Tuesday, June 17. 2008
"Belgium has ceased to exist..."
Posted by Kyle Atwell in European Issues on Tuesday, June 17. 2008
"Belgium has ceased to exist," said a journalist from the Belgian national French-speaking TV station during a hoax news report in 2006, stoking long-term questions as to the reasons of existence of this small yet complex country.
Whether a premonition or provocation, the Belgian situation has since become increasingly tense due to the often caustic relations between the two main linguistic communities, which include mostly Dutch-speakers in northern Flanders (60% of the population) and Francophones in southern Walloonia.
I live in a country that has yet to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; where children who cannot speak Dutch are not allowed on playgrounds, and their parents in the same situation are restricted from buying new houses in certain Dutch neighbourhoods; where elected politicians native of another official language are prevented from assuming their functions; and where people are instructed by their politicians to denounce vendors who advertise in languages other than Dutch.
The worst thing is that Belgium is a developed European country, a founding member of the EU, and the host nation for NATO Headquarters and most EU institutions. It is ironic that the towns surrounding some of the West’s main institutions for spreading democracy and human rights values – towns in the heart of Europe and the West – are themselves unable to practice what they preach.
It took nine months after the June 2007 elections for Belgium to form a government, now led by Flemish Prime Minister Yves Leterme of the center-right Christian Democratic and Flemish Party (CD&V). Although his party is moderate in terms of relations with the French-speaking part of the country, his fragile majority nonetheless depends on backing from the extremist party New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), a coalition member that favours splitting Belgium along the “linguistic border”.
Some Belgians fear that democracy and fundamental rights are being derailed by an over-eagerness to maintain Flemish purity; both at the national and local levels.
For example, three French-speaking politicians who won reelection as mayors in their respective municipalities have had their nominations refused by the Flemish regional government, because they did not send the notice to vote (mandatory for these incumbent politicians to send to their constituents) in Flemish only, even to Francophones. No, they did not respect the regional decree protecting the use of Dutch, and in the general context of globalisation, a certain degree of preservation of local particularities can be understood. But should democracy be the victim to linguistic protectionism?
This example is one of many that have made the international community uneasy. Although Belgium has a history of language cleavage, the country has until now been a model of conflict resolution and compromise. The municipality of my Flemish hometown, well known even by expats for its quality of life and proximity to Brussels, has last week asked its citizens to denounce any vendors with displays advertising in a language other than Dutch (be it French, English,…). Rather than taking the path of compromise between the two linguistic communities, my hometown has compromised the Belgian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of the use of languages.
This freedom is apparently not given to the children of another town near Brussels either, who can now be banned from playgrounds and holiday outings if they are unable to speak Dutch.
The last striking example I present, though certainly not the last example, is of the blatant exclusiveness of the municipality hosting the Brussels Airport. To apply for subsidised housing, or to buy a new house in the area, the local “wooncode” (housing code) requires you to prove your ability to speak Dutch. Unfortunately, even if you speak Dutch but your spouse does not, you can forget about buying your dream house, despite the fact that access to housing is supposed to be an unconditional right.
Some Belgians go so far as to make parallels between the repression of the Jews over 70 years ago and today’s restrictions on Francophones. Even Flemish people agreed with the comment this anonymous citizen wrote to an online article of newspaper Le Vif:
Incredible! My comment is just one more drop of water, but it recalls of methods reminiscent of the beginning of nazism! ATTENTION!! STOP!!! We need to realise that calling for denouncement [of vendors using a language other than Dutch] is a condemnable initiative in that it stokes suspicion and hatred! It is more clever to understand the lessons of History than to re-write the periods of racism and their associated suffering!Of course the problem should not be overstated, and in fact overstatement may be the problem itself. For example, contrary to a poll led by a Flemish newspaper stating that 49,7% of the population wants Belgium to split, the more reliable Flemish Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KUL) recently issued the results of a study run during the worst time of the political crisis, after the 2007 elections, which show that only nine percent of Flemish people wish the country to part. Given these divergences, there is a strong likelihood that populist and ideologue politicians are attempting to manipulate sentiments toward a split of the nation that the vast majority simply does not want.
The international community is beginning to get more outspoken about the situation. The Council of Europe sent delegates to hear what each party had to say about the non-nomination of the elected mayors. The United Nations CERD and the European Commission have expressed concerns about the “wooncode”, while the UN joined the Council of Europe in pledging for Belgium to finally ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
As always when international bodies intervene in internal conflicts, some voices disapprove of their authority in the matter. But will Belgium be able to reach a compromise on its own this time, or should we accept guidance from the international community, like the guidance we have tried to provide others for years?
Belgium might well fall apart, as some now want as heated reaction against the Flemish measures. However, a minimum requirement for Belgium – be it through classic Belgian compromise or by international pressure – is to respect democracy and the fundamental rights that it, along with its transatlantic partners, helped to build elsewhere.
This is all very interesting. Question: Why is the country not dissolved then? French to France, Dutch to the Netherlands and Germans to Germany?
