(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate.) This visit to Madrid by María Corina Machado, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and foremost representative of the struggle for freedom in Venezuela, is a fortunate coincidence, coming as Barcelona hosts the grotesque coven…
Continue reading
(This article was written by Derk Jan Eppink and appeared in Wynia’s Week. Den Haag mag wel wat minder zelfgenoegzaam zijn over het Hongarije van Victor Orban, zoveel fraaier is onze netwerkcorruptie niet)
For years the Dutch House of Representatives held intense debates about Viktor Orban’s Hungary, for many the contemporary “Count Dracula on the Danube.” His name was treated as a curse, as it was by PRO member of parliament Kati Piri, whose father fled Hungary in 1956. For Piri it was “personal,” even though Orban had earned his stripes as a dissident in the Eastern Bloc. Yet in The Hague “Orban” was the bogeyman. That had more to do with The Hague’s need for an exorcism than with Orban himself. Now he is gone, has acknowledged his defeat, congratulated his opponent Péter Magyar, and left. A real Dracula would have lashed out ferociously.
On 19 May 2021, in her maiden speech in the House of Representatives, Piri spoke about her father and his departure from Hungary during the uprising against the invasion by Warsaw Pact countries in 1956. He saw no future there anymore but occasionally returned as a tourist, from the Netherlands. He would then say: “we are back in that dark country.”
Orban grew up in Hungary as a young dissident and in 1989 demanded the withdrawal of the Soviet troops still stationed there. As prime minister he worked toward Hungary’s accession to NATO and the EU. In 2022 there was great excitement in the House because forecasts predicted that Orban would lose the parliamentary elections. Members of parliament such as Piri, Sjoerdsma (D66) and Van der Lee (GroenLinks) looked forward to the fall of the “potentate.” But Orban won, and disappointment remained.
Do these parties now have reason to celebrate? Not really, except that Orban is leaving, and after 16 years as prime minister it was about time. Hungarians had grown tired of the bombastic Orban, but not of his policies. In the new Hungarian parliament, TISZA, the party of Péter Magyar, took 53.3% of the vote and gathered 138 of the 199 parliamentary seats. A convincing victory. Orban’s Fidesz was stuck at 38.1% with 55 seats, while a small nationalist party won 6 seats with 5.8%.
In the new Hungarian parliament sit: the centre-right, the right, and the far right. Not a single left-wing party cleared the 5% electoral threshold; social liberals of the VVD/D66 type, socialists and greens (PRO) also fell by the wayside. And yet, last June, there were members of the Dutch parliament from VVD, PvdA/GL, D66 and the mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, to demonstrate in Budapest against the ban on the Pride march, which incidentally took place undisturbed. In short: Dutch politicians demonstrated in Budapest to burnish their own political profile. Their kindred spirits in Hungary were not elected. The name Orban served in the Netherlands as imported glory of resistance.
Criticism of Orban is largely justified. Magyar split off from Fidesz after his wife, Judit Varga, resigned from the Orban government as Minister of Justice. The Hungarian president had granted clemency to a man who turned out to have been involved in child abuse. Varga had co-signed the clemency request. For Magyar that was reason to leave Fidesz and found his own party. The affair caused the Orban government enormous damage.
A carousel of scandals arises when parties and individuals stay in power too long. That certainly applied to Orban. As a dissident he fought for a democracy that under him gradually slid into cronyism: a rule of friends who pass the ball to one another. The bigger the cronyism, the more room for the corruption that ultimately permeates society and blocks the economy. Whoever needs an appointment at the doctor’s must first lay a wad of Hungarian banknotes on the table. That affects the ordinary citizen across the entire country and also explains the scale of Orban’s defeat. As soon as visiting the doctor becomes difficult, the voter’s patience runs out fast. A loud show of support from American vice president J.D. Vance, meant to give Orban a hand, achieves nothing. A grandly announced offer of billions in investment from the U.S. is met with disbelief. The voter wants “bread and butter.”
That cronyism did Orban in. But does the Netherlands have its own “Hague cronyism”? A scarcely transparent system of (political) appointments and subsidy flows in which, of all people, a “progressive administrative elite” hands out jobs and subsidies. Mayors, directors of government agencies, senior civil service posts, NGOs. “Networking” is the key word. “Network corruption” the consequence. The result: the state grows, the economy stagnates.
