Belgian Big Bang???

[dfc99bb]

This is the first serious mention I've seen about the Belgian situation in any NYC newspaper. And the Sun has a small readership at that.


New York Sun Staff Editorial
September 11, 2007

Who needs Belgium? Not, apparently, the Belgians, who have had no government since elections on June 10, in which voters split on ethno-linguistic lines between French-speaking Walloons and Dutch-speaking Flemings. The Belgians do not seem to care that their state is falling apart before their eyes. Even in a Europe riven by secessionist movements, Belgium takes the prize for the most fissiparous country of them all.

Last week the Economist magazine opined that "Belgium has served its purpose." It was a purpose defined by the grand diplomacy of 19th-century Europe, not by the wishes of the disparate peoples who inhabited the once-prosperous region over which for centuries the houses of Habsburg and Orange, Catholics and Protestants, revolutionaries and legitimists had fought themselves to a standstill.

When the Napoleonic wars ended at Waterloo, now in Belgium, the United Netherlands emerged still ruling over the entire Low Countries. The Dutch kings preached religious freedom, but practiced discrimination against the Catholic Flemings and Walloons. In 1830 the July revolution in France spread to Brussels, where the French tricolors were raised, independence declared, and French troops intervened. The British Foreign Secretary, Palmerston, decided both to prevent a new European conflagration and to stop France from annexing the southern half of the Netherlands.

A century before Wilsonian liberal internationalism, Palmerston supported self-determination. He proposed to recognize Belgium as a separate kingdom. In 1831 the great powers adopted the usual solution: a minor German princely dynasty, the Saxe-Coburgs, was enlisted to provide a symbol of unity, under a name resurrected from the ancient tribe, the Belgae, that inhabited the region under the Roman Empire.

Leopold I was no stranger to such anachronisms. He had just turned down an offer to be King of Greece. The title of the new monarch, "King of the Belgians," recognized the fact that the new dynasty had no other claim to rule than the will of the people. His son, Leopold II, is remembered as the most brutal of all the colonial rulers of Africa. It was the Belgian Congo that Joseph Conrad depicted in "Heart of Darkness," the text that — more than any other — has become emblematic of the evils of imperialism.

If the purpose of Belgium, as a buffer state between France and Germany, was to prevent wars, it was not what one would want to call successful. World War I began with a German invasion of "brave little Belgium" in 1914. In 1940, the Germans did it again — only this time, the Belgians were not so brave. Not only did Belgian fascists collaborate with the Nazis but so did the Social and Christian democrats who would resume power after 1945.

The "national socialism" of Hendrik de Man, the most influential Belgian politician of the 1930s and 1940s, became one of the blueprints for the postwar European community, of which De Man's disciple Paul-Henri Spaak was one of the founding fathers. De Man wanted Belgium to be "the vanguard of the European Revolution; the principle on which the new European Order hinges."

In the post-war world, Belgium did indeed capitalize on these ideals. Both NATO and what later became the European Union were based at Brussels. There was always a tension between the two, because the aims of the Atlantic alliance and the new Europe were irreconcilable. Having failed to thwart the creation of NATO, Spaak became its secretary-general and did his best to stop it from opposing Soviet designs to encroach on Western interests.

While NATO perpetuated the American military presence in Europe, which kept the peace throughout the Cold War, the E.U. was intended to create a rival superpower and was always ambivalent toward America. Belgians benefited from both, but it was the E.U. that created so many jobs for officials that Belgium became Europe's District of Columbia.

Today, Belgium is a microcosm of the E.U.: bureaucratic, undemocratic, corporatist. As the author Paul Belien argued in his book "A Throne in Brussels," the "Belgianisation of Europe" is already far advanced. If the European Union is to be given back to its constituent peoples, Belgium might be a good place to start.

The break-up of Belgium need not create instability: 2007 is not 1831. Europe has nothing to fear from a free vote of the Walloons and Flemings, both of whom might choose to accede to France and the Netherlands respectively. Wiser counsel would no doubt urge the Walloons and Flemings to prefer the protection of some kind of arrangement with either the British or the Americans and their freedoms. In any event, democracy — not realpolitik — should decide Belgium's destiny. Let us hope that Europe, too, has an opportunity to vote before its future is determined from above.

