"Essential goods should remain in European hands" - Former NL Ambassador to China
ED KRONENBURG (68)
CAREER
2017 – 2019: Ambassador of the Kingdom of The Netherlands to China
2012 – 2017: Ambassador of the Kingdom of The Netherlands to France
2008 – 2012: Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2007 – 2008: Grandmaster of the Royal Household of Her Majesty Queen Beatrix
2004 – 2006: Director of the Private Office of the Secretary General of NATO
1976: Entry into foreign service
THE AMBASSADOR SERIES (4/4): CHINA
In The Ambassador Series, Teer Strategy explores the future of the Netherlands in a rapidly changing geopolitical arena. The world is in flux. Small and mid-sized countries are challenged in this movement. I ask four former ambassadors posted respectively in New Delhi, Washington, Moscow and Beijing:
HOW CAN THE NETHERLANDS REMAIN A PROSPEROUS COUNTRY WITH AN OPEN SOCIETY AND DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEM IN THE 21ST CENTURY?
[Disclaimer: This final episode consists of two separate conversations. Ambassador Kronenburg and I sat down on March 11 and then again on July 31.]
July 31
“Governments will redirect trade routes to be less dependent on vulnerable supply chains in the future. In times of recession, free trade will come under pressure. Calls for protectionism will intensify”, you wrote in the Dutch Financial Times. Are there reasons for the European Union to decrease its dependence on China specifically?
There are good reasons for the European Union to become less dependent on whatever third country. For medical supplies and machinery specifically we rely on China, we learned during the COVID-19 crisis. Europe should make an inventory of what products it deems essential and on which countries we depend for these. Then we should make an assessment of what happens to our economy, security and stability if for whatever reason we can no longer make use of these supply chains. Finally, we plan for a future in which transportation of goods – whether via land, sea or air – is compromised.
““The world is flat”, Thomas Friedman said. We now find that interdependence has downsides.”
This was always necessary. We were, however, insufficiently aware of this. “The world is flat”, Thomas Friedman said. We now find that interdependence has downsides. Trust is not the defining issue. The practicalities of interrupted supply chains are. There are, however, additional questions that require answering. Can we produce all critical goods ourselves? Or do raw materials to produce these goods have to be imported? On top of that, self-reliance has a flipside. If all countries adopt this mindset and the number of goods deemed indispensable keeps growing, then what remains of global trade?
To defend the EU single market against unfair competition, the European Commission wants powers to clamp down on foreign subsidies of over 200.000EUR, block the acquisition of European companies and disqualify state-supported parties from competing for public tenders. Meanwhile, member-states have taken action to prevent China from acquiring European businesses – on the cheap – during the recession caused by COVID-19. Are these measures justified?
These measures are aimed at leveling the playing field between Chinese companies operating within the European Union and vice versa, which has been a pressing issue for a long time. When it comes to public tenders – whether on a European or a national level – one has to ensure that all applicants start from the same position. Making use of foreign subsidies equals engaging in unfair competition, which is something that should always be opposed. Taking measures against that is justified.
In the case of China, one can never be entirely sure whether their state-owned enterprises use the advantage of being state sponsored to obtain a specific tender. One does know, however, that some companies are fully state-owned. Other countries have partly state-owned enterprises. Governments require the means to determine whether these companies compete fairly. If you cannot gather that information – for whatever reason – then these companies should be excluded from competing for public tenders. That should not be a point of contention.
“Even though we do have a market economy, goods or services we deem essential should remain in European hands.”
When it comes to the supposed ambition ‘to acquire businesses on the cheap’, we should be strategic. Even though we do have a market economy, goods or services we deem essential should remain in European hands. This, however, does for the most part not require European Union measures as countries can judge for themselves what their strategic necessities are.
After the introduction of the Hong Kong National Security Law the British government pledged to offer a pathway to citizenship to around 3 million Hong Kongers. This led to a war of words between China and the UK. A parliamentarian of the SPD, the junior party in Merkel’s government, said the Chancellor’s approach to China is ‘behind the times’. Are Germany, the Netherlands and the European Union ‘behind the times’ when it comes to China?
I think we are "with the times". It would be good, however, if all European member-states were equally "with the times" at the same time. If you do not act collectively as Europeans on matters of principle, then your position is weak. When it comes to China’s ambitions, member-states have different views about how to respond depending partly on their cooperation and economic ties with China. The EU has formulated basic principles, but not a collective comprehensive policy except for a few areas like the ambition to conclude an investment treaty.
The UK has its own position, especially on Hong Kong. Initially, the British in particular were very excited about the Belt and Road Initiative and engagement with China. Their previous finance minister Philip Hammond conveyed that message loud and clear last year in Beijing. The British saw in China a country with which they could increase trade after leaving the EU. That desire is still there, yet political upheaval impedes acting on this. Will these political issues have lasting consequences? That could be the case.
March 11
What foreign policy should the Netherlands pursue to remain a prosperous country with an open society and democratic political system in the future?