Long-ruling parties lie at the root of it, as the CDA once did. Orban ruled for 16 years; the VVD now does too. D66 and PRO are taking over the banner. Top positions for male friends, and above all for female ones. That this cronyism breeds intellectual inbreeding and diploma hyperinflation can be seen in the sitting cabinet. The citizen is the one who pays the price and ultimately takes revenge at the ballot box. Precisely what happened to Orban.
In Brussels the flags came out when the Hungarian voter sent Orban home. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, congratulated Magyar at once. She compared the electoral victory to the Hungarian Uprising of 1956. That comparison is typical of an ignorant Commission president who, as a German, ought to be ashamed.
I was recently in Budapest to soak up a bit of the atmosphere and visited the Terror Háza (House of Terror) where the Hungarian secret police made short work of dissidents in 1956. Show trials followed. Those sentenced to death were locked up in small cells in the gruesome building at Andrássy 60, among them Prime Minister Imre Nagy, who advocated a “separate road to socialism.” Von der Leyen thought she would shine, but struck false notes. The crushing of the Uprising was worse than Orban.
Anyone who thinks the Magyar government will dance to Von der Leyen’s tune is mistaken. On 22 January of this year, the “Patriots for Europe” group tabled a motion of no confidence against Von der Leyen. Magyar is currently a member of the European Parliament with 6 fellow TISZA members in the EPP group of Christian Democrats. They effectively backed the motion against Von der Leyen by absenting themselves from the vote, and were punished by the group leadership: a six-month “speaking ban.” That punishment also struck the two-member BBB delegation, which switched to the European Conservatives (ECR). British Conservatives once characterized the EPP as: “a prison run by Germans.”
Von der Leyen expects Magyar to obey. But he has a different agenda. Magyar announced that Hungary will continue importing Russian oil, that it will not take part in EU loans for Ukraine, that it opposes a swift EU accession by Ukraine, and he likewise advocates lifting sanctions against Russia. Moreover, Ukraine must treat its Hungarian minority better. Magyar turns against the EU migration pact; above all, no Islamic asylum seekers. Spot the differences with Orban.
That is not what Brussels wants, nor what the Dutch minority cabinet wants. During the Orban period the EU froze 17 billion euros in EU funds over “the rule of law.” And 10 billion in the Corona Recovery Fund. Von der Leyen uses those sums to force Hungary into an about-face: money in exchange for concessions. In short: a Brussels Diktat! Magyar has room to manoeuvre on the Ukraine support package, but if he caves on asylum, he signs his own political death warrant. Even the Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, the former “President of Europe,” did not dare to do that.
Perhaps Von der Leyen will visit Budapest, with the House of Terror and what remains of the Jewish quarter on the agenda, for her much-needed history refresher. The haughty and slogan-laden style of Von der Leyen already comes across as irritating in the Netherlands, but it runs directly counter to the mentality in Eastern Europe, where people are beginning to perceive Brussels as a new version of the former Moscow.
Derk Jan Eppink is a Distinguished Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.
Trump should double down on “peace through strength” with immediate, targeted military, economic and diplomatic pressure rather than chasing another round of endless talks that are only buying the Iranian regime time.
Continue reading
(This article was written by Derk Jan Eppink and appeared in Wynia’s Week. Overal in Europa islamiseert het buitenlands beleid – onder druk van de groeiende groep moslimkiezers)
In December 2010, former VVD leader Frits Bolkestein made a striking statement in the book “Het Verval. Joden in een stuurloos Nederland” by Israeli Holocaust researcher Manfred Gerstenfeld. He suggested that conscious Jews should recognize there was no future for them in the Netherlands and should advise their children to emigrate to America or Israel. The statement sparked controversy, with Bolkestein criticized for “scapegoating” and Femke Halsema, then GroenLinks faction chair in the Second Chamber, questioning whether he had lost his mind.