Goodbye, Belgium? - September 11, 2007 - The New York Sun

[Videoskooter]

Originally Posted by dfc99bb

a name resurrected from the ancient tribe, the Belgae, that inhabited the region under the Roman Empire

dfc99bb, thank you for posting this article. Very accurate description of the Belgian past and present.

As today, the forming of the government is still on hold while Christian-democrat Herman Van Rompuy is negotiating with both ethnic groups as a special envoyee of King Albert.

There are 4 key problems:
-Flanders wants more power for itself and wants to go to a confederation with only a small Belgian government with limited powers so that the 4 regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels and the small German region) can decide almost everything.
-Brussels that is in fact a Flemish town but over the years has become a European district with a very small Flemish minority. What to do with it?
-The power of the Walloon Socialist party. Despite scandal after scandal and their convictions for corruption, they still are the second party in Wallonia and are playing a very suspicious role in this stageplay (like always).
-The blatant arrogance of the Walloons who are the ethnic minority in Belgium but simply refuse to learn and speak Flemish when they are visiting/living in Flanders. Can you imagine that the people from Québec would demand that the whole of Canada would become French speaking?

What will happen next? Nobody knows really. The demand for a referendum by the fascist Flemish party Vlaams Belang was denied yesterday but things are going far from good.

To be continued....

[dfc99bb]

"Europe has nothing to fear from a free vote of the Walloons and Flemings, both of whom might choose to accede to France and the Netherlands respectively."

What if France doesn't want the Walloons and the Netherlands doesn't want the Flemings? Can the Walloons and Flemings create viable states of their own? Does Belgian law permit the disintegration of it's own nation? This is all very strange. Is a civil war possible, a shooting war?

[Videoskooter]

Ehmmm, last week they did a poll in Holland where they were asking if the Flemisch would be welcomed as a part of their country! The overwhelming reaction was: YES!

The immediate reaction of the Flemish: joining the Netherlands would be the last thing we would do if we would become an independent state In fact we told the Dutch to GET LOST!!!! We are not interested. The funny thing: the Dutch like the Flemish very much but the love isn't mutual! We don't like 'em that much LOL

As for the Walloons, in the 70's there was a movement to be a part of France but that political party hardly gets any votes so.....

If the Big Bang comes, Flanders would become a new independent nation and , yes, it would be very viable. As for Wallonia, I doubt it, their economy is vastly supported by Flemish taxmoney so the only way they will survive is to team up with the Brussels region (which would probably happen).

[remicks]

*****
This is all most fascinating.
All countries are "fake" in that their boundaries are contrived by man and are pliable and often arbitrary ... but in reading this article's concise history of Belgium .... would it be accurate to say that Belgium 's placement on the world atlas is as artificial as Iraq's??? ..... And the glue that holds each together equally as weak?



*****

[Videoskooter]

Originally Posted by remicks

All countries are "fake" in that their boundaries are contrived by man and are pliable and often arbitrary ... but in reading this article's concise history of Belgium .... would it be accurate to say that Belgium 's placement on the world atlas is as artificial as Iraq's??? ..... And the glue that holds each together equally as weak?

Remmy, absolutely! Belgium is an artificial entity with 2 ethnical groups that were forced to live together. It was created by a French speaking nobility that for decades denied the Flemish to have their own culture. In the first worldwar, Flemish soldiers were treated like dirt by their own Walloon officers. They had the right to die but they received their orders in French.

That's why a part of the Flemish took the wrong decision to collaborate with Hitler and Nazi-Germany in the second worldwar. Hitler considered the Flemish not as equal to the superior German race but acknowledged their German-Celtic roots and suppported the Flemish collaborators.