I read that the german minority around Eupen and Malmedy has already adjusted its administration to the german state of North-Rine-Westphalia. So their return shouldn´t be very difficult.
A "wait and see" approach, or otherwise simple inaction.
About 6 months ago I found myself in the Grand Place helping one French speaking Belgian who only spoke French and some Spanish communicate to another Belgian who spoke Flemish and English. I didn't give in to the temptation of making a point that they needed a foreigner to help them with this.
The other part of this issue is that if the EU is to be truly taken seriously as their future, that they don't need a national government, and find some arrangement where the devolved provinces, no matter how many pieces they sort themselves into, will be member states of the [url=http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/yet-another-successful-5-year-plan.html]grand[/url] [url=http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2007/11/vatis-armee.html]constellation[/url] of [url=http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/03/no-youll-be-taught-to-care-silly.html]human[/url] [url=http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/02/send-lawyers-guns-and.html]enlightenment[/url].
Dissolving the country would actually be very tricky, especially because of the geographic situation of Brussels (ainto Flanders) and its linguistic majority (around 85% French).
A trend towards more federalism/confederalism instead, could be envisaged, as Philippe Moureaux says in this article: http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/72-56-18717/-les-francophones-doivent-accepter-le-confederalisme----.html
I thought the reference was to the old album by The Nits. A video game, by cracky, what's next? People on the moon?
your welcome into France, he, we like the franco-belgian sense of Humor and the BD
or should we invade Belgium and lecture those ugly Flanders ?
Louis XIV would have done it :lol:
Obviously that shoe of language purity pinches just as tightly when it is worn by the French speakers as opposed to formerly being worn by the Flemish! Considering the relative economic growth rates of the two areas and the seeming attempt by the French-speaking to dilute the demographic areas of the Flemish it seems only natural and inevitable that the two sides will split apart with no real consequences other than intramural whining.
Yep and Louis XIV in the interests of religious amity murdered and exiled the Huguenots even after promising them protection and their walls. Good example, which I'm sure the Flemish would find very reassuring!
nope, he didn't murdered the Huguenots, but revocated the "Edit de Nantes"
the Huguenots murderer was Catherine de Medicis, married to a François Ier's son
though Louis XIV made a few campaigns against Flanders, as a training army hobby, thus recovering from his very laborious court love life
"Louis XIV made a few campaigns against Flanders, as a training army hobby, thus recovering from his very laborious court love life"
My compliments - you nicely captured the difference between the modern concept of total war, and the older concept of war as a sort of sport. As well as Louis XIV's mastery of that sport and its supporting lifestyle.
I wonder, if we could wave a magic wand and return to the days when war was more of a sport, would it be better for humanity, or worse? As a sport, the wars were perhaps less bloody? On the other hand, large regions remained at a nearly perpetual state of low-level war for decades, or centuries; whereas total wars tend to exhaust themselves, in part because they cause more devastation.
Nigel Powers: [to Goldmember] There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch.
-- [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295178/quotes]Nigel Powers, "Goldmember" (2002)[/url]
These questions of ethnic identity truly bedevil modern life.
One is tempted to say that these conflicts could be solved by creating a universal Belgian, or even, universal European identity. Care would have to be taken than no ethnicity gets short changed in this transaction. But it is never that simple; even people who don't strongly identify with a particular ethnic group, instinctively fear that the universal identity will lead to an artificial, bland homogenization. Worse still, people with a strong ethnic identity have to battle the constant fear that the universal identity will become co-opted by their (real or imagined) ethnic rivals. Ethnic demagogues exploit these fears ruthlessly, but these fears are not totally without foundation.
In American politics today, the closest thing we have to this Belgian ethnic question is the question of whether African-Americans should preserve a distinct, ethnic identity (as opposed to an ethnic heritage within the universal, American identity). [i]Perhaps if we adopted some of the "Belgian style of humour and bitter tenderness" things would go better in discussing this question.[/i]
Obama uses plenty of self-depreciating humor in his speeches, but when he talks about questions of race and identity, he tends to be lofty, uplifting, earnest, and above all serious; I have seen little evidence so far of down-to-earth humor on the question of race.
McCain is also funny, for example on Saturday Night Live, but so far, has not applied this humor to racial questions. Although I wish he would, it is perhaps understandable that he hasn't, since older White males, especially Republicans, are judged by a different standard.
Does anyone know of any examples of Obama or McCain using humor to explore questions of race?
[u]The Belgian blindness or how to bury one’s head in the sand?[/u]
The issue of an external help to solve the community jigsaw in Belgium deserves to be addressed and this article is a good attempt in that direction.
Nevertheless, I got the impression that our problem is first and foremost a Belgian problem. In my opinion, the main task would be to promote a political awareness-raising. I feel Belgians mostly skeptical about their political world; we usually make a mockery of it. It is an extremely convenient way of receding from any responsibility. Our own country is collapsing; it is time for Belgians to understand that the future of their country is not an issue which will be solved in an alien and inaccessible sphere but a challenge they have to face!
Hmmm. Permit me to express some skepticism over Belgium breaking up.