By 2026, Bolkestein’s words sound prophetic. Antisemitism has worsened significantly, particularly in Amsterdam, now led by Mayor Halsema. The city is working on an “Israel referendum” that could take place by year’s end, aiming to recognize “genocide in Palestine” and boycott the Jewish state. Remarkably, reports indicate Amsterdam struggles with uncollected garbage and mounting financial debt reaching 10 billion euros. A referendum will likely intensify emotions and antisemitism, where opposing votes are labeled “Zionist.” Recently, a pro-Palestinian activist complained on Dam Square that Hitler “couldn’t finish the job.” Such rhetoric breeds violence, raising the question of how Amsterdam can reorganize world politics while unable to organize itself.
Similar phenomena occurred in the Second Chamber. D66 Minister Sjoerd Sjoerdsma of Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade unilaterally decided to allocate 19 million euros to UNWRA, the UN aid organization for Palestinians, despite it being infiltrated by Hamas. The minority cabinet received a parliamentary majority on condition of not funding UNWRA, but Sjoerdsma attempted to push it through anyway, facing strong parliamentary opposition. He quickly backed down. A motion of no confidence is appropriate.
Islam is a growing religion in the Netherlands, concentrating in large and medium-sized cities. Muslims bring their own culture, including conflicts, and largely grow up in a parallel Islamic culture. The Dutch government attempts to accommodate this through “good example policy.” For instance, police officers in uniform visit iftar meals during Ramadan in some cities. This represents a boundary issue, as police must maintain neutral, secular positions. Yet the government tends to bend, which Muslims interpret as approval.
This creates a slippery slope where politics, education, culture, media, and administration accelerate Islamization. The left supports this trend fully, hoping to attract more voters. Politics ultimately revolves around power. In the Netherlands, the left has potential support between 30-40 percent but lacks a majority. Loss of disillusioned lower-income voters switching to right-wing protest parties is compensated with Muslim votes. The same pattern occurs across Western Europe: Germany’s and Britain’s Labour left have become dependent on Islamic voter support, crucial in next year’s French presidential elections.
The Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz closure demonstrate how foreign policy is Islamizing across Western Europe. Policymakers conduct affairs while observing the immigrant population. Europe holds back. France sent the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Mediterranean near Cyprus, which British Vice Premier David Lammy claims is a “NATO member,” manifestly untrue. The Charles de Gaulle receives support from Dutch air defense and command frigate Zr.Ms. Evertsen. This is nice, but doesn’t open the Strait of Hormuz.
“Free passage” in the strait is a cornerstone of international law that the Netherlands defends but Iran has violated undisturbed for 47 years. Premier Rob Jetten states Netherlands participates with other countries once it’s “safe.” Spain goes further. Socialist Premier Pedro Sánchez condemned Western sanctions against Iran, calling them “illegal,” and denied the US Air Force access to NATO airfields in Spain. Sánchez received substantial reward from Iran: free passage through the Strait. Notably, no country criticized Sánchez, while Ukraine’s obstructionist Hungary’s Premier Viktor Orbán faces condemnation from Brussels.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz solemnly declared—like a national teacher—that Germany participates nowhere, not even “international maritime operations” in the Strait: “Es ist nicht unser Krieg” (It’s not our war). An overreaction from a nation that caused two world wars last century.
France revealed its true colors in the UN Security Council regarding an Arabian Gulf states resolution, led by Bahrain, approving “defensive measures” to secure the Strait. Three permanent Security Council members used veto: China, Russia, and notably France. Subsequently, a French ship transited the Strait. “C’est typique français” (That’s typical French). Ultimately, Trump forced free passage by putting pressure on Iran. European complaints gained no credibility.
American classicist and military historian Victor Davis Hanson from Stanford University identifies not merely Western European division but significant schizophrenia. Europe wants America as ally but not when dangerous. Europe fears nuclear Iran but won’t act. Europe wants America to act, but when problems arise, America becomes the villain.
The cause of reluctance stems from Muslim immigration’s influence in Western Europe. In a recent YouTube interview, Hanson states: “In Germany, 16 percent of the population comprises immigrants, many unintegrated. Immigrated Muslims often prove more radical than countries they left, already severe. They resist Western belonging. There’s a ‘multiplication effect.’ They feel that through birth rates and increased numbers, they’ll rapidly form massive populations in their new lands. European governments are terrified.”
Every Middle Eastern crisis sharpens Western Europe’s political situation. Hanson: “When attempting to address the Iranian regime, they retreat. Supporting Israel, they dare not voice. Reason: immigrated communities will turn against European governments, and governing parties lose their votes.”
