September 24, 2007
With Belgium, nothing is straightforward
Just setting up in sunny Amsterdam, where I’ll work for a couple of weeks. In Brussels last week, the talk was all about whether Belgium would split, creating an independent Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north, and a French-speaking nation in southern Wallonia. Why? Because three months after the general election, the political parties have failed to agree on a new, national government, and even an intervention by the King has failed - so far. So amid all the doom and gloom, it’s worth nothing that there’s visible support for the supposedly unloved Belgian state.
In some parts of Brussels I saw streams of Belgian flags fluttering outside homes - far more than usual. In one posh area - Woluwe-St-Pierre - the place was carpeted with them.
And at the weekend, the colours of Belgium (red, yellow and black of the national flag) were apparently on widespread display at an annual commemoration in Brussels of the struggle for independence for Belgium in 1830 - an event which local media said drew more people than in previous years.
As ever with Belgium, nothing is straightforward. Brussels isn’t representative of the country. It’s largely Francophone, and, like the King, is one of the few symbols of Belgian unity. In fact, the question of Brussels is one of the major stumbling blocks to a break-up of the country. It’d be interesting to know about sightings of Belgian flags in wealthy Flanders, where calls for separation are strongest.
well, that might be because the liberation of Brussels and other key events took place this month.
Posted by: kenny | September 25th, 2007 at 3:23 am | Report this commentIt’s not that complicated:
as you tacitly admit, the calls for separation are not coming from the popular will, but from politicians who are playing a game of brinksmanship and from a media that is stirring things up to attract readers.
Even in Flanders, independence is no more popular than in Scotland, where you won’t find too many Union Jacks flying, yet the UK case is rarely reported in the same apocalyptic terms.
Posted by: David | September 25th, 2007 at 9:16 am | Report this commentIt is as you say a complicated matter. Maybe Belgium is a mistake of History even.
In Flanders most people support the politicians in getting more autonomy. However, this does not mean a break up of the country. Only four out of ten people in Flanders support a break-up alltogether. The french speaking people in Brussels and the Walloons see even more autonomy as a threat. The threat is that the major financial flows from rich Flanders to poor Wallonie will stop.
Wallonie does not want the autonomy fot either Flanders or themselves, because then it needs to solve its problems itself.
If the French speaking south would give Flanders more autonomy the cry for a break-up would disappear again from mainstream politics. So maybe the south should give-in and try to sort its own mess for a change.
If not, and without a government, a break-up as tchechoslovakia once had would be the grant solution gaining mainstream support.
Posted by: Roy (Brussels) | September 25th, 2007 at 11:04 am | Report this commentIt was under pressure of the French speaking elite in Flanders and Wallonie that the uprising began in 1830.
Willem I the then Dutch king wanted schools in Flanders to teach in Dutch. He wanted only one Seat of Goverment, because the travel was too expensive (The Hague, Brussels). Was this all so bad?
Only after 1932 did the Flanders receive the right to use their own language “for real”. Thanks the French speaking elite.
Yes, as you say in the previous comment, Belgium is a mistake of History. Both France and Germany are to blame for the Belgian uprising (they even asked a German of the Saxen Coburg Family to become their King). They did not want a strong third country in Europe after the Napolean Wars.
The Flemish cities have always been suppressed, they aven still are. Maybe it is time to once and for all set history right.
Posted by: Guenael (Liege) | September 25th, 2007 at 11:15 am | Report this commentGuenael says “it;s time to set history right”. In order to do so, one should know history, whcih doesn’t seem to be the case in that post. The Belgian provinces were united to the Dutch kingdom by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to create a strong buffer state against France. The Flemings were opposed to the Dutch king because they didn’t want portestant influence in their overwhelmingly catholic population. Some of the West Flemings even called Dutch a “half jewish, half heathen language” and, as a study by the Berlin Frei Universität showed, 88% of the West Flemish students speak the local dialect, not Dutch, in the streeet.
Posted by: pampero | September 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm | Report this commentSo, the revolt in 1830, which began in Brussels, was the result of an alliance between linguistic and religious opposition to the Dutch.
