"Europe cannot afford a new cold war with Russia" - Former NL Ambassador to Russia
RON KELLER (62)
CAREER
2017 — current: Consultant, Lector, Partner Netherlands-Russia Center
2005 — 2017: Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Ukraine, Russia, Turkey and China
2000 — 2005: Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
1991 — 1994: Director, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
1984 — 2000: Senior Advisor, Head of Division, Director, Ministry of Finance
THE AMBASSADOR SERIES (3/4): RUSSIA
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?
How can the Netherlands remain a prosperous country with an open society and democratic political system in the 21st century?
The Netherlands is a small and open society. On a geopolitical level, we need allies. We cannot survive on our own. That is why – for years – the cornerstone of our foreign policy has been cooperation and agreements with neighbours and partners. Similarly, it is in our interest to strive for a political order in the world based on an international legal framework in which countries are equal and protected against the abuses of power by larger countries. After 100s of years of conflict with our neighbours, we have learned to work with them. No defence can protect the Netherlands - all water defence lines have proven meaningless - we were simply overrun.
What kind of order would be right for us?
Collaboration is easier with like-minded people. Having neighbours who are like-minded is even better. However, the system will only work well for the Netherlands if all countries – even those with different norms and values – agree to a common international political order and stick to it.
“Just like the middle class in a society, the Netherlands has a key interest in “an international rule of law”.”
Just like the middle class in a society, the Netherlands has a key interest in "an international rule of law". Those in power – including oligarchs and billionaires like Bill Gates - can easily protect themselves. But those in the middle class cannot do this. Therefore, they have an interest in laws and regulations to protect them effectively. In doing so, those living in relatively poor neighbourhoods in Tilburg have the same rights as those in villas in Wassenaar. Similarly, on an international scale, a small country like the Netherlands benefits if all countries adhere to a rule-based system. It is not without reason that we have brought many international legal institutions like the International Court of Justice to The Hague. This is very symbolic. It reminds us of the importance of the international legal order for the Netherlands.
Can an international legal order continue to exist in a multipolar world?
That is the crucial question. The international legal order can only exist if all powerful countries are prepared to commit themselves to it and, thereby, voluntarily choose to limit their own power. So the mindset, "let's fight with the Russians just like in the Cold War," is not in our interest if that pushes Russia out of the international legal order. A system in which all major powers, the US, China and Russia, feel at ease and comply with international agreements, protects a smaller country like the Netherlands par excellence.
So your criticism of the Western world, which promoted democracy as the only legitimate form of government after the Cold War, is that because of this attitude China and Russia do not want to conform to an international legal order?
You alienate them from yourself. And you run the risk of them not participating in that order. If they would be small and meaningless, we could say: "We don't need them." But we really need these superpowers in this globalised world in which everything is connected.
“I am not in love with India, Russia and China, but my rational mind says: “My self-interest is that my own country, the Netherlands, is protected within a framework - in which all of the big boys also participate.””
I am not in love with India, Russia and China, but my rational mind says: "My self-interest is that my own country, the Netherlands, is protected within a framework - in which all of the big boys also participate." Therefore, the more economic cooperation and interconnectedness the better.
At the same time you say: "I wouldn't want to have been born anywhere else and democracy is a superior system." Do you hope that in the long run dictatorships become democracies?
Yes. In many ways our society is superior. Because I firmly believe that every person has the same right to exist and to live in freedom. That applies equally to the Dutch, the Russians and the Americans. That logic eventually will spread all over the world, as you would grant others as well to be able to find themselves in a society in which they can develop themselves to the greatest extent possible and become happy and prosperous. In other words, one would wish for everyone our system of governance.
However, the reality is that you cannot export it. And certainly not impose it. That is precisely the lesson we should have learned over the past 1000s of years. The moment you start imposing something on others, you only deepen the trenches between the two sides. Cross-fertilisation and convergence can only take place through dialogue and exchanges. And only in such way, a viable international legal order that connects all countries can develop.
What do you mean by cross-fertilisation?
Simply that people are provoked to think: "Hey, that is interesting - the benefits of an independent judicial system - I hadn't thought of it that way! Why don’t we consider that ourselves?” It may then still take years before they implement such a system, but it is of course fantastic if it is eventually introduced in other countries as well. If only in a way that fits well with their specific culture and traditions.
