Toespraak van minister Hennis-Plasschaert bij de Chatham House conference

Toespraak | 17-03-2016

Ladies and gentlemen,

For someone from the Netherlands, the name of this esteemed institution – Chatham House – is reminiscent of one the great sea battles between the Dutch and the English in the late 1600s. As you may know, the raid by the Dutch navy on the naval base of Chatham up the river Medway amounted to 'the most glorious' defeat in the history of the Royal Navy. So I do stand before you today with a slight sense of apprehension.

Fortunately, our naval battles belong to a distant past. The Netherlands and the UK are members of a European Union that is in part built on Sir Winston Churchill's stirring orations for a united Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War. As the well-known journalist and historian Hugo Young wrote on the UK and Europe: 'Churchill was never seduced by world government. But he had ideas for Europe that, while eschewing federalism, made the case for a European Union.'

Most of Churchill's blueprints still placed Britain outside the European construct. But Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, a Conservative too, came to conclude that it was in the overriding British interest to join what later evolved into the European Union.

There is no question that it is up to the British people – and up to them alone! – to decide whether they want the UK to remain part of the European Union. From the Dutch perspective, there can be no doubt about what is the most desirable outcome. The EU needs the UK, and vice versa: the UK needs Europe. When the vote comes in June, I therefore fervently hope that our British friends will decide to remain part of the offspring of Churchill's vision. A parting of ways on the EU will almost certainly invite profound uncertainty. It might also have a serious impact on security and defence in Europe, a topic on which the UK has been a strong leader within NATO as well as the EU. There is, in other words, a lot at stake.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In the late 1990s, I spent a few years in Riga (Latvia) working for the European Commission. Latvia was on the road to EU membership at the time. It was a country still struggling to make the transition from communism to liberal democracy. My experience in Latvia made me realize – more than I had realized before – that the foundations of our liberty, security and prosperity can never be taken for granted. They are worth fighting for. Day and night. Anywhere. With all our might.

The importance of never taking anything for granted, is now ever more evident than before. The zone of peace and stability that we have built in Europe – since the end of the Cold War – is at stake. The subtitle to this conference says it all: 'Diverging Interests, Fragmenting Policy'. There is a clear risk of fragmentation. I am not necessarily talking about the UK's exemption from partaking in an 'ever closer Union'. I am talking about something much more serious: the sheer possibility of the EU itself falling apart under the combined and related pressures of migration flows, populism, geopolitics and economic stagnation.

The fact that fragmentation is no longer considered unthinkable, even by those working in Brussels, should gravely concern us all – and propel us into action. As holder of the EU's presidency, the Netherlands is deeply committed to doing its part. There is no reason to be fatalistic, for together we are still strong. But it would be foolish to underestimate the challenge at hand.

Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, recently quoted the great British historian Arnold Toynbee, once also a leading figure at Chatham House, who said that "civilisations die from suicide, not by murder". Let us not kill ourselves. Instead, let us rediscover the simple notion that in a less secure world our interests are converging rather than diverging. Let us recognise that we share overarching goals in promoting security in Europe and the world. Let it be clear that neither Europe as a whole nor any single nation can isolate itself from a world in turmoil. In Europe, we must cope with this turmoil together, as best we can. Or else the zone of peace and stability that we have built up over decades might go down much like Toynbee said, and we would have no one to blame but ourselves.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Last year, when I spoke to a different audience, I was reminded of the bestselling book Mr. Robert Cooper wrote 13 years ago, entitled The Breaking of Nations. Many of you probably remember Mr. Cooper as the chief adviser to Mr. Javier Solana when he was the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Since I know Mr. Cooper is a regular visitor at Chatham House, I consider it appropriate to call his analysis to mind once again.

In 2003, Mr. Cooper divided the world into 3 zones that are living in different stages of history: a 'pre-modern', a 'modern' and a 'postmodern' part. The 'pre-modern' world was, in his view, the realm of failed states. It is the world in which the state's monopoly on the use of force has been diluted by the influence of non-state actors such as drug syndicates, criminal organisations, and terrorist networks. In the pre-modern world, societies often linger in an anarchic state of war.

The 'modern' world was the classical world of sovereign states that, where capable of maintaining internal order, strove to protect their national interests and to maintain a balance of power.

In the 'postmodern' world, finally, states have agreed to relinquish a significant measure of their sovereignty for the greater good of the commonwealth. In Mr. Cooper's view, this world represented the highest and most sophisticated form of political governance. Not surprisingly, he observed that it had flourished almost exclusively in Europe.