Although it's fair to say that while the Flemish are still blasted by the Walloons for being nazi-friendly in the past, they also had a big fascist movement (REX Forces) BITD, leaded by the Walloon Léon Dégrelle who also collaborated with Hitler. The Walloons will never mention that and keep this silent!

As during the century, the French speaking bourgeoisie lost its influence in Flanders, the odds turned in favour of Flanders who has become the majority, as well in numbers of inhabitants as economically.

Wallonia can not survive without large money transfers from Flanders and that's why they are so eager to maintain the Belgian kingdom.

[dfc99bb]

Why is this happening now, 89 years after WW-1, 62 years after WW-2? What other European nations are prone to fracture? Italy perhaps with it's historic north / south divide?

I haven't heard the official US position on this so I guess all it means to the US is that we just hire another ambasador or two. And what does the rest of the useless EU think of the Belgian situation?

[Videoskooter]

Originally Posted by dfc99bb

Why is this happening now, 89 years after WW-1, 62 years after WW-2? What other European nations are prone to fracture? Italy perhaps with it's historic north / south divide?

It's a growing process I guess, other parties, other politicians! About Italy: glad that you mention it because they are having a similar discussion with parties like the Lega Nord who indeed want to separate the "rich" North from the "poor" South.

Originally Posted by dfc99bb

I haven't heard the official US position on this so I guess all it means to the US is that we just hire another ambasador or two. And what does the rest of the useless EU think of the Belgian situation?

I think the Americans are a little worried because NATO headquarters are in Brussels and their (believed ) nukes are on Flemish soil.

The useless EU is getting nervous too because they worry what would happen after a Belgian split. Will other regions like Catalania follow the Flemish example?

BTW, if Flanders should become independent they would have to apply for EU-membership, UN-membership, Nato and so on! They would de facto be out of all those unions!

And what about Belgium then? It's possible that a Wallonia/Brussels state would sail on under the Belgian flag with the Belgian King but will they be recognised under that identity?

BTW2, there's another discussion going on which is not mentioned in foreign press. The majority of Flemish wants to get rid of the Royal family as they are considered useless and Flanders-unfriendly (almost nobody of that reigning family except for the King himself can speak decent Flemish).

Interesting fact: today the leadership of Vlaams Belang (Flemish fascist and separatist party who have 1 million voters out of 5 million Flemish, thus the second biggest Flemish party just after the Flemish Christian Democrats) was brutally arrested by the Brussels Police during a Anti-Islam manifestation. They claim that they were a deliberate target of the French speaking socialist mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans and were called "dirty Flemish scum" by the Police. They have filed an official complaint against the mayor and the Police. Why do I mention this? You have to know Belgium to understand such sensitive case because it will have a repercussion on the governemental negotiations. Thielemans is a member of the PS (Walloon Socialist party that is hated in Flanders) and will get harsh criticism for doing this.

Here are Filip Dewinter (member and fraction leader of the Flemish Parliament) and Frank Vanhecke, president and member of the European Parliament. Both the heads of Vlaams Belang.

Funny: notice that on the back of the Police uniform they legally have to put both official languages!















Just in: the European Justice Commissionary Franco Frattini will probably also file a complaint against Brussels mayor Thielemans because according to latest info, other diplomats and members from other European countries got the same "treatment" by Brussel Police.

Here's some actual info on the events and the Belgian crisis by the forementioned Paul Beliën:

The Brussels Journal | The Voice of Conservatism in Europe

[Videoskooter]

Great article on the Country Formerly Known as Belgium:

Belgium-Politics

[dfc99bb]

So a deal is in the works to keep Belgium in one piece?

BTW, that brusselsjournal.com is great reading. Sad to say I'm not surprised that Europe is caving in to unrestricted immigration from muslim countries. Eurabia is on the way. At least in America we discuss and debate immigration. Apparently in Europe democracy is dying as well. WW2 was fought to give Europe it's freedom, and now Europe is pissing it away. Hitler and Stalin are both laughing down in hell.

Europe, when the Iranian Army marches into Paris don't call us. 1918 and 1945 were enough. Bailing out weaklings 3 times in 100 years is too much to ask.