I think many people were surprised when Maxime Verhagen announced soon after his appointment as foreign minister of the Netherlands that the worldwide protection of human rights would be the connecting thread of his government's foreign policy.
Surprised because in his former political life Verhagen was not known for being a passionate defender of human rights. Surprised also because his predecessors from the Christian democrat party on foreign policy had usually excelled in skilfully attaining a balance between striving towards praiseworthy ideals while defending the interests of the Netherlands abroad. Verhagen opted without reservations for the ideals, and in itself this is deserving of praise.
A long tradition
This choice established Verhagen as part of a long tradition of primarily left-wing foreign policy. The most recent examples of this include Robin Cook, the now deceased UK foreign minister in the first government led by Tony Blair, and Germany's Joschka Fischer, who was foreign minister in the two left-wing governments of Gerhard Schröder.
|
Cook announced with much aplomb in 1997 an ethical British foreign policy centred on human rights. Two years later, Fischer was somewhat more cautious: he stressed the link between improving human rights and conflict prevention and strengthening international institutions.
Both however were quickly confronted with the accusation that they were very selective in their defence of human rights. Cook was reproached that while the Blair government was very critical of countries like Indonesia and Pakistan, these same countries were invited to spend a lot of money at large arms fairs on British soil. Fischer also faced criticism when Schröder pushed through the sale of tanks to Turkey at a time when Fischer was harshly criticising the Turkish policy with respect to the Kurds. Both Cook and Fischer were attacked in the media for their much too accommodating attitude towards Putin’s Russia.
Selective indignation
The final verdict on Cook and Fischer was overall positive: a good attempt, but be honest and admit that from time to time you're going to be inconsistent and that sometimes other interests prevail.
Does Verhagen have any chance of such a positive final verdict? To be honest, that might be rather difficult. Examples of Verhagen's selective indignation are simply too numerous.
Just like Britain and Germany, the Netherlands too is often accused of being involved – albeit as a transit port – in arms supplies to dubious regimes. And Verhagen too appears not to have found the right tone when it comes to Russia.
Despite flagrant human rights violations in the Caucasus, there has been no criticism and the Netherlands seems to treat Medvedev and Putin with kid gloves. The government's laxity cannot be seen in isolation from its ambition to become Western Europe's natural gas gateway with the help of Russian energy giant Gazprom. Harsh criticism of Putin's Russia could be rather inconvenient under the circumstances.
All talk, no action
Unfortunately, there are many more more examples of such inconsistent behaviour. Human rights policy not only involves calling out others, but also making sacrifices in order to stay credible. Take for example the relocation of former Guantánamo Bay detainees. If the closing of Guantánamo Bay, which the Netherlands too has demanded, will only succeed if other countries agree to take in former detainees, the Dutch refusal to do so is unfortunately an example of all talk, no action.
Honesty compels me to point out that a double standard is, in a certain sense, unavoidable. We have less of a grip on China than on smaller countries, and we are more in need of Chinese cooperation in tackling problems on the global scale, like climate change and the credit crisis. But this double standard can be compensated for, for example by giving the smaller players an extra reward when they achieve progress in the area of human rights- even if it is just to consolidate progress.
However, in the case of Serbia, Verhagen, supported by parliament, has refused to do just that.
If the pro-European democrats were victorious over the nationalists in Belgrade in last year's election, it was despite, not thanks to The Hague. While the rest of the EU wanted to reward the democrats both before and after the elections, Verhagen personally put a stop to that. The war criminal Ratko Mladic must first be extradited; only then, said the Netherlands, can there be a discussion about rewarding Serbia's cautious steps towards democracy and EU membership.
Solo effort
That is a very principled position that is successful in The Hague because it combines two ‘good’ causes: capturing a notorious war criminal and strengthening international law. It is easily forgotten however that by sticking so strictly to that one demand, other European policy goals in the Balkans, which are also supported by the Netherlands, are even further out of reach: preventing new conflicts in the Balkans, for instance, or stabilising a region that will eventually become a part of the EU whatever happens.
What Verhagen forgot is that human rights policy cannot be seen as isolated from conflict prevention. When conflicts flare up, human rights are the first victim, also and especially in the Balkans. The opposition within the EU to the Dutch 'solo effort' on Serbia makes it clear that the rest of Europe does realise that rewarding and stimulating are often more effective than punishing and isolating.
These are all examples of the snags of a policy that centres on human rights. It is certainly not an argument against such a policy. Verhagen deserves support for his aspirations, but he also deserves to be criticised at times when his policy is spineless, inconsistent or counterproductive.
