Verhagen: 'In foreign policy we must ask: Is it effective?'

Foreign minister Maxime Verhagen responds to criticism by Joost Lagendijk in NRC Handelsblad of his selective use of human rights in foreign policy.

I am pleased with the praise from Joost Lagendijk for the Dutch government's decision to make human rights the focus of its foreign policy. More than under my predecessors it has become an essential element of our daily diplomatic work, whether it involves our embassies supporting human rights defenders or my addressing a colleague with regard to human rights violations.

But is it true that the ideal of human rights is opposed to defending Dutch economic interests, as Lagendijk suggests? That resounds with the idea that trade and investment are driven by nothing other than greed, and cannot be based on moral values.

The international practice of business in a globalising world is different. The Netherlands earns more than half of its income abroad. As a trading nation we have an interest in a stable world, and stability arises only if human rights are respected and the regulations imposed by rule of law are observed. Respect for human rights is therefore a blessing for the Dutch economy and employment.

In turn, Dutch trade and investments also contribute to stability in the world. International economic relationships cause countries to become intertwined with each other, making them less ready to engage in conflict. The European Union is certainly the best example of this: a half century of peace thanks to the internal market.

Human rights and conflict prevention are therefore indeed two sides of the same coin. I have not "forgotten" that, as Lagendijk alleges, on the contrary: it is an important starting point of foreign policy.

The choice for human rights shows realism. I have no problem being preacher and merchant at the same time. And the bar must be set at the same height for all countries, namely at the level of the universal declaration of human rights. That applies just as much for friendly nations like the United States, Israel and our partners in the European Union. Just last week I addressed my Lithuanian counterpart on the position of homosexuals in his country.

We adhere to the same principles everywhere; we stand up for human rights everywhere. But the way in which we do so is determined by the question of how effective we can be. Tact must not be confused with laxity. What approach will enable us to achieve the most? This is always the main question.

To beat a loud drum, to punish and isolate is sometimes wise, and can be cheap publicity for a minister, but is often not the most effective way. That is certainly the case when dealing with emerging powers and large countries, simply because they can more easily shrug off any measures imposed by the Netherlands, and even by the EU as a whole.

That is why the bulk of human rights work takes place in relative silence. For example, much is done by the human rights fund which I established upon taking office, and which supports human rights defenders in countries where they are under pressure. With more than 300 projects in 60 countries, we put positive changes in motion.

Take Russia for example. The Dutch government does not let pass any opportunity to address president Medvedev and prime minister Putin on their duty to prosecute when human rights defenders are murdered, or to confront them on conditions of detention, the freedom of expression, the discrimination against homosexuals and the freedom of the press. These talks are also followed up on by, among others, our human rights ambassador during his last visit to Russia, which also included a visit to Chechnya. We also help organise legal assistance for victims of torture and threatened journalists.

Would the human rights situation improve faster if the Netherlands refused to do business with Gazprom, if we did not have a Hermitage in Amsterdam? I am convinced that is not the case. It is precisely because there are mutual interests that the Netherlands has some latitude to work on improving the rule of law and respect for human rights.

By linking the Russian economy to the European economy, Russia is undergoing a gradual adjustment to the rules of our internal market. This makes the European Union increasingly a ‘standard-setting’ power, also in Russia. For this reason I also hope that Russia will soon join the WTO: I expect that this will also have a positive effect on the rule of law and the human rights climate. That will get us further than wagging an admonishing finger.

Should we look the other way then when it comes to human rights in small countries, and reward and stimulate rather than punish? There too we must ask: is it effective? The unanimous decision of the EU Council of Ministers to refrain from submitting the cooperation and association agreement with Serbia for ratification until the country fully cooperates with the Yugoslavia Tribunal is an example of effective policy: Karadzic is now in prison in Scheveningen.

I have also observed improvements in the Serbian attitude since, and I too think that we should reward Serbia for that. That is also why I proposed relaxing the visa regime - precisely now, in order to give the young generation of Serbs the opportunity to get to know our societies. The favourable trade preferences that the EU extends to Serbia could also be expanded, in my opinion.

But I do not want to go beyond that: I see no reason to reactivate the interim accord and proceed to ratification of the cooperation and association agreement with Serbia as long as the country fails to fully cooperate with the Yugoslavia Tribunal. Offering the prospect of EU membership on a silver platter will not by definition accelerate the desired reforms in Serbia. The burden of proof lies on the capitals of the countries that have the ambition of joining the union.

Lagendijk really has things backwards here: it is not my human rights policy that should accelerate the Serbian approach to the EU, but the Serbian human rights policy! Impunity for war crimes cannot be reconciled with the European values on which any prospect of accession to the EU must be based. There is good reason why that principle is anchored in the Copenhagen criteria. But I have often been amazed at Lagendijk’s indulgence for Serbia, which is not supported by his own party either, and which cannot be explained with a reference to human rights.

Finally, I would like to dispel one other strange suggestion, specifically that only left-wing politicians could be credible defenders of human rights. Since my first forays into international politics as a member of the European parliament, twenty years ago now, I have stood up for human rights. Human rights are not a left-wing or right-wing issue. They are values that are there for everyone, everywhere and always.