Canada has been experienceing a similarly rancourous fracture between Quebec and the rest for many years ago, and a few years ago the columnist Pat Buchanan predicted in print that Canada would dissolve with the West forming a rump Canada, Quebec forming a francophone nation, and the Maritime provinces joining the US.
Perhaps that is what Should have happened (I don't think so). And perhaps it still will happen. But Canadians (even Maritimers) don't regard themselves as Yanks, and the US is staggeringly unlikely to force this conclusion in any way. Sop the only scenario in which the US acquires some additional states is if Canada partitions and there is an external threat to the Maritimes strong enough for them to request union with the US. It's hard to conceive of a threat of that magnitude that the US would need to absorb them.
I think nation-states have strengths not always visible to us in the hoi-poloi.
The British have ratified the Lisbon-Treaty! The Treaty is dead, long live the Treaty! :D
Now we only have to get the Czechs back in line and we are on the road to Dublin again. We shall see what the Irish vote when being confronted with practically leaving the EU alltogether.
Please note that by default the comments in this blog are threaded rather than linear, i.e. some of the latest comments and responses to comments are not at the bottom, but in the middle.
At the top of the comments section you have the option to change the view from threaded to linear, which enable you to see the latest comments at the end of the thread.
This author has falsely represented the situation, the Flemish players, and the historical events with an extreme Walloon-centric stance.
The fact of the matter is that the Flemish - who pay the majority of the taxes and receive a minority of the benefits; who until 1932 were not allowed to attend university in their own, native language; who even though a majority of the population, were forbidden to have Dutch as an official language until the turn of the century; who shed the most blood, received the worst damage and spent the most treasure in every war under the banner of "Belgium" yet could not until well into the 20th century receive military orders in their native language - simply want true democracy.
What this author neglects to mention is that the Walloons - 30% of the population - are mandated to receive a veto on every national law; they are entitled by law to 1/2 of all government positions; every Flemish family sends the financial equivalent of a new VW van for each Walloon family every year.
What then should we call this minority that discrimantes against and oppresses the majority? Freedom for Flanders and the establishment of a Flemish Republic on the basis of Wilson's position of self-determination is all that the Flemish ask for.
It is absolutely true indeed that the Dutch speaking people were not entitled to many rights in the early years of the Belgian Kingdom. Unfortunately, back then, the rules of democracy and the human rights were not yet as developed as they are now.
History has known many unfairnesses. But has it not also told us how to get past them through the rule of law, and not through revenge anymore?
After all these years of evolution, should we go back to giving military orders in one language by exclusion of the other?
to Debendevan:
Of course it is needed to put these questions in the larger historical context of Flanders which evolved from an oppressed people to one the most dynamic regions in Europe. We ought to point out the extreme complexity of the situation, especially when it comes to Brussels and its periphery. But let's not mix up:
YES there are indeed serious economic troubles in Wallonia (yet, not so much in Brussels and its periphery, one of the wealthiest region, - with Flanders - in Europe). This, coupled with recurrent governance problems in the same Walloon region, makes the situation very frustrating for the Flemish and for the Walloons and Bruxellois who also denounce the lack of economic progress and the stagnation of mentalities in certain parts of Wallonia. Indeed reforms that increase the pressure on Walloon politicians to reform their governance IS needed.
BUT, linguistic rights and a larger cultural oppenness is another question. Democracy is of course not only the law of the majority but also the safeguards for the minorities (I can also remind you that French-speaking are by far a majority in Brussels and its periphery). And I have to say that some reasoning from some part of the flemish population strike me: the so called 'right of the land', the 'integrity' of the flemish language which would supposedly be threathened by the francophone 'oil stain', and other 19th century nationalist thoughts.. This discourse pollutes the debate and is counterproductive regarding the much needed reforms, both in the organisation of the federation and concerning the walloon governance. Moreover, it gives the image of a Flanders as ego-centric closed-minded people.
Concerning the establishment of a Flemish republic, a bit of seriousness and an objective analysis will show you that Flanders has much to loose from a split. It will mean, at the minimum, years of political uncertainty, a degradation of the international image and a rise in the extremisms. But maybe the latter is what you're looking for..
People begin to escape from real politics to virtual "countries". Let me quote an extract of "Wirtland's Statute" from site called "www.wirtland.com":
"While the boundaries of sovereign states are becoming symbolic in Europe, in other world's regions sovereignty is being increasingly challenged, and separatism sometimes leads to bloodshed and terrorism. While these trends are contrasting, they both suggest for a serious rethinking of the notion of self-identification in a changing world. However, there are few options left for an individual, if he is not taking an active part in political life. We believe people should be offered a broader choice..."
Wirtland is the first virtual country. Wirtland claims to be the youngest country in the world and was founded on August 14, 2008.
Contact Us
ar-team AT atlanticreview.org
We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.
Subscribe and Follow
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW,
a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis.
More about us.
Follow Atlantic Review on
Facebook or on
Twitter.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter.
Sponsor
SUPPORT THIS SITE
or 
:Blogroll
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.