As Europe simultaneously faces self-made energy crises from climate policy and long believed the Berlin Wall’s fall meant “history’s end,” it’s now trapped in foreign policy. Self-Islamization occurs, still nascent but already visible.
Once, the Dutch Foreign Ministry was an elite department prioritizing “national interest.” Now it resembles an NGO where officials supposedly protest their minister’s policies during lunch breaks, and retired ambassadors send opinion pieces to NRC posing as “Palestinian cause” defenders. Perhaps from guilt at prior neglect. Self-Islamization particularly emerges regarding Israel. Iran receives a blind eye.
Islamization requires no 51 percent population majority: the multiplication effect Hanson mentions produces faster spread through the political-cultural “superstructure” of society. Self-respecting Dutch municipalities participate, with Amsterdam leading, self-declared Gaza Strip on the Amstel.
Who was actually “insane” in 2010: Frits Bolkestein or Femke Halsema?
Derk Jan Eppink is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.
Day 35 situation report on the Iran conflict covering regional spillover, homeland threats, cyber operations, and diplomatic developments.
Continue reading
(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate.) If Viktor Orbán wins the elections of April 12, there are already not a few who foresee an operation by Brussels to refuse to recognize the result and seek ways to carry out…
Continue reading
(This article was written by Derk Jan Eppink and appeared in Wynia’s Week. Bizar liberaal geklungel in het Europees Parlement over strenger asielbeleid: wil de echte VVD nú opstaan?)
At the European Parliament vote on the return regulation for rejected asylum seekers, the four-person VVD delegation went down ignominiously this week. VVD delegation leader Malik Azmani was the main negotiator (‘rapporteur’) in parliament. A ‘rightist wind’ in Strasbourg and Brussels made his draft report stricter and sharper. United left was furious and Azmani bewildered. He abstained on his own report, while his three fellow VVD members voted in favor. Meanwhile, the D66 delegates voted against, even though Prime Minister Rob Jetten advocates stricter asylum policy in Europe.
At the VVD, the question now is ‘will the real VVD please stand up,’ while coalition partner D66 governs in The Hague, even provides the prime minister, but leads the opposition in the European Parliament.
Immigration discontent is more noticeable in Europe than in the Netherlands, which confines itself to the usual political dance steps in The Hague. Municipal council elections are behind us and the protest vote has coalesced through the emergence of local parties with the annoying ambition to stand up for their own citizens. The term populism is then the codeword.
In many municipalities, the local elections turned into a referendum on the Distribution Act, once launched by then State Secretary of Justice Eric van der Burg (VVD). Here too the trajectory proved to be that of a drunkard in liberal ranks. In December 2023, party leader Dilan Yeşilgöz tried to block that law with the remark ‘mark time.’ What did not prevent VVD senators from happily voting for the law in January 2024. In the Schoof cabinet, agreement was reached, in the presence of the VVD, to withdraw the Distribution Act. Which subsequently did not happen.
In the Jetten cabinet, the VVD seems to ‘tolerate’ this law, with the remark from faction leader Ruben Brekelmans that the Distribution Act is ‘provisionally needed to distribute the pressure.’ The VVD’s policy reversal on this point became a growth factor last week in The Hague for Richard de Mos’s party: a gain of seven seats (from nine to sixteen), while the VVD lost four (from seven to three). Here is the result of the ‘referendum’ on the Distribution Act.
In Europe, Azmani continued the flip-flopping. He began to ‘negotiate’ between left and right to achieve unanimous agreement on the return regulation. This is the successor to the return directive that came into force in 2008. The legal difference is important. A regulation has direct effect, like a law, and is immediately applicable. A directive is a European decision that EU member states must transpose and incorporate into their own legislation. With the latter, numerous interpretation differences often emerge so that asylum legislation became a European mosaic of legal rules that differ greatly. An oasis for lawyers from the asylum sector. That is why it was time for directly binding rules, via the return regulation.
The left-wing political factions (socialists, greens, and radical left) did not want to know about it. They were put under pressure by seventy NGOs who acted as subsidized shock troops for the old asylum order. Azmani’s liberal faction was also largely opposed, especially the French followers of President Emmanuel Macron. Azmani was too generous with softener in his compromise proposals. He fell between the cracks.