The new King was imposed on the Belgians by the great powers and he didn’t particuliarly like their constitution which he found “really very democratic” (not a compliment at the time…)
The “French speaking elites” which are always accused of oppressing Flanders are not “alien invaders” from Brussels, Wallonia or outer space but pure natives of the region, who learned to speak the language of their sovereigns the kings of France, who inherited the area west of the Schelde after the division of Charlemagne’s empire. We Brabanders from East of the Schelde had the German Emperor as our (very remote) sovereign and had no special linguistic problems before the French invasion of 1793. We alo had a Flemish invasion of Brusssels ealier…In 1356, the Flemsih count, Lodwijck van Maele, sent his troups to occupy Brussels; Everard ‘t Serclaes, a Brussels alderman, led the inhabitnts in a revolt that threw them out (you can see his reclining statue next to the town hall and every good citizen of the city will always stroke his arm when passing by it, in memory of our liberation)
I am agree with Kenny, This might be the main reason.
Posted by: USA payday loans | September 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm | Report this commentI think many posters here are forgetting that a marriage can only work if both sides do an effort. While it is true that ‘only’ 40% of the Flemmings *want* a split of Belgium, it is also true that a huge majority of Flemmings want a large degree of autonomy, also on the social and economic level. The Walloons don’t seem very inclined to do so, however. (Strangely enough, when people say ‘Flanders wants more independence’, it would - of course - also mean more independence for the Walloon part…yet they don’t want it. I think its probably the first time in modern history that a regional parliament *doesn’t want* more autonomy and self-rule. It’s actually quite ironic.)
If a poll would ask Flemmings if they would accept a break-up of Belgium if it was the only way to become more independend, I’m quite sure the vast majority would answer ‘yes’. So it’s not as ’simple’ as Roy portrays it. It largely depends on the Walloons actually. All that flag-waving for unity in Brussels is good and well, but Flemmings want more autonomy; it would be more prudent of Walloons to accept that and keep the beloved unity, than to try to force Flanders into keeping a unity. You can’t really force another party to stay with you if they don’t want to, after all, and obnoxiously denying the right of Flanders to more autonomy is only going to backfire.
The linguistic and cultural differences are one thing, but if the regions would keep things to themselves, it wouldn’t be a real problem. THE major issue which comes on top of those others, is the fact that (more liberal, free-market orientated) Flanders has to give 10 billion euro each year to the (more socialist, state-welfare) Walloon part, where the unemployment is twice that of flanders. For decades Flanders has done this, to no avail. The money would be better spend when invested in their own economy, many Flemmings feel.
The only reason why the Walloon part doesn’t want more self-governance (something every region normally would strive for), is exactly because they know they would lose the billion-euros handout. When economically independent, they would be responsable for their own finances. They can keep their state-sponsored welfare pampering - if they pay for it themselves. But ofcourse, they realise that, if they have to pay for it themselves, things would have to change drastically…and they don’t want to.
In english you have an expression: “beggars can’t be choosers”, yet the Walloons seem to forget that. Flemmings would be more convinced of their ’strong feelings for unity’, if they would still be waving flags but without Flanders paying 15% of their budget every year.
Posted by: Belgae | October 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentHistorically, the french-speakers that made the revoluttion were in fact the elite, which lived in Flanders and Wallonia. French was imposed to Flemish and Walloons: in all parts of the countries the dialects were spoken. The only difference is that French and Wallon are both Latin languages, so it was easier to accept.
From the economic point of view, Brussels, and its surrounding regions (both in Fladers and Wallonia) is the real economic force of Brussels.
A lot of flamish work in Brussels and pay their taxes in the ‘rich’ nothern region. That is why extremists don’t want an extension of this region, with a special status, to block a territory unification of French-speaking regions (Brussels is theoretically bilingual, but in practice it is mainly French or better multilingual).
An independant Flander without Brussels is not so interesting… The 10 billion euros is a small aspect of a much more complex situation, but it is true that the racist, far-right not democratic program of the Vlaams Belang repeated such non-sense, simplistic stupidity and convinced 25% of the flemish population that the problems were due to non-flemish people (French-speakers, and immigrants - especially with another colour of skin…)
Hitler was elected democratically. What is happening in the heart of Europe is dangerous, because the ideology of the Vlaams belang is the same and the flemish democratic parties are “forced” to repeat the same stupidities to fight far-right ideas, giving them more credit to nationalist at each election.
Fortunately, collaboration in companies between members of both communities is not so bad…
Posted by: Damien | October 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pm | Report this comment