“I would say instead: go to other countries to listen, learn and exchange ideas; seduce and don’t impose!”
Globalisation and the broad availability of information makes this process of cross-fertilisation of good ideas much more promising than it has ever been before. No foreign policy is needed for that. That happens automatically provided there is a contact. But, if you impose trade restrictions on for instance Russia, restrict visas and reduce contacts with that country, then you will surely have less of that cross-fertilisation. Taking these measures might make you feel tough, but do you think it helps Russian citizens? And in the longer run, yourselves? I would say instead: go there to listen, learn and exchange ideas; seduce and don't impose!
Should Dutch foreign policy focus on the promotion of human rights or the national interest?
Those are two completely different concepts. Dutch civil servants – including diplomats – are hired to serve the Dutch national interest. The promotion of human rights, however noble, is sometimes in the Dutch interest, but sometimes we shoot ourselves in the foot.
“The idea that promoting human rights is always good, is far too simplistic!”
If by pushing norms and values through the throats of your interlocutors, you create barriers and frictions, you alienate other countries from you. This makes dialogue and cooperation with them even more difficult and weakens the international rule of law, which is so utterly important for the Netherlands. So, always ask yourself: "Is the method I am using to achieve my goal effective in this context?" The idea that promoting human rights is always good, is far too simplistic!
Is the Dutch Russia strategy a good strategy?
It is not a real strategy, but a policy paper. An updated version of the policy adopted after the crime of the downing of MH17 in 2014. I fully understand that the MH17 has left a deep imprint on that policy paper. When the MH17 lawsuit starts, I hope it will run its course. It is a deep shame that the perpetrators of that crime are protected and might go unpunished. That nobody has the guts to stand up and say: "I did it". The guilty and responsible ones are cowards and villains.
However, you hope that in the mid to long term we can put this behind us. In the long term, my advice is: channel your anger and emotion and acknowledge that Russia is one of the major centers of power on earth. One such power with which the Netherlands must cooperate.
So, our point of departure must be: Russia – our grim and imposing neighbour – is simply there?
A sensible basic attitude is indeed: "Russia exists". It is based on centuries of history with its own culture and traditions. Explore where our interests align.
“Then there are areas in which we desperately need each other: the energy transition, fighting terrorism and finally achieving peace in the Middle East. A good point of departure would be: “you may not like the Russians, but they are there.””
We disagree on important points. In the West we stand for the primacy of the individual. The Russians have a different view. No small difference of opinion, but it exists. Then there are areas in which we desperately need each other: the energy transition, fighting terrorism and finally achieving peace in the Middle East. A good point of departure would be: "you may not like the Russians, but they are there."
By the way, Russia also has a great interest in cooperation and even integration with us. For instance, they have a rather one-sided natural resources-based economy and thus are vulnerable and dependent on economic relations with Europe.
In the past decade, European leaders have observed with concern Russia’s annexation of Crimea, interference in eastern Ukraine, human rights abuses and support for President Assad in Syria. Is the "James Bond image" that you claim Europeans have of Russia in an interview with Trouw really that unwarranted?
After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West propagated "we won". That has led to revanchism and an inferiority complex among Russians.
“When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia had the feeling that it was shoved even further down by the West.”
Russia had the feeling that it was shoved even further down by the West. In their view, NATO and the European Union’s expansion to the East – including accession of countries that were not ready for membership of the EU at all – was a way to expand the Western sphere of influence. We did indeed relax many of the EU’s admission requirements for that enlargement. We are now facing the bitter consequences of that. Western leaders believed: if we don't expand NATO and the EU as soon as possible, big bear Russia will retake these countries. Central and Eastern European countries themselves wanting to become members of the EU and NATO as soon as possible, was also a factor. I understand that. But the Kremlin saw all of this as pure provocation.
The idealist would say that those countries in Central and Eastern Europe have a right to become NATO and EU members if they want to.
There was more than idealism behind the enlargements of the EU and NATO. Therefore, the realist says: We must do expansion without it being regarded as a threat by our neighbour Russia. The Russians asked: “Can we talk this over?” NATO and the EU said: "none of your business. This is between us and the Hungarians, the Lithuanians, etc.” That short-sightedness has caused new tensions with Russia. A new hard divide in Europe is coming into being.