In Mr. Cooper’s view, the 'postmodern' world was threatened most of all by the 'pre-modern world'. While Mr. Cooper vested his hopes in the European model, he also believed that Europe had to learn how to cope with the harsher and often dreadful political realities beyond its own realm.

So, 13 years later, where do we stand?

Firstly, Mr. Cooper was certainly right that 'postmodern' Europe would be threatened by the 'premodern' world to the south. With the unravelling of the Arab Spring, it is impossible to deny the huge impact of circumstances in that part of the world. This unravelling has resulted in a resurgent terrorist threat, endemic violence throughout the region, and growing refugee flows towards Europe.

Secondly, we may also conclude that the so-called 'postmodern' world of Europe is not only threatened by the 'pre-modern' world but also by the "modern" world of nation-states. We are clearly living in an era of geopolitical stress and diverging worldviews and agendas – and even conflicting value systems. Many large countries have continued to boost their military expenditures over the past decade, while those in the West – in particular in Europe – have cut spending.

Most analysts point out that after the unipolar system that followed the bipolar system of the Cold War, global order is drifting towards some kind of multipolar arrangement. International relations are becoming an increasingly complex and volatile chess game.

One of the key questions for the near future is whether European nations will be able to hold their own in a world with many competing powers. I am convinced that the nations of Europe will need to get their act together quickly. And for Europe this also means becoming more realistic – or more 'modern' – in its global outlook.

Thirdly, Europe has proven to be less 'postmodern' than Mr. Cooper surmised in 2003. European cooperation has come under unprecedented stress, first by the financial and banking crisis and now by the pressures resulting from the migration flows to Europe. Both have fuelled the rise of anti-European populism in many European countries. Therefore, the future of European cooperation itself is now at stake.

And fourthly, the distinction between 'postmodern', 'pre-modern' and 'modern' has become less clear-cut in a world that has become increasingly interconnected. DAESH might seem medieval in its brutality, but it uses highly modern media techniques and communication methods. And it has proven remarkably capable of attracting the sympathies even of young Muslims who grew up in democratic, 'postmodern' European societies.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The world has certainly become a rougher – and also more complex – place since Mr. Cooper wrote his book. In this rougher world, the best thing European nations can do is to act in unity as well as to reaffirm the transatlantic partnership within NATO.

If anyone is fatigued by continued European cooperation in the field of security and defence, let this be your wake-up call. Without such cooperation among European nations, within NATO as well as the EU, we cannot hope to stave off the dangers from the east and the south. We are not talking about creating a European army. We are talking about the need to re-invest in our security, as part of a collective, step-by-step approach in which practical bottom-up initiatives by small groups of likeminded countries are actively encouraged. And progress will have to be made!

By the end of the Dutch EU-Presidency in June, we need to have come up with a sound Global Strategy. In this strategy we must define how European nations are going to deal with this more connected, contested and complex world in a longer-term perspective. It is obvious that security and defence must be a prominent part of that strategy. And that the strategy will need to be made operational in order to produce real results.

Our American allies, too, expect Europeans to step up to the plate. We cannot keep relying on others to deal with our security problems. As European nations, we need to take responsibility – within NATO as well as the EU. One thing is certain: political leadership will continue to be crucial in the years to come, as European nations will have to respond to a rapidly changing environment.

Ladies and gentlemen,

As the Dutch Defence minister, I will commit myself to achieving real progress on these matters. This commitment is fuelled in part by my earlier experiences in for example Latvia. The importance of never taking anything for granted, is now even more evident than before. As I said: the zone of peace and stability that we have built in Europe is at stake. So we need to do everything in our power to maintain it.

It will not always be easy to agree on what we should do. It is, no doubt, challenging to make defence cooperation work. But we have no choice but to forge ahead. For the failure to do so stands equal to jeopardising our security. And that would be reckless. In this endeavour, there can be no doubt that Europe needs the continued involvement and leadership from the United Kingdom within the EU. And I remain hopeful that the British people will choose to do so. For this would also best serve British interests and British security needs. Only together will we be able to cope with a rapidly changing world. In times of crises, unity is what we need above all.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have already quoted Sir Winston Churchill and so I end my remarks today by turning to another British icon, Professor Albus Dumbledore. It is he who, in his unfailing wisdom, impressed upon Harry Potter: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

And our choices have consequences. Let us never forget.

Thank you very much.