// archives

Netherlands

This tag is associated with 4 posts

Dutch Election

The Dutch political system may not have been deliberately designed to produce middle-of-the-road outcomes, but it certainly works that way in practice: many small parties, multi-party coalitions to create a majority government, perpetual compromise. It is almost impossible to radicalise a system like this, but Geert Wilders is going to try.

Wilders is the founder and leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), which currently holds only twelve seats in the 150-seat Dutch parliament. But he is aiming to make it the largest single party in the March 15 election – which, in ordinary times, would probably give it the leading role in the next coalition government.

But these are not normal times, and the PVV is far from a normal party. It really only has one policy – stop the immigrants – and it is unshamedly racist and anti-Muslim in its rhetoric. Wilders recently called Dutch residents of Moroccan origin “scum”. He vows to close mosques and Islamic schools, ban the sale of the Koran, and stop all further immigrants or asylum seekers from Muslim countries.

He is the Dutch Donald Trump, a silver-maned provocateur who deploys the maximum possible nastiness in his campaign talk and his frequent abusive tweets. In fact, some people argue that Trump must have taken lessons from Wilders, who has been working this side of the street for at least a decade already, but the concept of convergent evolution probably applies. Populists are almost always racists too.

Which brings us to the question that is most interesting for people who don’t live in the Netherlands. Can racism and xenophobia alone, without any help from economic desperation, persuade a traditionally liberal Western electorate to cast its values aside and vote for an authoritarian bully with an anti-Muslim obsession?

Trump had lots of help from economic despair. The key voters who gave him an electoral college victory last November were in the Rust Belt states: men (they were mostly men) who would usually have backed Democratic candidates, but switched to Trump because he promised to “bring back the jobs” and stop the non-white immigration.

There was certainly a large element of racial panic in the American vote. A survey by Zack Beauchamp of the opinion polling and recent academic research on the topic, entitled “White Riot” and published on Vox on 20 January, documented the argument that “the real sources of the far-right’s appeal are anger over immigration and a toxic mix of racial and religious intolerance.”

On the other hand, the Rust Belt states south of the Great Lakes, the former industrial heartland of the United States, are the places that have suffered the greatest job losses over the past few decades, which is why cities like Cleveland and Detroit are decaying and partly abandoned. And they are emphatically NOT major destinations for new immigrants to the US.

Trump himself always ensures that he hits on both immigration and job losses in his speeches and tweets, and he is the world’s expert on the fears and prejudices of his supporters. Could we perhaps speculate that his supporters say that they are frightened about immigration and especially Mulim immigration, but that their racism is really driven in large part by their anger at the steep decline in the number of well-paid industrial jobs?

Of the six states with over a million immigrants – California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey – only Florida (where Trump won by a whisker) and Texas (which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980) voted for Trump. California, whose ten million immigrants make up 27 percent of the state population, voted two-to-one for Hillary Clinton.

It would seem that, in the words of the old Phil Spector song, to know, know, know them is to love, love, love them (the immigrants), or at least not to fear them. Whereas Michigan, a Rust-Belt state that voted Democratic in the previous six elections and where only 6 percent of the population are immigrants, voted for Trump.

You can see the same pattern in the Brexit vote in England last June. The prosperous big cities are where the immigrants are, and every one of them except Birmingham voted Remain (in the European Union). London, where half the school population is non-white, voted Remain by a 60-40 majority, as did Manchester, Liverpool and Bristol.

The narrow Leave majority countrywide was won in depressed northern industrial cities where immigrant populations are low, and in prosperous rural areas where there are virtually no immigrants at all. So there was again racial panic at the changing ethnic face of England in areas where immigrants were largely absent, but especially in post-industrial areas where they are (wrongly) blamed for the loss of well-paying jobs.

