Category: News and Views
QUOTE
Crisis in Belgium: If Flanders Secedes Wallonia Disintegrates
By Paul Belien
On Monday afternoon Herman Van Rompuy, the veteran politician appointed by Belgian King Albert II as his royal “scout,” will report to the King about possible ways out of Belgium’s government crisis. The crisis has arisen as a result of the inability of the Belgian politicians to form a government. There is growing talk of a secession of Flanders, the Dutch-speaking northern half of Belgium. If that happens what to do with Brussels, a French-speaking enclave within Flanders? And what about Wallonia, the French-speaking southern half of Belgium?
If Belgium breaks up it is likely that Wallonia will break up as well, with part of it preferring to go to Germany, part of it to the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg (GDL) and part of it to France.
Belgium is an artificial state of 10.5 million inhabitants. The country was put together in 1830-31 by the international powers as a political compromise and an experiment in building one state out of two nationalities. It consists of 6 million Dutch-speakers in Flanders, its northern half bordering the Netherlands, 3 million French-speakers in Wallonia, its southern half bordering France, and 1 million people in its capital Brussels, which is also the capital of the European Union. Throughout its entire history Brussels was a Dutch-speaking town, until the middle of the last century, when the deliberate “frenchification” policy of the Belgian authorities succeeded in turning it into a predominantly French-speaking city.
Many doubt whether, without Brussels, Wallonia will be viable as an independent state. Uniting Brussels and Wallonia is, however, impossible because this would require that Flanders relinquishes part of its territory to Wallonia in order to create a “corridor” linking Brussels to the rest of French-speaking Belgium.
Until 1830 Belgium belonged to the Netherlands. Historically contemporary Belgium (the name of the country is derived from Belgica, which is Latin for the Netherlands) is made up of the Southern Netherlands and of the Prince-Bishopric of Liege. Liege never was a part of the Netherlands and greatly resented being incorporated into it. Liege, the largest city in Wallonia, would have preferred to join France. The Belgian revolution of 1830 was the work of French republican and napoleonist exiles living in Brussels, and rebels from Liege. Together they succeeded in driving the Dutch army from Wallonia and subjugating Flanders by force. Though the revolutionaries wanted the annexation of Belgium by France, this was vetoed by Britain and the country became an independent
state run by an establishment of French immigrants and Liegeois. They eradicated the decentralised Netherlandish political traditions of the country and ran Belgium as a centralised copy of France. If Belgium had been established as a second Netherlandish state, it could probably have become a viable entity. As it was, however, the project to turn it into a second France was doomed from the beginning.
While the Flemings consider themselves to be a nation, the Walloons do not. Some of them feel French, but others do not. This explains why a breaking up of Belgium would likely lead to a fragmentation of Wallonia. After the First World War, Belgium annexed a number of German municipalities (GM) where, despite a frenchification policy, German is still the dominant language. These municipalities will neither want to join an independent Wallonia nor become a part
of France. They could either return to Germany or opt for annexation by the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg (GDL).
Luxemburg, moreover, is a problem of its own. Historically Luxemburg , like Flanders and unlike Liege, was part of the Southern Netherlands. When Belgium was established in 1831, many Luxemburgians preferred to remain loyal to King William of the Netherlands. By way of compromise Luxemburg was split up in 1839. The eastern part of Luxemburg, the present GDL, became an independent state with the Dutch King as its monarch. This personal union lasted until 1890 when, upon extinction of the male line of the House of Orange-Nassau, the Netherlands passed to the female line of that house and Luxemburg to the House of Nassau-Weilburg. The western part of Luxemburg, however, was given to Belgium and is currently the Belgian province of Luxemburg. Many (Belgian or West) Luxemburgians would want to reunite with the GDL.
The same may also be true for the inhabitants of the Belgian province of Namur. Like Luxemburg, Namur is a rural province. Unlike the rest of Wallonia, the provinces of Namur and Luxemburg are conservative and Catholic. Both provinces belong to the diocese of Namur. If Namur and Luxemburg secede from Wallonia to join the GDL – which would be likely – this would leave Wallonia proper with only the provinces of Hainaut and Liege, two strongholds of the Parti Socialiste – the party which is responsible for the current disastrous economic condition of Wallonia (and Belgium).
