The conflict between
Dutch speaking Flanders and French speaking Wallonia is a long-standing one, but the most recent
episode has prompted the Belgian public and policymakers to remark that it
could be the end of Belgium, with the possibility of a split in the country
that would lead each half to be either fully or partially integrated with
neighboring France and the Netherlands. This would have geopolitical
repercussions for Europe - not just because Belgium hosts the headquarters of
both the European Union and NATO, but also because of the symbolism such a
split would have for a Europe skittish of border alterations.
Case Study: From Kosovo to
Belgium and back.
Straddling the two
key portions of the North European plain has been a blessing and a curse for
Belgium. It has been able to parlay its central location as an advantage. Its
proximity to the English Channel and the plentiful coal deposits of the
Ardennes led it to successfully adopt industrialization from the British Isles
in the early 19th century. It was from Wallonia - the French-speaking southern
region of Belgium - that industrialization spread to France, Germany and the
rest of Europe in the mid-19th century. Wallonia also benefited from the
plentiful capital financial resources of nearby Brussels and Amsterdam, cities
that successfully monetized their location at the fulcrum of the North European
plain and the Rhine.
But this geography
also puts Belgium along the path of least resistance - geographically speaking
- between France and Central Europe. Therefore, Belgium historically has been
used by invading armies crossing the North European plain on the east-west axis,
hence the country’s nickname, “the battlefield of Europe.”
The history of modern
Belgium begins in the early 19th century, when Europe’s primary concern was
containing France. The 1815 Congress of Vienna established the United Kingdom
of the Netherlands as a buffer against France, but with prodding from Paris, Belgium
seceded just 15 years later. France hoped to annex Belgium, but European powers
- led by the United Kingdom, then a global superpower - installed a German-born
monarch to rule a supposedly neutral Belgium. This new state was dominated by
French-speaking elites and the industrial powerhouse of Wallonia, much to
Dutch-speaking Flanders’ chagrin. Despite British guarantees of its neutrality,
Belgium had neither the resources nor the geographical barriers to defend its
neutrality - although a spirited defense against the German offensive in 1914
quite possibly gave France sufficient time to prevent a total collapse in the
first month of World War I.
After World War II,
as Europe began to rebuild economically and politically, Belgium’s status as
“the battlefield of Europe” made it a symbolic choice for the eventual
headquarters of both the EU and NATO.
However, despite
Brussels’ rising profile as the “capital of Europe,” the internal discord
between French- and Dutch-speaking populations continues to be a defining
feature of Belgian politics. The split between Wallonia and Flanders has
evolved as Flanders pushed ahead in terms of population and economic power; the
Dutch-speaking region currently accounts for around 60 percent of Belgium’s
population and economic output. The crux of the problem, therefore, is that the
economically stronger Flanders wants to dissolve the remaining vestiges of
Wallonia’s political advantages. But Francophones in Wallonia understand that
this likely will lead to an end in economic transfer payments and their
economic ruin.
Despite the
intractable nature of the political conflict between the two communities, the
geopolitical need for Belgium has not changed. NATO is fraying as French and
German security concerns diverge from those of Central Europe and the United
States, and as Paris and Berlin become more accommodating to a resurgent
Russia. Meanwhile, the Greek debt crisis and the lack of urgency with which
Berlin has handled it has shown the rest of Europe that national interests take
precedent over a united Europe. This does not mean that NATO and the EU are on
the verge of collapse, but it does point to an uncertain future for Europe.
In this environment,
Belgium is still useful as a buffer. First, until France and Germany share a
capital - something which certainly is not in the cards - Belgium will serve as
a no-man’s land between the two European powers. Although France previously sought
to incorporate Wallonia, contemporary Paris faces military and economic
limitations in relation to Germany, which would oppose any such move. Second,
the United Kingdom - and by extension the United States - has an interest in
using Belgium as a wedge to prevent a potential Franco-German axis from
developing. Third - and not insignificantly, considering its ties to the
Dutch-speaking Flanders - the Netherlands understands that while a buffer in
Flanders would be useful, it would also bring it closer to France, which would
almost certainly claim Wallonia. The bottom line is that Belgium’s role as a
buffer on the narrow corridor of the North European Plain has not diminished in
the 21st century; it is a buffer state that everyone is comfortable with.
And yet, though none
of Belgium’s neighbors have an interest in its dissolution, it could break
apart due to its internal political crisis.
This scenario could
set a precedent for other secessionist regions in the European Union,
particularly Catalonia and the Basque region in Spain, and Scotland and
Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The dissolution of an advanced EU
economy that hosts NATO and the EU headquarters would break the taboo of border
changes in Western Europe. It could also embolden Central European states
looking to address perceived territorial injustices - Hungary, for example - to
argue that if Belgium can change or dissolve its borders, then why not
renegotiate past treaties? If Wallonia can decide to join France, why should
the Hungarian-majority parts of Romania, Slovakia and Serbia not have the
opportunity to decide to join Hungary?
For now, Belgium’s
dissolution however would not serve the interests of the European powers that
surround it. And while “being a buffer” seems like a sorry reason for the
existence of an independent sovereign state, Belgium has thus far had
sufficient geopolitical underpinnings to last for 200 years.
Following is the
content basis for a seminar I held on related subjects late 2006:
The
institution of the modern state and the creation of Belgium as such, depends
on the co-existence of many “nations” as multiple sources of transcendent
credibility. This system of nation-states would wither away however if
the “nation” is replaced as the dominant type of source of transcendent
credibility in the world. From Belgium
to Kosovo P.1.
S.America and the events that led up to the League of Nations
Conference. From Belgium to Kosovo P.2. Recently,
leading British
Newspaper Telegraph asked
(ironicly): "perhaps there should never be a
Belgian government." From Belgium
to Kosovo P.3.
While
Russia and the United States continue to tango over issues of missile defense
and Iran, one issue has yet to be resolved: Kosovo. But as rumors swirl of
U.S. concessions to Russia, the Kosovar issue might be added to the tally of
compromises. Plus as is known, the Prime Minister of Bosnia the Serb Nikola Spiric recently resigned. From Belgium
to Kosovo P.4. |
When Bosnia-Herzegovina
gained its independence in 1992, armed conflict, and then a genocidal war
that involved the whole former SFRY region, erupted among all the groups. At
the time, Bosnia-Herzegovina was largely controlled by the Serbian majority,
which is now concentrated in the current Serb Republic. Eventually, the Bosniaks and Croats teamed up to create the Federation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina to counter The Serb Republic. Unpleasant truths about
a devided Bosnia. From Belgium to Kosovo P.5. While
we briefly mentioned Richard Holbrooke who said to have let wanted, Radovan Karadzic go (topic of "The
Hunting Ground" with
Richard Gere, opens Nov.23) today we take a deeper look at all three,
Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia. From Belgium
to Kosovo P.6.
Codifying
statehood and switching recognition into the realm of international law would
be the equivalent of giving up the right to intervene and control
international affairs. The Geostrategic Gamble and Kosovo. From Belgium to Kosovo P.7. Following
our Introduction now our Conclusion. |
For updates
click homepage here