In populist revolts elsewhere, the manifest racism and anti-immigrant sentiment that dominated in the opinion polls masked a deeper resentment about the loss of jobs. In the Netherlands, where unemployment is only 5 percent, Geert Wilders is depending on racism alone, and he is not heading for a Brexit- or Trump-style victory. The latest opinion poll gives him just 15 percent of the vote.
___________________________
To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 12 and 13. (“You..jobs”)

Cartoons of Muhammad Again

Would it be all right if I called Geert Wilders a piece of human waste? No? Damn. Well, then, can I call him a deeply cynical politician who is willing to get people killed to advance his political career? Okay, thanks.

Geert Wilders is a deeply cynical Dutch politician who is willing to get people killed to advance his political career. Sometimes they are Muslims, sometimes they are people of Christian heritage – that doesn’t really matter, so long as he reaps the publicity. And now he has come up with a clever new way to outrage foolish young Muslims and get them to murder people for him.

Wilders realised that a little-known Dutch law obliges the television networks to show ANYTHING that a politician wishes to include in a party political broadcast. No censorship is allowed on grounds of truth, of taste, or even of safety. So the far-right politician, whose whole political career has been based on attacking Islam, decided to air some truly nasty cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.

One shows a man labelled “Muhammad” with snakes in his beard. Another shows a rather loony-looking young man who is clearly labelled “The Prophet Muhammad”. A third shows somebody who is probably meant to be Muhammad on a unicycle, juggling five chopped-off heads with letters attached that spell ISLAM. Not funny, not clever, not really even topical. Just nasty.

Most Muslims are uncomfortable with images of Muhammad, and many believe that they are blasphemous. That doesn’t mean that democratic, pluralist societies like those of the West should ban such images. Freedom of speech means that any group, including any religious group, should accept that it may be criticised, even mocked in public. You cannot demand special treatment just because your feelings will be hurt.

But you can and should expect not to be singled out for hatred simply because of your particular religious beliefs. You have the right to be protected from rhetoric that deliberately confounds innocent believers with terrorists (as Wilders regularly does). And you certainly have right to be protected from incitements to violence.

There is a world of difference between Geert Wilders and the dozen people who were murdered by Islamist extremists at the satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” last January. They were equal-opportunity cartoonists who targeted everybody with equal irreverence and a fine absence of discrimination; Wilders is a monomaniac who wants to ban the Koran in the Netherlands because it is “like (Adolf Hitler’s) Mein Kampf”.

But he is a devious monomaniac, because the people he is really trying to incite to violence are Muslims. If he can trick ignorant Muslims into killing people by portraying the Prophet Muhammad in ugly and insulting cartoons, he wins.

The cartoons Wilders has insisted be broadcast on Dutch television were originally shown at an event in Texas last month which awarded a $10,000 prize for the best (i.e. worst) cartoon about Muhammad. The organisers were trying to provoke a reaction, so they invited Wilders to give the event a higher profile. It worked wonderfully: two simplistic young fanatics tried to attack the conference, and were shot dead in the car park.

So Wilders brought copies of the cartoons home with him, and announced that he would broadcast them on Dutch television as a defence of free speech. The broadcast was supposed to go out in the Netherlands on Saturday, but somebody at the NPO1 television network managed to mislay the tape Wilders had given them.

He was furiously indignant about that, of course, and insisted that his right as a party leader to put anything he wants on the party political broadcasts must be respected. He says he has now been promised that it will go out on Wednesday evening. If the promise is kept, the rioting and killing will probably have started by the time you read this.

Wilders knows perfectly well that this will happen, and is content that it should. He and his anti-Muslim allies on the far right of Dutch politics are what Marxists used to call the “objective allies” of the bearded Muslim extremists screaming for blood in the streets and the more calculating Muslim leaders who urge those fanatics to go out and commit violence in the name of “defending” Islam.

Both parties, however much they hate each other, have a common interest in keeping the outrage level among their followers high, and they tacitly cooperate to keep the pot boiling. The poor old media know they are being manipulated and exploited by people with truly reprehensible agendas, but they cannot simply refuse to report the news, even if it is manufactured news (as is so often the case).

And so, in a world where most people of any religion or none simply want to get on with their neighbours and lead a quiet life, we are fed a constant diet of lies that shows us a world full of blood-thirsty, hate-filled extremists.

Oh, and by the way: Geert Wilders is a piece of human waste.

