Speech Knapen Honorary Consuls Conference

Toespraak | 12-06-2012

Ladies and gentlemen,

Anyone who takes the time to leaf through newspaper archives will find some interesting definitions of the office of honorary consul. Diplomatic obscurity, for example. Or: international men of mystery. Or, even more intriguing: card-carrying agents of a foreign power. So your work clearly stirs the imagination ─ not only of journalists but also of novelists. For the honorary consul is also a well-known character in international literature. One of the Netherlands’ best writers, Cees Nooteboom, once wrote a short story about an honorary vice-consul in Italy. In his epic novel Buddenbrooks, Thomas Mann brings to life the character of Jean Buddenbrook, a Dutch royal consul in the German city of Lübeck in the 19th century. And Graham Greene published a novel entitled ─  yes, indeed ─ The Honorary Consul. Unfortunately, none of these stories has a happy ending. Nooteboom’s honorary vice-consul passes away in tragic circumstances. Thomas Mann’s Jean Buddenbrook dies in the book. And Graham Greene’s honorary consul is kidnapped and gets killed. So be glad there is a difference between fiction and reality.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is an honour to welcome you to The Hague. It has been six years since the last Honorary Consuls Conference and a lot has happened in that time, not in the least in the European Union. So let me examine the question of European cooperation in greater depth, since this is an important part of my portfolio.

The euro crisis is making existential questions about our future in the European Union more pressing than ever. The Netherlands now has to reflect on the role we want to play in Europe, and about what sort of Europe we want to live in. Think about it. After enlargement, the Netherlands found itself closer to the Union’s periphery. Not only geographically, but also psychologically. For example, of the countries to which the Netherlands has always felt close, three are non-euro countries: Denmark, Sweden and the UK.  

Not only is the Netherlands closer to the EU’s fringe, our relative weight in the Union has declined. More than ever before, Dutch diplomacy in Europe must rely on its quality, credibility and personal contacts. More than ever, we need to invest in reliable networks and in capable people in key positions: in short, in personal authority. But whatever we do, it’s now harder for the Netherlands to influence the EU’s future – and thus to influence our own future. The euro crisis has exposed this open nerve once and for all.

The Dutch debate on this issue seems strongly polarised. There are advocates of more Europe, Europhiles, and opponents of more Europe, Eurosceptics. With nothing in between. But if you look more closely, it’s not as black and white as it seems. Take the Dutch parliament, for example. It wants to block the way to a political union, but at the same time it demands sanctions to ensure compliance with European agreements on the deficits of individual member states. And who will impose these sanctions? The European Commission of course, which Eurosceptics see as an imperialistic bureaucracy that is slowly but surely undermining the independence of Europe’s nation states.  

This issue has everything to do with our concept of national sovereignty, of having supreme, independent authority over a certain area of land. Eurosceptics are against and Europhiles are in favour of handing over sovereignty to Brussels. Or so it seems. But I think this is a misconception. In many policy areas the concept of national sovereignty didn’t apply in the past and applies even less now. Take efforts to fight global warming, international crime and illegal migration. By joining forces in the EU, member states handed over some powers and gained collective authority in return. But there is a thin line between sovereignty and national identity. For a great many Dutch people, sovereignty and identity are real issues. They don’t want to be branded solely as Europeans; they want to be Dutch in a united Europe. They’re not asking to leave the European Union, but they don’t want to dissolve in Europe like ice cubes in a glass of Coke either.

Having said that, it is clear that if Europe doesn’t move forward, it will fall behind. And let’s be honest: European cooperation has deepened and will continue to deepen as a result of the euro crisis. Recently, the German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble called for the European Union to move more decisively towards political union. In the meantime, the president of the European Council is working on plans to strengthen the eurozone by more banking, fiscal and economic integration, and enhanced governance and democratic accountability. Obviously, this places my government in a dilemma. On the one hand there is the apparent lack of popular support for ever closer union; on the other there is the political reality within the European Union. So the million-dollar question now is: which way should we go? In fact, this existential question will play an important role in the 2012 election campaign.

Up until now, the Dutch government has chosen a pragmatic approach. We believe that we should take it step by step, without straying into issues of grand design. Now is not the time to discuss political union seriously. There are, however, some issues that we can deal with.  Let me mention four important ones. First, support for European integration will remain very shaky, in both old and new member states, unless the European Union has a social agenda. I mean that citizens should feel protected by Europe. A second goal that we can achieve before talking about political union is ensuring the consistency of the rule of law in all member states. Thirdly, we can make better use of the tools we have for strengthening Europe’s position on the world stage. In our view, member states should empower the European Commission to facilitate European leadership in the area of global public goods, such as climate and energy access, as well as in the fields of development cooperation and human rights. My fourth and final point is that democracy and accountability should improve dramatically. The EU is just not the institution with which you can expect a citizen to identify himself easily.

So, in a nutshell: for my government, European integration is a marathon, not a sprint.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Ultimately, European cooperation depends on good relations between countries and their citizens. And it goes without saying that our honorary consuls in European countries are our ‘Good Relations Infantry’. Your work is invaluable to us. So thank you, Peter van Santen, for taking care of stranded Dutch people during the 2010 floods in the south of France. And thank you, Andreas Trentini, for your good work in Lech.

The list is endless. All of you are doing a remarkable job for our country. And, I add as a Dutchman, ‘without being a burden on the nation’s treasury’. I sincerely thank you for this.

In his speech at the 2006 Honorary Consuls Conference, Bernard Bot, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that strategies on Europe come and go, but countries will always promote their trade and culture, and will always help their citizens in need abroad. In other words: we will always need our honorary consuls. I couldn’t agree with him more. So, from this point of view, the motto on the plaque bearing the Dutch coat-of-arms leads you in exactly the right direction.

For the words ‘Je maintiendrai’ mean ‘I will stand firm’. And this is exactly what I hope you will do. Now and in the future.

Thank you.