At the moment, international cooperation is under intense pressure. The larger players lack enthusiasm to cooperate multilaterally. The Netherlands must continue to focus on multilateral cooperation in the UN, the EU, NATO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. Ultimately, these institutions guarantee that the world order as we like it remains intact. You must find likeminded supporters of this aim. Which countries – first and foremost our European partners – are on the same page when it comes to the essentials such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law? My approach would be to find those still standing up for the same principles and explore what we can do to uphold them together.
“The international order is crumbling due to the attitude of the world’s premier powers that according to their own ideas and standards – as far as you can call them standards – want to organize global affairs.”
Unfortunately, with the current number of member-states in the EU, we find that we no longer are all on the same page when it comes to these essential principles. Meanwhile, the international order is crumbling due to the attitude of the world’s premier powers that according to their own ideas and standards – as far as you can call them standards – want to organize global affairs.
After the Cold War ended consecutive American Presidents and European leaders touted liberal democracy as the only legitimate system of government. Should democratization around the world remain the goal of the Western world in the 2020s?
Democratization must remain the goal. However, you cannot impose it. There are plenty of examples from the past 20 years in which democracy was supposed to emerge from regime change. Democracy, we have learned, must come from within a country and has to be supported by the leadership of that countries. When the Arab Spring started everyone expected that this would bring huge change. It brought change, but not how we imagined it. You can look at what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. How well do you know these countries and their cultures?
“The goal – democratization on a global level – must remain in place. The means must be evaluated.”
Where there are extreme human rights violations, you must operate collectively on a global level to ensure measures are taken. Against countries whose governments conclude it is impossible to guarantee human rights and democratic reforms, you have to take measures. Some measures would be directed at the leadership of the country like visa restrictions and financial measures. You have to be consistent in addressing these violations to remain credible. That is quite a task, because The Netherlands has many other interests too. The goal – democratization on a global level – must remain in place. The means must be evaluated.
Is it useful for The Netherlands to address human rights violations or a lack of democracy in a country like China?
The question you should always ask: are my actions effective? That should be your starting point. What are the means I employ? Together with whom? In what context? Of course, it is never effective to address difficult topics in isolation. It helps if you address these important matters in a context of broader relations. When it comes to a very specific matter, it can help to make a point with a number of countries discreetly. This presupposes cooperation with likeminded countries. With public shaming you know that it becomes difficult for countries to address their issues. Countries remain autonomous in whether they choose to act upon your criticism. Always dare to ask: is the measure I am considering going to help or is it counterproductive?
Should the universal implementation of human rights or the national interest be the focus of Dutch foreign policy?
By pursuing universal goals, you promote the Dutch interest. We have an interest in having an international legal order and to ensure countries agree to rules. It is the only way in which you can pursue Dutch interests. In a global arena characterized by might makes right, it becomes very difficult for the Netherlands and other countries to interact with each other.
“The opportunity to trade freely, for one, requires an international legal order.”
The opportunity to trade freely, for one, requires an international legal order. But think of another problem: climate change. There exist only international solutions to these issues. The only way to pursue our interests is for The Netherlands to actively support these institutions.
In the Dutch Financial Times, you lament American pressure on the Dutch government to not renew a license for ASML to export chip machines to China. Should the Dutch government not choose the side of its traditional ally and a fellow democracy over China in this tech competition?
A fundamental element of foreign policy is that your own considerations inform the decisions you make. You cannot let other countries – even the United States – pressure you to make certain decisions. The ASML case looks like blackmail. The US made clear there would be consequences if we do not agree with their demands. This particular case is not even about the transfer of technology but about its use.
What is the US itself doing? So much technology from the US is transferred to China that it is strange to call the Netherlands out for this. Boeing has a very extensive relationship with China going back 50 years already. If anything facilitates the Chinese economy, it is transport and air traffic. The moment when Boeing chooses not to be involved in China, then Beijing has a major problem. But the American government does not pressure Boeing because it involves major American interests.
In the Dutch Financial Times, you write that the capital injections you expect the Chinese government to give to combat the economic consequences of COVID-19 will provide an ‘exquisite moment for China to deliver on its commitments to increase market access for non-Chinese companies and to push back the role of state-owned companies.’ Should pushing for greater market access in China be a top priority of Dutch China policy?
Not a top priority, but there must be reciprocity in economic relations: what is possible for Chinese companies in Europe must also be possible for Dutch companies in China. There are still many limitations. By no means have all sectors been opened-up by the Chinese to international competition. The Chinese leadership says it is not ready to compete on an equal footing as of now. They promised to provide more access, but that only happens to a minimum. Look at the financial sector, they said a long time ago that they were going to release it. It happens, but not at a high pace and certainly not to the extent that we hoped it would.
How can you address human rights issues, such as the mass-incarceration of Uyghurs in China’s Far-Western Xinjiang Province, with non-democratic states?
