The Dutch Drive for Humanitarianism

Abstract

DUTCH FOREIGN POLICY AND THE PHENOMENON OF GIDSLANDThe history of Dutch foreign policy is dominated by two themes. First and foremost, two elements compete for prominence when it comes to characterizing the contents of Dutch foreign policy. Dutch foreign policy consists both of an element of mercantile quest for economic profits (the merchant) as well as of the urge to set moral standards for the rest of the world (the Calvinist tradition, the preacher). Secondly, the eternal debate continues as to whether, at different times in history, the Netherlands were/are a small power, a great power, the greatest of the smaller powers, or the smallest of the great powers. This is in essence a relative question, as answering it also gives a view of the relationship of the Netherlands with other countries.Both themes have gained most of their profile when combined with a theme in Dutch foreign policy that partly flows from the previous two, the so-called gidsland principle. Implicitly, between the 17th and 19th centuries (the 80-Years-War against the Spaniards, Dutch cultural policy in the Dutch Indies, support for the Afrikaners during the Boer War), and more explicitly in the 20th century (furthering the cause of the international legal order, Dutch occupation with minority and children's rights during the interbellum; UN security policy, international development cooperation), the Netherlands considered itself to be in a position to set moral standards for other (larger, stronger, smaller) countries and to guide them in abiding the rules that had been set at a regional or even global scale.1The Dutch drive to set moral standards in international relations and to guide other countries in the proper direction has shown itself most prominently in the area of issues. Development cooperation, international justice, human rights, and humanitarian action are all areas in which the Netherlands after 1945, but especially after 1968, deemed itself to be a major actor on the world scene. Consecutive governments and ministers of foreign affairs have increasingly incorporated said issues into Dutch foreign policy. They have also increasingly admonished or even criticized other countries for poor records in the humanistic area (Greece, Turkey, Soviet Union, China, and the United States, to mention a few).2 It will be explained later that one can say this process reached its peak in the 1990s in several changes in the Dutch constitution, the last of which resulted in two articles outlining the Dutch drive for law, order, and humanism in international relations.3The 1990s, however, are also to be considered a rupture in this linear development of the gidsland principle. The events in Cambodia, Angola, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have left doubt and hesitation in the Dutch humanistic drive. Failures in these areas have made the Dutch shy away from new humanistic endeavours. Politicians and public opinion alike wonder out loud whether the Netherlands always has to stand first in line when it comes to humanitarianism, and whether these moral principles can be upheld internally.4 The word gidsland has almost disappeared from parliamentary debate, or has been used for internal purposes solely (on legal-philosophical issues like abortion, euthanasia, the medical use of cannabis, same-sex marriage).5 In short, the Netherlands and its gidsland principle are adrift. This article, therefore, asks the following questions: In the context of Dutch political life-since the 1960s-what has been the balance between the internal and external origins and characteristics of the gidsland principle, and to what extent is the derailing of Dutch international humanitarian policy in the 1990s accompanied by disturbances in the internal and external dimensions of the concept?To answer this question, one has to look at the meaning of the word gidsland, and into history to dwell upon its origins. This article will first examine a couple of historic moments-and their contribution to the concept of gidsland. …