Although the majority of its people speak Dutch, Belgium has throughout its history been dominated by a French-speaking establishment. When in the early 20th century the country gradually began to democratise, this establishment feared that the Flemings would become the rulers of the state. Hence, Belgium was federalised giving Wallonia a constitutionally guaranteed veto over all major decisions and a guaranteed share of half the seats in government and
major administrations. The conservative, free-market oriented Flemings have been complaining for decades that they are forced to subsidize the Socialist south, while no improvement of the economic situation of the Walloons has been visible. On the contrary, Wallonia has become one of the most corrupt regions in Europe with hardly any economic growth.
Every attempt to liberalise the Belgian economy and to reform the generous Belgian welfare system has been vetoed by the Walloon Socialists. This has led to increasing Flemish frustration, resulting in the growth of the Flemish-secessionist movement. Flanders is no longer prepared to finance the ever increasing amount of Flemish subsidies which are flowing to the south each year (4 billion euros in 1990; 10 billion euros at present). It wants to cut loose its ties with Wallonia. It simply has no other option if it does not want to go down with Wallonia.
Though Wallonia has 33% of Belgium’s population, it has 46% of its unemployed and it accounts for only 24% of Belgian GDP and 13% of its exports. 20% of the Walloons are unemployed and 40% work for the government. The only regions of Wallonia where there is an entrepreneurial spirit are the regions bordering Flanders just south of Brussels, the provinces of Namur and Luxemburg and the German municipalities (GM).
If the Flemings secede from Belgium the question what to do with Wallonia will cause the international community a bigger headache than what to do with Brussels. Brussels is not viable on its own either. Almost half its population are non-European Muslim immigrants – “eurabianisation” has already progressed considerably – and the Brussels region also receives large flows of Flemish subsidies. Flanders would be happy to let the European Union have Brussels, provided Europe finances Brussels and relieves Flanders of that burden. However, since Flanders for obvious historical reasons feels responsible for this erstwhile Flemish town, an independent Flemish state would be willing to incorporate Brussels within its territory, granting it a multilingual status and recognizing the linguistic rights of Brussels’ French-speakers.
Indeed, the international community can expect Flanders to bail out Brussels, but it cannot expect the Flemings to continue to finance Wallonia and to mortgage the future of their own children for it.
Very interesting. I didn't know any of this.
Thanks for posting it.
Bob
Here's another aricle.
Block quote start
In Belgium there are two communities. One are called Walloons and they speak French, the others are called Flemings and they speak a kind of low Dutch.
They can't live together. After the war, we should make two states, one known as Walloonia and one as Flamingia, and we should amalgamate Luxembourg with
Flamingia. What do you say to that?
US President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Oliver Lyttelton (Lord Chandos) of the British War Cabinet, 1942
Block quote end
Flanders and France Vote for the Right. But Flanders Will Not Get What It Is Entitled To
By Paul Belien
Yesterday’s general elections in Belgium marked a significant move to the right as well as towards Flemish independence. In Wallonia, the French-speaking
south of the country which lives off subsidies provided by Flanders, the Dutch-speaking north, the elections led mainly to a shift from one leftist party
to another: the Parti Socialiste’s share of the Francophone vote dropped from 34.0 to 26.8% while Ecolo, the French-speaking Greens (red at the core) rose
from 8.4 to 15.2%.
In Flanders, however, the Liberals and the Socialists lost heavily. The leftist Liberals of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt fell from 24.7% of the Dutch-speaking
vote to 20.1%. The Socialists did even worse and fell from 24.8% to 16.2%. The elections were won by CD&V, an alliance of Christian-Democrats and Flemish-Nationalists,
progressing from 25.3 to 31.4%, and LDD, the party of the maverick Jean-Marie Dedecker, who won 5.5%. The Flemish-secessionist, “islamophobic” and eurosceptic
Vlaams Belang (VB) gained 19.2%. This is better than the 18.2% of the previous general elections in 2003, but less than the 24.1% which the party won in
the 2004 Flemish regional elections.