Meanwhile, Azmani’s co-rapporteur, French right-liberal François-Xavier Bellamy from Versailles, set to work with the German Christian Democrats who are under heavy pressure in their own country due to excessive immigration. They pulled the draft to the right and won the vote, partly thanks to the European conservatives (including the SGP and BBB) and the Patriots for Europe faction (including the PVV and Viktor Orbán’s party).
Result: 389 in favor, 208 against, and 32 abstentions, including rapporteur Azmani who did not vote for the report bearing his name. The rest of the VVD delegation did. The caravan moves on. In June comes the ‘trilogue’: negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers under mediation by the European Commission over the final version of the return regulation. There is haste. The Jetten cabinet will undoubtedly agree. Regardless of the D66 delegation in the European Parliament.
What is left of the real VVD? A few weeks ago, journalist and historian (meanwhile doctored) Dik Verkuil presented his biography of VVD leader Frits Bolkestein in whose cabinet I worked at the European Commission.
It has become a comprehensive and complete life description (776 pages) and perhaps Bolkestein was one of the last Mohicans in Dutch politics about whom a proper biography can still be written. Earlier figures were prime ministers like Joop den Uyl, Ruud Lubbers, and Wim Kok. Also Mark Rutte? Time will tell.
Dutch politics revolves too much around morality; in other countries (and also the EU) it is about power, often ‘pur sang.’ Azmani experienced that. He tried—undoubtedly with good intentions—to keep all larger factions together with a ‘compromise’ for a substantial majority; a European dream. But the ‘momentum of power’ has also shifted in Europe. ‘Realpolitik’ suppresses ‘Idealpolitik.’
The German Christian Democrats are under such great pressure that the return regulation became the perfect opportunity to introduce stricter migration policy. Germany stands on the brink socially and economically. So does the Netherlands, but the political elite does not (yet) understand it. The German Christian Democrats also received support in the vote from the villified Alternative for Germany (AfD). Plus votes from delegates of the villified Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán. In the Bundestag, Christian Democrats barely look at an AfD member. As if a ‘contact prohibition law’ applies. But in the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrats carry the day, if necessary with the ‘far right.’ That escaped Azmani; not Bellamy.
Tightening migration legislation is more than necessary. Currently, one in five rejected asylum seekers is expelled; four in five remain. That has an enormous drawing effect. The Distribution Act will not help either, and our new Housing Minister, former air force general Elanor Boekholt-O’Sullivan (D66), speaks in The Guardian about housing shortages in the Netherlands without identifying the main cause: immigration.
Immigration remains the core problem. Whoever does not see that misses the mark. Recently, Danish Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called early elections, assuming she would win by a landslide after the row with Donald Trump over Greenland. But she lost and booked her party’s worst result in over a hundred years. She resigned. The Danes were not concerned with Greenland, but with immigration, even though Denmark has Europe’s strictest immigration model. The winner was the right-wing People’s Party of former European Parliament member Morton Messerschmidt, with a sharpened migration plan. Messerschmidt, a man with the fury his surname suggests.
The political divide between left and right, with ‘pro-immigration’ or ‘anti-immigration’ as the main theme, is anchored in Western Europe. The belated handling of the issue gives it the dimension of a cultural struggle that cuts deep tracks through the political-cultural landscape.
Next year there are presidential elections in France. Migration is the main theme between left and right; both political fronts are organizing themselves. In the second round, a left-wing and right-wing candidate loom: neck and neck. The polarization can take such violent forms that chaos ensues. That is why Bellamy was in a hurry with the European return regulation.
The idea that Azmani could serve as a bridge between left and right on immigration was well-intentioned negotiating in Europe, but entirely illusory. He would do better to pass the baton to Bellamy because he knows what is coming. The French presidential elections are heading toward a European cultural struggle, fought out in ‘deep France.’
Derk Jan Eppink is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.
We are now on the 24th day of active U.S. and Israeli strike operations against Iran. What began on February 28 as a coordinated campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile program, and military command structure has expanded significantly in scope and is now touching nine countries across the region.
CENTCOM has confirmed strikes on more than 7,000 targets inside Iran since February 28. The U.S. military has confirmed 13 American fatalities from Iranian counter-strikes across the region, with an additional six service members killed when a refueling aircraft went down in western Iraq.
