. Because it is about our own society. The resilience of the Netherlands is an
important factor in our foreign policy.
A strong society at home, a resilient society, is a springboard for an active and self-assured
foreign policy. Foreign countries see, judge and measure our resilience. The stronger it is,
the less vulnerable we are to hybrid threats.
That’s another reason to press forward with structural reforms in the Netherlands, reforms
that will keep our country strong. Measures that address the issue of demographic ageing,
that ensure our pensions are sustainable. But we must also work on speeding up a
sustainable energy mix. And make substantial investments in innovation and modern
infrastructure. The Netherlands, together with private partners, is facing an enormous
challenge. Such measures are not only good for the economy and the environment. They will
also reduce our energy dependence on countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
A society’s resilience also reflects the confidence we have in our own institutions, including
the judiciary and parliament. How strategic is it to hold referendums on our international
treaties?
Resilience means standing up for our principles: take the prohibition on discrimination in
article 1 of the Dutch constitution. It means knowing our limits and taking action if they are
19
Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs – Security College – 17 November 2016
breached, for example by those who incite hate. But it also means making peace with each
other if we can. And supporting the preventive approach in the fight against radicalisation.
That, too, in closing, is my appeal to everyone here in this room: know the principles on
which our society is founded. The principles that enable you to develop personally, whoever
you are. But also know when these principles are under attack, and then be prepared to do
something about it.
Thank you.
20