NOTE: if the “piece of human waste” line is too strong for your paper’s policy, simply omit the first paragraph and the last sentence.

To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 5 and 6. (“Most…violence”)

Real Population Density

4 April 2011

Real Population Density

By Gwynne Dyer

Why is India’s future brighter than China’s, especially in a warming world? Because India has more good agricultural land per person. That will get more and more important as the temperature goes up.

I first encountered the concept of Real Population Density (note the “Real”) when I was interviewing people in the Netherlands last year about how the country would fare as the temperature rose. My initial focus was on sea level rise, because 20 percent of the country is already below sea level. But the Dutch are confident that they have the sea level problem under control, at least for the rest of this century.

They are already committed to spending large amounts of money to prevent flooding, not by raising the dikes even further, but by “beach replenishment”. When dikes fail, it is generally because they are battered by huge waves – but if you extend the beaches far out to sea (by dredging up sand from even farther out), then the waves do not reach the dikes.

The Dutch sea-level experts were also confident that the Netherlands would not face any problems with food when the temperature rises. The country is, after all, the second or third biggest agricultural exporter in the world. But it still feels like a very crowded country, so I looked up a few agricultural experts, and they explained the concept of Real Population Density to me.

“It would take a country three or four times the size of the Netherlands to support our present diet, “ said Dr. Huib Silvis of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute at Wageningen University. “We import huge amounts of soybean and other animal feed, which we could not produce ourselves. If we had to be self-sufficient, we would not be eating meat.”

The Real Population Density of the Netherlands – how many people there are per square km. of farmland – is 2,205. That’s higher than Bangladesh (1,946 people per sq. km.), and it means that the Netherlands, to be self-sufficient in food, would have to feed 22 people from each hectare of land.

So how can the country be the second- or third-biggest agricultural exporter in the world? Because that’s the cash value of its exports, which are mostly high value-added products. You get a lot more for a tonne of cut flowers than you do for a tonne of potatoes – but you can’t eat cut flowers, and the Dutch could barely feed themselves from their own resources even now.

Global warming makes matters much worse, because it hits food production very hard. The rule of thumb is that the world loses about ten percent of its food production for every rise of one degree Celsius in average global temperature.

So the amount of food that is for sale on the international market drops drastically, because some of the big food-exporting countries aren’t producing enough food to export it any more. As the food gets scarce, the price goes up.

Countries that can’t feed themselves either pay huge amounts to buy the limited amount of food that is still available on the international market (if they have the money), or else they go hungry. Which brings us back to India and China.

Almost half the total land area of India is good arable land, whereas only 15 percent of China is. So although China looks bigger on the map, India has a significantly lower Real Population Density: 753 people per square km of farmland compared to 943 for China. Add in the fact that China is currently losing about one percent of its arable land per year to buildings, roads and parking lots, and the numbers for China start to look seriously bad.

They look even worse for the East Asian countries that are already fully industrialised: around 2,900 people per sq. km. for Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. That’s off the scale: nowhere else is that bad apart from some tiny island states like Kiribati, the Maldives and Singapore.

At the other end of the spectrum, look at the big industrialised states in Europe. Italy and Germany are in the 700s, but Spain, France, Sweden and Poland are all in the 300s. So are Brazil, South Africa and Turkey, the most promising of the rapidly developing countries. The lucky ones still have room to grow; the others don’t.

And the uncontested winners in this new lottery? The United States has only 179 people per sq. km of good agricultural land. Argentina has 144, and Russia has 117. Canada is 78, and Australia is 43. Australia, in other words, has more than half a hectare of good land per person.

This is deeply unfair, given which countries are actually responsible for the global warming. To them that hath, shall it be given. But then, you already knew that the universe isn’t fair.

____________________________________

To shorten to 700 words, omit paragraphs 3 and 12. (“They…dikes”; and “They…Singapore”)

Gwynne Dyer’s latest book, “Climate Wars,” is distributed in most of the world by Oneworld.