Iran has responded by launching strikes across nine countries: Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. Iranian missiles have repeatedly targeted the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain.
Iran’s military has declared it is prepared to close the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely and attack regional infrastructure if President Trump follows through on his threat to strike Iranian power plants.
Nearly 50 percent of global urea and sulfur exports and 20 percent of global LNG transit the Strait of Hormuz.
President Trump announced a five-day pause on strikes against Iran’s power grid, citing what he described as productive conversations and a positive tone from Iranian interlocutors. Iran’s Foreign Ministry immediately denied that any dialogue had taken place, calling President Trump’s characterization an attempt to lower energy prices and buy time.
The five-day pause buys time but does nothing to resolve the structural issue.
Bahrain has intercepted and destroyed 143 missiles and 242 drones since February 28. Saudi forces shot down 47 drones in a single day, including 38 within a three-hour window. Kuwait’s Mina al-Ahmadi refinery, one of the largest in the Middle East, was struck by Iranian drones, sparking a fire.
The Pentagon has requested an additional $200 billion for war operations. The cost to the U.S. as of March 19 was estimated at $18 billion. The conflict has been described as the world’s largest supply disruption since the 1970s energy crisis.
The five-day pause is not a ceasefire. It is a pressure valve. The Strait of Hormuz remains the decisive terrain, economically, strategically, and diplomatically. Iran understands this and is leveraging it. The administration is managing competing pressures: oil prices, allied cohesion, questions of congressional authorization, and an Iranian regime that has replaced Khamenei but has not collapsed.
The hard questions remain unanswered. What is the defined end state? What does a post-conflict Iran look like under whatever governing structure emerges? Who holds the ground, secures the nuclear material, and prevents the power vacuum from being filled by forces hostile to U.S. interests? What, if any information can be provided to the U.S. public about activation of Iranian sleeper cells inside the United States?
(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate.) The European Commission presided over by Ursula von der Leyen and its colossal propaganda apparatus have announced that it is already intervening directly in the Hungarian elections. They are the same ones who…
Continue reading
(This article was written by Derk Jan Eppink and appeared in Wynia’s Week. Jetten moet in Brussel opkomen voor het Nederlands belang, anders wordt hij in eigen land uitgespuugd)
Premier Jetten begins his European entry in a turbulent world. Should the Netherlands join a maritime power to secure ‘free passage’ through the Strait of Hormuz? At first glance: ‘too unsafe’. Europe is backing out. A naval ship at Cyprus is quite a lot. Moreover, for many in The Hague, Donald Trump looks like Frankenstein’s monster. But he is, after all, the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Furthermore, European migration policy must be stricter and expensive climate policy, the gospel of D66, must be drastically reversed. This is the world Jetten is entering.
Therefore, he first made an introductory tour of several leading figures, such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, besides of course the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who is pleased with a ‘pro-Europe’ premier from the Netherlands.
The former D66 leader Hans van Mierlo believed, as a great visionary of his time, that the Netherlands should crawl into the armpit of Germany and France. That is exactly what the first D66 premier did, even though that armpit is sweaty and not fresh. There is friction especially between the two countries with statesmen who prefer to travel abroad. The popularity of both Merz and Macron is at an all-time low in their own countries. Germany and France are part of the core of the European problem.
Merz received Jetten with military honors and Macron with lunch at the Élysée Palace, so that Jetten understands who is pulling the strings in Europe. Influential in both Europe and the US is Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, but she did not fit the picture, because she is conservative. D66 is actually a ‘European church denomination’ that expects all salvation from Brussels. The Netherlands is thereby seen as a ‘state’ of a federal Union. But a Dutch premier must especially stand up for ‘Dutch interests’ in Brussels. In D66 circles, that is already a dirty word. A D66 premier who proclaims that is cursing in church.
Proportionally, the Netherlands is the largest net contributor to the EU. The member state of the Netherlands pays 17.8 billion euros per year and receives only 1.4 billion euros back as ‘compensation’. For each Dutch taxpayer, the net contribution to the EU amounts to 1700 euros per year. And what does the EU want? To eliminate the net rebate of 1.4 billion euros. What does the current D66 premier say to that: ‘It is not realistic to maintain this agreed rebate.’ He capitulates before he even arrives in Brussels.