But don't countries have a right to self-determination?
It is a diabolical dilemma. You want to respect countries in their reflexes, wishes and feelings. But on the other hand, you have to think ahead. Is it in our interest to anger our common neighbouring superpower? We should have at least asked that question. We should have made the Russians feel that this was not meant against them. But I don't think we could have entirely prevented the Russians from reacting the way they did.
“Don’t be naive about why Russia does what it does in Crimea and Donetsk. We could have predicted and maybe even prevented these tragic events.”
My point is not that one side or the other is right. My point is that the Russian actions you just mentioned ought to be considered and assessed in a historical context. Don't be naive about why Russia does what it does in Crimea and Donetsk. We could have predicted and maybe even prevented these tragic events.
So NATO's expansion to the East was a mistake?
I am not going to go that far. There were legitimate reasons from the countries in Central and Eastern Europe to strive for NATO and EU accession. It would have been weird if the West had turned them down. But we should have thought better about why Eastern and Central European countries wished to join. Because they had a deep-seated desire to share the values these institutions are based on or only to escape from their former occupier? If we had asked this question, we would have waited longer with considering seriously NATO enlargement for Ukraine and Georgia. Europe did hit the brakes. But the Americans in particular wanted to complete their membership as soon as possible.
“The Americans should have taken European interests more to heart. And we should not have given in too easily to American pressure. ”
A compromise was reached at a 2008 summit in Bucharest. Ukraine and Georgia were promised NATO membership, but the entry dates remained unspecified. Nevertheless, we could have known that even this compromise would create frictions with Russia. The Americans should have taken European interests more to heart. And we should not have given in too easily to American pressure.
Are there any politicians in Europe who share the Russia policy you advocate?
Yes. There are at least two prominent people who advocate cooperation with Russia: Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. Merkel is more pragmatic than Macron. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany has always pushed collaboration with Russia. Partly because of its physical proximity and also because of the historical context. Macron says: “let us cooperate more politically in the EU and ensure that we have our own European geopolitical agenda as soon as possible.”
This also implies more strategic cooperation with Europe’s neighbours like Russia. To achieve this, European foreign policy and defence policy should be further developed. Considering how closely interconnected European nations already are, it is strange that they do not have a shared vision and take joint action when it comes to foreign relations.
How does a European foreign policy help us with Russia?
This means that European interests will be central in determining our actions towards Russia. We can no longer follow only Washington when it comes to relations with Russia.
“The US, as a distant and old rival, looks at Russia differently than Europe does, as its immediate neighbor. ”
The US, as a distant and old rival, looks at Russia differently than Europe does, as its immediate neighbour.
“Secretary Clinton may say “Assad has to go”, but we in Europe are left with the refugees. European countries blindly followed the Americans.”
The same logic also applies to other foreign policy issues such as Syria. Secretary Clinton may say "Assad has to go", but we in Europe are left with the refugees. European countries blindly followed the Americans.
During my time as the Ambassador to Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov asked me: "Does the Netherlands want to get rid of Assad now as well? Have you thought it through? Is there a viable alternative to his regime?" The Russians then spent six months pondering over this question. They found the answer was "no". A stronger European Union – with a clear conception of what our geopolitical interests are – is desperately needed.
What can we learn from Russia?
Traditionally, Russia has a highly developed strategic capacity to identify and shape its own interests in the longer term. And then act accordingly.
You have worked in the diplomatic service for over a decade. What qualities should a representative of the Netherlands have in the 21st century?
First of all, no longer only the traditional diplomats of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are active internationally. Huge numbers of civil servants from various departments represent the Netherlands day in day out in international meetings. A good representation of the Netherlands starts with a good understanding and formulation of Dutch interests. Work in a goal-oriented way. Then you should realise that most international issues are no longer discussed between two countries, but multilaterally. Acting effectively in that setting requires civil servants to realise that cultures and traditions differ from country to country. A Japanese representative requires more reflection and feedback from his government on a proposal than a European. And even within Europe, cultural differences come to light in negotiations. Be well prepared for this; know who you are negotiating with. Understand their culture, background and objectives. Only then one can be an effective negotiator in this globalising world!