The VB’s disappointing result can be attributed in part to factional infighting within the party leadership early this year, triggered by a newspaper interview
in which a member of the party caucus torpedoed a collaboration between the VB and Mr Dedecker. The latter was a Liberal senator who had been ousted from
his party for his criticism of PM Verhofstadt. Like the VB, Dedecker is also an outspoken Flemish-secessionist and a critic of multiculturalism and radical
Islam. The combined scores of LDD and VB constitute 24.7% of the Flemish electorate voting for outspokenly separatist candidates.
In addition, the Christian-Democrats of Yves Leterme have formed an alliance with the equally secessionist, but pro-Europeanist Flemish-Nationalists, led
by Bart De Wever. Mr Leterme, who is likely to become the next Belgian Prime Minister, is demanding a constitutional reform which should give Flanders
greater powers. Mr Leterme, the son of a Walloon father and a Flemish mother, caused a stir last year when he told the French newspaper Libération that
Belgium is an “accident of history” which has no “intrinsic value.” He also criticised Belgian King Albert II for not being fluent in Dutch, the language
of the majority of his people.
If Mr Leterme were to form a government with the VB and LDD, he would have a sound majority of 56.1% of the Flemings in support of greater Flemish autonomy
and center-right economic policies. Such a coalition, however, is unlikely to happen, because Belgian governments need majorities in both Flanders and
Wallonia. Hence, the most likely outcome of the elections will be a coalition of the Christian-Democrats with yesterday’s losers, the Liberals and the
Socialists, saddling the Flemings with yet another center-left government, despite their democratic demand that the right take over.
In France, by contrast, the electorate gets what it is entitled to. President Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP swept yesterday’s
French parliamentary elections, gaining 46.4% for the UMP against 35.6% for the Parti Socialiste. This allows the new president to press ahead with the
badly needed economic reforms. The latter are unlikely to happen in Belgium as long as the Belgian state exists, because Wallonia, at the receiving end
of the welfare state mechanism, lacks any incentive to reform the system and can veto any attempt of the Flemings to do so.
Expectations are that the Belgian coalition talks will probably drag on for some time and result in a coalition that lasts only two years instead of a full
term of four years. This will allow new general elections to be held in 2009, coinciding with the regional elections for the Flemish and Walloon regional
parliaments. Flemish secessionists hope that, if at that moment the formation of a national government becomes impossible, the Flemish Regional Parliament
will unilaterally declare Flemish independence.
The information in post 1 is very interesting. I've just read the full post. I think the provinces in Wallonia should be able to decide their destiny, and as for Brussels, I think there is a viable solution. It should be to the European Union, what DC, is to the US and the Australian Capital Territory is to Australia. I think though it could potentially be dangerous, if the problem of Islamic extremism there isn't tackled propperly. The mayor of Brussels so worried about upsetting Muslims, banned a demonstration on September 11th against the Islamisation of Europe. The demonstration went ahead without incident, though arrests were made at another demonstration held by the right-wing VB party which also took place on September 11th.
well the problem with that is is that the sitution would be differen't.
the ACT here is still part of australia, the thing is, is thatt would brussles become part of france, walonia, flanders, or what? perhaps it could be like a city state, similar to the vatican.
I think it should just be part of the European Union. There will be a European constitution soon, so that can apply in Brussels, which could be at the centre of EU activity, but nott part of any specific country.
ah, yes, but will the EU fund it? what with all the immigrants and all, think of the over 1 milion people who would be dispossessed of a home, as in a country to live in and be a citizen of.
flanders does not want to be responsible for funding brussles, but will the EU be able to fund that large scale sort of thing?
not only that, but it would be on-going. who is responsible?
I think the EU would be happy to fund it. If Brussels has a predominantly French population, the French would be supportive. The mayor of Brussels is close to people in the EU, and he's a socialist. If that means that the people of Brussels would elect a socialist government, the socialists in the EU, who have a significant influence, would back the situation in Brussels. I think they'd only be reluctant if it was a very divisive issue and people weren't backing down.