The effect of mass migration on European foreign policy

By
BrusselsReport.eu
-

By former Dutch MP and MEP Derk Jan Eppink

In December 2010, former VVD leader and ex-European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein (picture) spoke his mind. In the book The Decline: Jews in a Rudderless Netherlands by Israeli Holocaust researcher Manfred Gerstenfeld, he stated that “self-aware Jews” needed to realize there was no future for them in the Netherlands, and that they would be best advised to encourage their children to emigrate to America or Israel.

A major uproar ensued. Femke Halsema, then leader of the GroenLinks party in the House of Representatives, even wondered if Bolkestein had “lost his mind.”

Prophetic words

In 2026, Bolkestein’s words sound prophetic. In the Netherlands, anti-Semitism has become much worse, particularly in the capital, now led by Mayor Halsema. Amsterdam is working on an “Israel referendum” that could take place by the end of this year. It aims to recognize the “genocide in Palestine” and call for a boycott of the Jewish state. The city council must approve the referendum proposal. Amsterdam is engaging in “world politics,” with the Palestinian flag at the forefront.

Remarkable. According to reports reaching non-Amsterdam residents, rats are having a field day among the uncollected trash, and the financial debt is mounting to 10 billion euros. A (costly) referendum will undoubtedly lead to rising tensions and more anti-Semitism. Anyone who votes against it is a “Zionist.” A pro-Palestinian activist recently complained on Dam Square that Hitler “couldn’t finish the job.” Violence is bound to follow from such an atmosphere. How can Amsterdam reorganize the world when it cannot organize itself?

The same phenomenon occurred in the House of Representatives. D66 Minister Sjoerd Sjoerdsma of Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade unilaterally decided to provide UNRWA, the UN relief agency for Palestinians, with 19 million euros. The UN agency did not receive any funds because it has been infiltrated by the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. As a member of the minority cabinet, Sjoerdsma secured a majority in the House of Representatives on the condition that no funds be given to UNWRA. The cunning Sjoerdsma wanted to push that through anyway, but ran into an angry parliamentary majority. He quickly backed down. A motion of no confidence is warranted.

Islam is a growing religion in the Netherlands, concentrated primarily in large and medium-sized cities. Muslims bring their own culture—including conflicts—with them and largely grow up in a parallel Islamic culture. The Dutch government tries to accommodate this through a “policy of setting a good example.” For instance, in some cities, uniformed police officers attend iftar, the meal with which Muslims break their fast during Ramadan. That is already a gray area, because the police must maintain a neutral, secular stance. The entire government must do so. But it tends to yield, which Muslims interpret as approval.

This creates a slippery slope, on which politics, education, culture, media, and government accelerate the process of Islamization. The left fully supports this trend, hoping to attract more voters. Politics ultimately revolves around power. In the Netherlands, the left has the potential to win between 30 and 40 percent of the vote, but not a majority. The loss of disillusioned voters from lower-income groups who vote for right-wing protest parties is offset by Muslim votes. It’s the same in other Western European countries: the left in Germany and the British Labour Party have also become dependent on the support of Muslim voters. They will also be crucial in next year’s presidential elections in France.

International law

The war with Iran, and especially the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, shows how foreign policy in Western European countries is becoming Islamized. The immigrant population is watching over the shoulders of politicians. Europe is holding back. The French government is sending an aircraft carrier—the Charles de Gaulle—to the Mediterranean Sea, near Cyprus, which British Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy claims is a “NATO member,” even though that is clearly not the case. The Charles de Gaulle is receiving support from the Dutch air defense and command frigate HNLMS Evertsen. That’s all well and good, but you can’t open the Strait of Hormuz in the Mediterranean.

“Freedom of navigation” in the strait is a cornerstone of international law, which the Netherlands defends but which Iran has been violating with impunity for 47 years. Prime Minister Rob Jetten states that the Netherlands will participate, in cooperation with other countries, as soon as it is “safe” to do so. But by then, it will no longer be necessary. Spain takes it even further. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez condemned Western sanctions against Iran, calling them “illegal,” and denied the U.S. Air Force access to NATO airfields in Spain. Sánchez received a hefty reward from Iran: free passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Remarkably, not a single country reprimanded Sánchez, while the troublemaker on Ukraine, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, is facing hell and damnation from Brussels.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz solemnly declared—as a sort of national Oberlehrer—that Germany would not participate in anything, not even “international maritime operations” in the Strait of Hormuz: “Es ist nicht unser Krieg.” An overreaction from a country that caused two world wars in the last century.

France showed its true colors in the UN Security Council regarding a resolution by Arab countries in the Gulf region, led by Bahrain, approving the use of “defensive measures” to secure the Strait of Hormuz. Three permanent members of the UN Security Council exercised their veto power: China, Russia, and (very exceptionally) France as well. Subsequently, a French ship sailed through the Strait of Hormuz. C’est typique français. Ultimately, Trump enforced free passage by putting a knife to Iran’s throat. The European whining carried no weight.

European schizophrenia

According to American classicist and military historian Victor Davis Hanson, affiliated with Stanford University, there is not merely Western European division, but a profound form of schizophrenia. Europe wants America as an ally, but not if it gets too dangerous. Europe fears a nuclear Iran, but doesn’t want to do anything about it itself. Europe wants America to do it, but as soon as something goes wrong, America is the bogeyman.

The cause of this reluctant attitude is the influence of Muslim immigration in Western Europe. In a recent interview on YouTube, Hanson states: “In Germany, 16 percent of the population consists of immigrants, many of whom are not naturalized. The immigrant Muslims are often more radical than the countries they left, and those were bad enough. They do not want to be part of the West. There is a ‘multiplier effect.’ They feel that, thanks to their birth rates and growing numbers, they will soon form a large population in their new countries. European governments are terrified.”

Every crisis in the Middle East puts the political situation in Western Europe on edge. Hanson: “When it comes to attempts to confront the regime in Iran, they back down. They don’t dare to express support for Israel. Reason: the immigrant communities will turn against European governments, and the ruling parties will lose their votes.”

Since Europe is simultaneously grappling with a self-inflicted energy crisis caused by climate policy and has long lived in the utopian belief that the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the “end of history,” it is now also stuck in a foreign policy impasse. (Self-)Islamization is taking place, still in its early stages, but already clearly visible.

Once upon a time, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs was a top-tier department where the “national interest” was prioritized. Now it is a sort of NGO where civil servants (supposedly “on their lunch break”) protest outside the building against their own minister’s policies, and retired ambassadors send op-eds to NRC to present themselves as defenders of the “Palestinian cause.” Perhaps out of guilt that they failed to do so in the past. Self-Islamization emerges most prominently when it comes to Israel. With Iran, a blind eye is turned.

Gaza on the Amstel

Islamization does not require 51 percent of the population: the multiplier effect Hanson mentions produces a faster spread through the political-cultural “superstructure” of society. Self-respecting Dutch municipalities are also joining in, with Amsterdam naturally leading the way: as the self-proclaimed Gaza Strip on the Amstel.

Who was actually “crazy” in 2010: Frits Bolkestein or Femke Halsema?

 

Originally published in Dutch on Wynia’s Week.

Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR