"The Americans are an impatient kind of people" - Former NL Ambassador to the United States
THE AMBASSADOR SERIES (2/4): THE UNITED STATES
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, Moscow, Beijing and Washington:
HOW CAN THE NETHERLANDS REMAIN A PROSPEROUS COUNTRY WITH AN OPEN SOCIETY AND DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEM IN THE 21ST CENTURY?
Henne Schuwer (67)
CAREER
2015 – 2019: Ambassador of the Kingdom of The Netherlands to the United States
2010 – 2015: Ambassador of the Kingdom of The Netherlands to Belgium
2007 – 2009: Director of the Private Office of the Secretary General of NATO
2002 – 2006: Deputy Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the EU
1979: Entry into foreign service
In an interview with NRC Handelsblad, you discussed the military offensive by Erdogan’s Turkey against the Syrian Kurds. This followed on the Trump administration’s withdrawal of American troops from the Kurdish-held part of Syria. You concluded: ‘one cannot be sure what Trump means when he uses the term ‘Ally’’. What does this mean for Europe?
Look, Trump is a transactional president. A businessman from New York. ‘I give you something you give me something back’. One of the defining features of an ally, however, is that you would do something without getting something in return in the short term. In addition to what he did in Syria, Trump made remarks about Montenegro. ‘Why should I risk American lives for Montenegro? I do not see the advantage for my own country.’ In this way, the concept of an ally becomes very shaky. There are other countries in Europe where one might say it is not in the immediate American interest to invest American lives in. That causes distress in Europe and in NATO. To what extent is America willing to sacrifice in order to keep NATO alive and safe?
So can we then still rely on the American commitment to the NATO Article Five pledge - ‘an attack on one Ally is an attack on all Allies’ - to keep Europe safe?
Yes. There is a difference between the position of the President and of the American people and Congress. The Senate adopted a resolution with 97 votes in favor and two against reaffirming support for NATO. Polls taken among the American people show that support for NATO is still overwhelming. The President already during his campaign said that NATO was obsolete revealing he has definite doubts. But I think the Senate has made it abundantly clear that they cannot abandon NATO.
“The United States is still physically and militarily present 75 years after the end of the Second World War. That is exceptional.”
At the same time, I stress to my friends in Europe that the United States is still physically and militarily present 75 years after the end of the Second World War. That is exceptional. I believe they have 60-70.000 troops still on European soil. To think that this will last forever is irresponsible. You have to think about the time that the United States will not be there in the same numbers.
“The key question is how do you gradually build up your defences without signalling to the Americans: ‘You can go.’”
The key question is how do you gradually build up your defences without signalling to the Americans: ‘you can go’. That is the last thing you would want to do as their nuclear shield is irreplaceable. We have two small nuclear powers in Europe, France and the United Kingdom, but we don't want to be a real nuclear continent.
NATO was founded during the Cold War with a specific adversary in mind, namely the Soviet Union. In the face of Putin's Russia – and perhaps other challenges – is NATO as important as it was then?
Yes, I think so. Do not just pose this question to the Dutch. Ask Poles and Estonians too. You get a clear answer. I think NATO is still important as the current behaviour of Russia is not very comforting. They annexed Crimea without a clear punishment coming from Europe. We put in place sanctions, but let's say these last for a number of years and then disappear in the background. The Russians are waging a proxy war in Eastern Ukraine without any immediate punishment. Our intelligence services warn that Russia’s activities have focused on influencing decision-making processes and public opinion. In 2018, four Russian secret service agents tried to hack into the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague. In the same year, they poisoned UK intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter on British territory. Almost killing them.
There have been many instances where there is suddenly a Russian voice where before there was not any. Who had heard of Sputnik 10 years ago? Now Sputnik is well-established in Holland. Sputnik is not the NOS [i.e. the Dutch public broadcaster - Ed]. It is not trying to present a picture as objective as possible. It is propaganda. So the Russians are interfering. NATO is as important and as relevant, but has to think about how to fight an adversary that is using different means than 50-60 years ago. We have to look at cyber security and propaganda. These types of things.
The most succinct summary of NATO’s purpose I heard is that it aims to keep the Americans in the Russians out and – just after the end of the Second World War perhaps most importantly – the Germans down. If the American security umbrella is removed does this risk renewed conflict in Europe because countries will observe each other’s rearmament with suspicion or have we changed enough as a European culture?
About two years ago, there was a security conference in Prague. The question under discussion was the defence expenditure that NATO membership requires you to put in place. Once the participants started calculating what that means they realised that if Germany spend two percent of their GDP on defence it will have by far the most powerful military in Europe. The mood changed immediately among Poles and Czechs. They had seen a strong German army before and did not much like that.
But I think Germany is not the problem. I think we have educated Germany since the Second World War. Especially, its young people have been educated in a rather pacifistic way. There are many things in the military domain that Germany is not allowed to do. These are ingrained in their constitution. The bigger problem is that the Germans don't want to participate in conflict when we try to get them involved. I don't think there is a high risk of armed conflict in Central Europe.
“I am more afraid of internal developments in European countries. The Democratic tendencies are less than what they should be. Than what they used to be. ”
We also have the EU and through trade we are each other's livelihood. Attacking each other equals slaughtering the chicken that lays the golden eggs. I do not fear a resurgence of real conflict. I am more afraid of internal developments in European countries. The Democratic tendencies are less than what they should be. Than what they used to be.
You mean in Poland and Hungary?
Definitely, Poland and Hungary. If you look at Italy there are also undemocratic tendencies. If Salvini wins the election next time then I do not know what kind of country Italy will become. If Marine le pen wins the elections in France what will that mean for the EU? She is both anti-NATO and anti-EU. Internal problems in this way might be exported to Europe more broadly. This is a larger threat.
If Joe Biden wins the 2020 Presidential Election, will Transatlantic ties turn back to normal?
I know Joe Biden from when he was the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He is a classical American senator. Coming from Delaware – a very international state within the United States – he has knowledge of Europe. If only because they have a peculiar tax regime that attracts a lot of investment. He will try to restore the Transatlantic relationship to the era of President Obama. Obama was very much in favour of the EU but – like Trump – he was not interventionist. Some say with Trump, the United States developed an isolationist tendency. But Barack Obama was also much more hands-off and much more US-focused. Yet, with Biden the tone will be totally different than with Trump. He is a believer in NATO.
You mentioned an interview with NRC Handelsblad that the Netherlands has invested over 300 billion dollars in the United States. Is there anything you can do to turn that into influence and achieve the policies you want?
You can. There is a number of states with which we have very strong economic ties. If I would go to a senator or a congressman in Washington to explain that I represent a country that invests x-amount of money in your state or district then I would have their attention. Investment means employment and revenue. So, our influence works much more via Congress than the executive.
“When Prime Minister Rutte visited Trump, the first point on his agenda: explain to trump how large of an investor the Netherlands is in the US and how much employment that generates.”
The executive, however, is also well aware. When Prime Minister Rutte visited Trump, the first point on his agenda: explain to trump how large of an investor the Netherlands is in the US and how much employment that generates. But Ambassadors very much work via Congress. They make the laws. Not the executive. Not the White House. If you want something done, you go through Congress.
After the Cold War the West focused on intervention and the spread of democracy. There is a growing group of people who say that intervention is a thing of the past. Foreign policy is not for changing the world and we should accept autocratic countries as they are, according to them. Where do you stand on this?
That is difficult. I firmly believe in basic human rights. And that guaranteeing basic human rights and a decent society is good for international relations and for trade. In my heart of hearts, I believe that if you deviate from the democratic path and become a dictatorship that in the end that is not a viable form of government. Eventually, it will implode. Yet, the aggressive approach taken during the George W. Bush presidency with the neocons in charge – exporting democracy and the world would be at peace according to an American model – that has not worked and generated its own resistance.
“Human rights cannot be compromised on. So I would like to export those. As for democracy, we have to accept that different forms are possible.”
I would distinguish between spreading basic human rights and democracy, although admittedly a difficult distinction to make. Human rights cannot be compromised on. So I would like to export those. As for democracy, we have to accept that different forms are possible.
So, when it comes to Dutch foreign policy specifically, should human rights be leading or the national interest?
The national interest is always guiding. I represent my country. And represented its interests when I was ambassador. There is not necessarily a difference: one can even say that it is in our interests to have human rights all over the world. The point where it gets really difficult is the distinction between ‘the merchant’ and ‘the pastor’. Would you in order to get economic advantage forget about human rights and go into business with an abject dictatorship? There is a line to be drawn there. A minimum level of decency is required to do business.
“But what will for instance be consequences for China’s mass-internment of the Uyghur Muslims? On our own imposing consequences will not make a difference. With the EU it might.”
The country you know well – China – is not a shining example of human rights. Yet it has 1.4 billion people. You can do business with them but you have to do so on a footing that also allows you to talk about human rights. And explain to them that they should respect and accept the ways we practice our human rights. But what will for instance be consequences for China’s mass-internment of the Uyghur Muslims? On our own imposing consequences will not make a difference. With the EU it might.
Chinese officials have argued there exists a gap between Western concepts of human rights and Chinese conceptions, which focus on socio-economic human rights. Can you comment on this?