We have international bodies to address these issues, first and foremost the UN Human Rights Council. Handling these cases there generates attention and that creates the pressure to do something about situations like that. If you do not do that in the usual forums, then China also thinks: "apparently this issue does not matter to the rest of the world."
Another way is in the context of the United Nations and the European Union. They also have human rights consultations with Chinese counterparts at least once or twice a year. Bilaterally, the Netherlands and China also have an annual human rights dialogue in which the Chinese also can raise issues. But in the end the question is: can I enforce it? If the situation does not improve, what means am I willing to use to increase pressure? Both the Netherlands and the European Union do not have that power. The United States does. If they do not want to use it to this end it is hard to imagine improvement coming about.
Shouting your criticism from the rooftops, on the other hand, does not help at all. Furthermore, addressing these issues at a finger-wagging tone also is ineffective. Strong and broad relations is a prerequisite to any success in this field. This is only possible by doing things together in many areas. Then you find more receptivity.
In the Dutch Financial Times, you write that the most important fault line within the EU is between those countries that respect constitutional principles and those that violate them. You accuse Poland and Hungary of ‘violating the independence of the judiciary’, implementing ‘controversial media legislation and stigmatizing NGOs’ and state that ‘European funds should not be handed to countries that fail to implement solidarity in the field of rule of law’. Inside the EU – as opposed to in relations with China – human rights and the rule of law should be the top priority of Dutch foreign policy?
The European Union is a community of shared values. Countries have become members at their own request. Nobody asked them to join the European Union. After accession, you have to follow the rules. If you do not want to comply with these rules, then ask: am I still part of that community of values? You cannot be part of the European Union for capital transfers, but when it comes to solidarity and the international legal order take positions that go against the European Union’s core principles. Then you do not belong inside the union.
Your position outside the European Union is also extremely weak, if your own member states do not respect these rules. You can no longer – if you would even wish to do that – hold other countries to account for a lack of democracy, the rule of law and freedom of media.
In the Dutch Financial Times, you praise Macron’s proposal to transform the French nuclear deterrent into a truly European nuclear deterrent. In fact, you encourage the British to – in spite of Brexit – commit their nuclear deterrent to make this plan a truly European initiative. Is a common defense policy a necessity caused by President Trump’s prickliness?
European defense has always been a contentious issue. Trump's predecessors already asked European members of NATO to do more on defense. If European countries do more to strengthen their position, they can decide for themselves whether they want to deploy military means outside the European Union. Only then can we play the geopolitical role the Von der Leyen European Commission envisions. Another goal is to strengthen NATO.
“We cannot always depend on what others say. That was very quickly the case after World War II and still after the Cold War. Those days are behind us.”
Macron's position is that Europe must be able to make its own decisions when our security is at stake. We cannot always depend on what others say. That was very quickly the case after World War II and still after the Cold War. Those days are behind us. If you assume that American defense guarantees last forever, you are forever at the mercy of what others want from you.
In the Dutch Financial Times, you wrote: ‘In 2013 the Syrian regime crawled through the needle’s eye when it found out that its use of chemical weapons, a red line for President Obama, had no consequences after all.’ Is the current humanitarian disaster in Syria an omen of more authoritarian repression to come if the United States abdicates its leadership role around the world?
Obama's decision to not intervene substantially when that red line was crossed has been picked up by Russia. At the last minute, the Americans called off retaliation and limited their response to removing chemical weapons from Syria. Afterwards, the support of the Russians for Assad became clearer and more substantive. Finally, Russia started to interfere in Eastern Ukraine in 2014. If we will no longer enforce international rules, who will?
“In a world without a committed and assertive America, there is no longer any predictability.”
In a world without a committed and assertive America, there is no longer any predictability. The vacuum has already been filled. I also do not know what would have happened if the Americans had intervened in Syria. That decision is, however, directly connected to what is now happening to refugees. We as Europe can still put cash on the table. Are we, however, willing to spend serious resources on our own defense so we can actually act militarily? That is a big question mark.
You have spent over decades in the foreign service and saw the world change. What qualities do Dutch diplomats in the 21st century require to successfully operate in the world?
As a Dutch civil servant who deals with foreign affairs, you have to be knowledgeable about a wide-ranging number of themes such as trade, defense and human rights. Then you should know very well what is happening in your own environment and in other countries. Everything is interlinked nowadays.
“In a hierarchical organization, people are too afraid of being seen as spoilers.”
Be proactive. Make sure that the people you negotiate with find you as well prepared as possible. Knowing the Dutch position is far from enough. Know how the other party came to its position. This presupposes a lot of knowledge about history, culture and current affairs. When posted abroad, do not just be a tourist. Do not go to the Great Wall with your colleagues every weekend. Constantly ask yourself: what can I do to create something of added value? As a small country, the success of the Netherlands relies on the knowledgeability and quality of its representatives.
To the more senior staff I would advise the following: organize constructive criticism. Be open to feedback. To junior colleagues I would say: dare stand up and criticize your bosses. Especially in a hierarchical organization, people are too afraid of being seen as spoilers.