Instead of standing up for Dutch taxpayers in Brussels, the Dutch premier harms them in Brussels, from European perspectives. Such a premier would be dragged to the scaffold in France by angry unions for treason, but in the Netherlands, nobody cares.
Former Finance Minister Hans Hoogervorst (VVD) and former top official at the Finance Ministry Dick Sluimers criticized this financial gap in an opinion article in De Telegraaf (February 13). But there was no response whatsoever, neither from the cabinet nor from Parliament. Apparently, no one cares about the squeezed taxpayer.
Remarkable, because at the same time the Jetten cabinet wants to cut healthcare spending, shorten the duration of unemployment benefits, reduce welfare payments, and raise the retirement age. Social measures are never popular. However, this cabinet serves not the citizens of its own country, but those of other countries. The reverse is an unknown phenomenon. If the Dutch premier does not stand up for Dutch citizens in Brussels, no one else will.
Since the Jetten cabinet is a minority government, it will be very difficult to find support in Parliament for those social measures; both left and right will largely vote against, albeit for different reasons. Try to make a state budget for Budget Day now. Eelco Heinen, good luck!
The veto right in EU decision-making is an ideological curse for D66, but actually also for the CDA and the current VVD. The latter is even willing to deprive member states that obstruct the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of their voting rights. According to the government agreement, the Dutch coalition wants to ‘take a hard line with Hungary and Slovakia’. Here, the illogical idea that EU expansion and its federalization are parallel processes takes its revenge. Depriving a member state of voting rights denies that member state the ability to defend itself in case of an existential issue. Small countries especially suffer from this. Holland had no veto right in the Spanish Empire either. Disagreement inevitably resulted in rebellion.
Fortunately, there is still a lifeline: the veto right over the EU’s multi-year budget. Its elimination is not mentioned in the government agreement. That must have been the wish of the VVD. No member state makes difficulties over marginal differences between the pluses and minuses of a multi-year budget.
However, the Netherlands currently pays twelve times more than it gets back from Brussels. At the same time, it is a major financial supporter of Ukraine, while Spain puts on airs. That justifies a Premier Jetten who, as it were, bangs his fist on the table. However, it is unlikely that he will assert himself. As ‘champion net contributor,’ he stands up for many countries, but not for his own. That would not happen to Italian Premier Meloni; she would loudly snap back and, if necessary, block the entire European Council.
A member of the European Council who does master the game is the Belgian premier, the Flemish Bart De Wever. He succeeded in completely changing course with the European Council in the Euroclear case. The European Commission came up with a plan to use 185 billion euros in frozen Russian assets, held with the financial institution Euroclear in Brussels, to support Ukraine. De Wever feared major financial risks for Belgium through lawsuits. The plan could be legally interpreted as ‘theft,’ with financial liability for Belgium of 185 billion euros.
Belgium took a stand in the EU, which is already rare. De Wever went to the leading figures of the EU to plead his case. The alternative, according to him, would be a European loan to Ukraine.
He first ensured unity in his own government, a feat in itself, reassured the Baltic states and Poland, and eventually got Merz and Von der Leyen, the German central axis, on his side. Thus the Flemish nationalist De Wever succeeded in saving the Kingdom of Belgium, with thanks from the King of Belgium.
No one can expect Premier Jetten to already master the power game in Brussels at that level. But standing up for your own member state in Brussels strengthens the legitimacy of a Dutch premier in his own country, because that is also the core task of all his colleagues in the European Council.
Whoever wants to play the ‘European purist’ might receive the annual ‘International Charlemagne Prize’ in Aachen but will be spat upon in his own country. Especially if at the same time he also cuts spending on the disadvantaged, the sick, and the disabled.
That ‘authority’ is necessary, especially if Dutch naval ships were to be sent to the Strait of Hormuz to safeguard ‘free passage’; a cornerstone of international law since Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). As soon as European countries refuse to do so, there will be major Atlantic repercussions, especially for NATO. If Europe abandons America, the opposite also happens. Trump: ‘Ukraine, your problem!’
A permanently smiling Premier Jetten does not make a ‘new Rutte’. He will have to step up his game in the ‘creepy’ world of power politics.
Derk Jan Eppink is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.