The (Less) Tolerant Netherlands

4 October 2010

The (Less) Tolerant Netherlands

By Gwynne Dyer

If Gert Wilders were some underemployed bigot ranting in a pub, you’d just move away from him. He calls the Islamic veil a “head rag” and says it should be taxed for “polluting” the Dutch landscape. He condemns Islam as “the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed” and the Quran as “the Mein Kampf of a religion that seeks to eliminate others”. Just another nutcase with too much time on his hands.

But Gert Wilders is no ordinary nutcase. He is a Dutch member of parliament and the leader of the Freedom Party, which came third in last June’s election. It was a pretty impressive third, with 24 of the parliament’s 150 seats, so the other parties cannot ignore him. They won’t be able to ignore him even if he goes to jail, which is quite possible: his trial on five charges of inciting hatred and discrimination began in Amsterdam yesterday (4 October).

He’d probably quite like to be sent to jail for a little while, since that would further undermine the traditional Dutch political order and make Wilders a martyr for many people. (The penalties for inciting hatred are up to one year in prison or a 7,600-euro fine.) And he still wouldn’t lose his parliamentary seat or the leadership of his party: the other party leaders would just have negotiate with him in the prison visiting room.

Wilders first achieved global notoriety in 2008 with the film “Fitna”, which juxtaposed images of suicide bombings with verses from the Quran and depicted Islam as a force bent on destroying the West. After that his Freedom Party got lift-off, and last June it won 15 percent of the vote. In the Dutch political system, that gives him real leverage.

The Dutch political scene is so fragmented that no party has achieved an overall majority in any national election since the First World War. No single party has polled over 30 percent of the vote for more than two decades. It’s a system that often allows small, single-issue parties to wield influence far beyond their numbers – and this time it was Wilders’ Freedom Party that won the prize.

The two traditional conservative parties ended up with only 52 seats between them, which meant that they needed the Freedom Party’s 24 seats even to achieve a paper-thin majority in the Dutch parliament. But how could they sit at the same table with a man who said such cruel and incendiary things about his Muslim fellow-citizens?

They solved their little problem by agreeing that the Freedom Party would vote for the new coalition government, but would not be an official part of it. There was a price to be paid, of course: the new government would pass laws that sharply diminished the rights of Dutch citizens who happen to be Muslim.

Like most extremists, religious or otherwise, Wilders is obsessed with clothing, so burqas are to be banned altogether in the Netherlands if the deal holds. Police officers and other government employees would not even be allowed to wear the Islamic head-scarf. Immigration from non-Western countries would be halved, and the rules on granting political asylum to refugees made much stricter.

New immigrants would have to pay for their own mandatory citizenship classes, and even if they get Dutch citizenship it could be cancelled if they commit any crime within five years. The new citizens would also find it much harder to bring their spouses and children to the Netherlands and reunite their families.

This won’t fully satisfy Wilders, who recently said: “I’ve had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate. I’ve had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: forbid that fascist book.” But it’s certainly a good start.

How can this be happening in the Netherlands, once seen as a bastion of liberty and tolerance? Have the Dutch all gone crazy? No.

What is happening is the result of an accident that sometimes happens in political systems like the Netherlands, which encourage a proliferation of small parties. The Freedom Party doubled its vote in this year’s election, partly because people are more likely to vote for a protectionist and xenophobic party in the midst of an economic crisis, but it still got only one-sixth of the vote.

That’s the level at which anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim parties have peaked in other Western European countries like France, Belgium and Denmark. It’s actually less than what the predecessor to Wilders’s party, the Pim Fortuyn List, polled in 2002. There are xenophobes everywhere who can inflate a six percent Muslim minority into a threat to the nation’s identity and safety, but they are not all that numerous themselves.

The Netherlands looks as if it has been taken over by the crazies, but what we are seeing is actually a random outcome, unlikely to be repeated, of the strict system of proportional representation. If Wilders can turn this into a free speech issue (and he’s trying), and especially if he goes to prison, then his support may expand beyond the traditional confines of far right, but the Dutch really aren’t nastier than everybody else.
__________________________________
To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 3 and 9. (“He’d probably…room”; and “New…families”)