There was a book about 10-15 years ago by a guy named Kishore Mahbubani. He basically defended what he called the ‘Asian Economic Model’, which is much more oriented on respect for the leadership and the family and a lot less on one person one vote. I lived a long time ago in India and in Hanoi. I saw with my own eyes that these societies function differently.
“We basically told the Afghanis: this is how you will organize political life. Not realizing that Afghanistan is a different country and every valley and every tribe has its own structures.”
I think Afghanistan is a clear case in point. At a conference in Germany, the Western World decided on the future of Afghanistan and the democratic system it should have including a parliament et cetera. We basically told them: this is how you will organize political life. Not realizing that Afghanistan is a different country and every valley and every tribe has its own structures. Our democratic model is not as easily exportable as we wish. But once again, a certain baseline of human rights should be guaranteed.
Recently, Chinese diplomats have taken to Twitter. US ambassador Hoekstra has become a talkshow regular. Is this an example Dutch and European diplomats should follow in the countries they are posted to?
If a Dutch diplomat would do that - for instance in the United States - people would ask: ‘who the hell is this person’. Yet, we have to realize there is a different diplomacy going on. Social media plays an important role by now. I can tell you that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other ministries become very nervous when you address that. They do not want an Ambassador shooting from the hip on Twitter. One minister told me ‘I do not need another minister in Washington. I am the minister. That’s it’.
I had a French Colleague in Washington, Gérard Araud, who was very active on Twitter. I am certain that what he tweeted and retweeted was not always in line with his ministry. But, he was very well-liked in Washington and got a lot of the French point of view across. France and The Netherlands are different. And Americans have a certain fascination with France, but it worked! In Dutch diplomacy that should change. That requires greater trust in our representatives abroad. Give them a free hand to move within the contours of Dutch foreign policy.
On a talkshow a journalist posed to US Ambassador Hoekstra the risk of China jumping into the void left by the United States, as it suspended payments to the World Health Organization. The people the organization serves, he said, are worse-off if the Chinese dominate it. Hoekstra answered ‘if the Chinese run the WHO the Dutch, the Brits, the Australians and the Canadians’ will find a competing organization. Do you expect the Netherlands will follow the Americans out of the WHO in this scenario?
The Netherlands is a big supporter of the UN system and I don’t follow Pete in his assumption that we would participate in setting up a competing institution. We would much more count on the Americans to make sure that international organizations function properly and are not dominated by a country like China. That would imply a continuous commitment of the US to the UN system.
“The Americans are an impatient kind of people. If things do not happen immediately as they wish they lose interest and do something else.”
The Netherlands shares in many ways their complaints about the UN system, the WTO, the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council. Together we might be able to fix it. However, the Americans are an impatient kind of people. If things do not happen immediately as they wish they lose interest and do something else. Their President is the most impatient of them all.
Considering everything we put on the table right now, what foreign policy should the Netherlands pursue to remain a prosperous country with an open society and a democratic political system?
Well, first and foremost we should define our foreign policy. The Netherlands is focused on itself. We have forgotten that the times we really did well were when we focused on our international relations. At one point, somebody invented the phrase ‘national inland policy equals foreign policy’. That is, foreign policy is merely a derivative of domestic policy. For a country such as the Netherlands, which makes so much of its money through international trade and has always been so open and focused on the outside world, foreign policy should be almost on par with domestic policy.
Politicians might not find this appealing, as foreigners do not vote in our election. But they have to realize the basis on which the Netherlands is a prosperous country. Not due to our very small domestic market of 17.5 million people living in a country partly below sea level. We are prosperous because we are at the end of the main rivers of Europe. We have a fantastic transport system. And we have been traders for the last four or five centuries. Furthermore, we have a lot of experience. We speak our languages. We have good universities: three of the main technical universities in such a small country! We have a lot of – let’s say – inventive good brains. That makes us special. Let’s make that part of our foreign policy and be outgoing!
“We have to be very careful not to be the miser in Europe. We are doing very well economically – other parts of Europe are not.”
Last point. We have to be very careful not to be the miser in Europe. We are doing very well economically. Other parts of Europe are not. We will be well-served if we create our own markets. We are much too attached to our own money.
If you could change one aspect of the Dutch US policy tomorrow, what would it be?
We are way too subservient. We are a big investor in the country. We are much, much smaller but we can fight our corner much, much harder.
You have decades of experience in the foreign service and saw the world change. What qualities does a Dutch diplomat in the 21st century require to be successful?
Curiosity, being genuinely interested in other people and cultures and a certain amount of courage. Civil-servants used to give their unfettered, objective advice. Nowadays, they too often try to guess what the minister wants to hear and write their report accordingly. For diplomats: you are representing your country. When you enter a room, everyone has to understand: This is the representative of the Netherlands. Have a presence, do not be shy!