By Omid Ordubadi. Over centuries the European Continent was branded with long standing wars inchoate with the Hundred Years’ War. As a result numerous international treaties were signed in order to establish a state of continuous peaceful coexistence. However, peaceful coexistence could not be reached through such diplomatic arrangements alone, as World War I and II demonstrated. Toward ending the bloodshed in Europe once and for all European head of States decided to link their countries economically and politically. This ambitious undertaking led to the joint signature of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951.1 Having realized that a sole connectivity on this level is insufficient to achieve the goal of everlasting peaceful coexistence, further reinforcement measures were conducted finally resulting into the establishment of the first supranational organization, namely the European Union. Considering the difficulties this particular international organization had to face over the last years and currently is trying to overcome, one can certainly challenge the concept of supranational organization as an effective instrument for a prosperous non-belligerence world. However, even though the substantial transnational connection implicates encumbrances caused by the membership in a supranational organization, it can be professed that supranational organizations are a political cornerstone for ensuring a peaceful coexistence and collective problem solving through a joint transnational decision making process. The different supranational institutions of the European Union set forth policies and guidelines on a political economic level but also enacts legal provisions through a transnational decision-making process for its member states.2 Owing to its legislative competence and economic interdependence, intensified through a uniform currency “Euro,” this unique political entity creates an intergovernmental connectivity previously unknown. This transnational linkage makes armed conflicts between member states impossible. Thereby, it converts a continent bedeviled from wars to a community of states jointly seeking sound solutions for present and future accruing political and economic challenges. This solid interdependence also creates perils, as the euro crisis has shown.3 As the financial crisis has evolved into the euro crisis many countries part of the European Union had to deal with fatal economic consequences, especially Spain and Greece. Those two states nearly had to face national bankruptcy.4 Due to the institutional provisions of the European Union the other member states were more or less obligated to provide assistance in order to avoid the collapse of the entire currency union. Consequently all other member states had to render financial support in form enormous amounts of money, even surpassing the multi-billion dollar amount. The close intergovernmental relationship did not allow another solution for this unforeseeable crisis. At this juncture the question arises if such a multilayer linkage – as a supranational organization evokes – in the long run will lead to a financial collapse of its member states. In furtherance of an examination of the advisability of such an organization one should conduct analysis on the basis of a comparison. Due to its structural resemblance one can contemplate the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its history. Even though the USSR could manage to outlast almost seventy years, its economic policy led to its disaggregation.5 Whereas the European Union does not follow such strict anticompetitive guidelines the obligation to cohesiveness might be the cause for its economic disintegration. As apprehensive as this might seem, the nonexistence of the European Union most certainly would have implicated the national insolvency of Spain and Greece or at least economic devastation even bearing in mind financial assistance by the international community and the world bank. The latter assumption is based on the higher interest rates, which would have been demanded. Putting aside the mere fact that this crisis was an exceptional event and certainly cannot be categorized as a concomitant phenomenon of supranational organization, the joint financial strength of the member states prevents the financial breakdown of the European Union. Having depicted the financial stability of this bloc of countries, for some states it is certainly a financial burden, which would not have occurred without their membership at the European Union. Proceeding on the assumption that such exceptional event might occur again, one has to weigh the advantages of such a membership with the disadvantages of a reoccurrence of such crisis. As already stated, the idea underlying the inception of supranational systems is to build a conceptual prevention system for future-armed conflicts. One of the most important precautionary measures is the safeguarding that the neighboring countries are governed by stable and non-totalitarian political system. As a numerous academic research papers substantiate this is decisive due to the fact that states with a totalistic political system are more inclined to be involved in or to initiate an armed conflict.6 Consequently countries have keen interest pertaining to domestic political and economic situation of bordering countries and prevent an adverse development from democracy to autocracy. A prime reason for autocracy to emerge is a precarious economic situation. This theoretical approach can be well deflected on the grounds of historic incidents. One of the main reasons for the emergence of the Third Reich was the economic depression that the Germany had to deal with since the First World War. This substantiation exemplifies that a poor economic situation of a state are a potential breeding ground for the appearance of totalitarian systems.7 One might therefore argue that the absence of the European Union would have resulted into the reoccurring of autocratic states on the European continent respectively lead grounds for the potential development of the latter. Hence again open the possibility for a political powder barrel exploding in a region characterized by political instability. Following this line of argumentation one has to ascertain that such an association of states can only be created amongst states with democratic form of governments, which are pursuing a realistic and at the same time liberal foreign policy guaranteeing open channels for interstate dispute resolution and international solidarity and additionally having a stabile economic situation. Consequently not allowing totalitarian state to be part of such an equitable association of states. Thus, by nature not allowing totalitarian regime to be part of such a Union, which is well deflected by the criteria for admissibility to the EU and thereby not including such states in the conflict prevention mechanism of supranational organizations. At this juncture one has to point out that such cooperation between states also serve the purpose to secure oneself with regard to foreign policy. The probability that some states would consider to engage in an armed conflict with a country that is part of such a coalition is very low. Furthermore, one should not underestimates this generated protective function as motivator in the sense that states motivated to adjust themselves to the standards of such organization in order to be admitted. Contemplating the military history of North America it must be acknowledged that over century there has not been an armed conflict on this continent without implementing the concept of a supranational organization in this region. It is important to note that the countries on this continent are states, which had and have the necessary characteristics – democratic form of government and stabile economic environment– to enable peaceful coexistence. This regional stability, however, is an exceptional case and cannot be found somewhere else. Due to the preceding elaborations it can be stated that 1) intergovernmental political and economic integration is only possible between states which already inherent democracy and policies for no armed conflict resolution, 2) the impact of an financial crisis as the latter itself cannot be foreseen, and 3) economic stabile countries are less likely to be in danger of turning into a totalitarian regime and economic instable countries. Accounting for these three statements and the fact that Greece and Spain would have not overcome the euro crisis without the enormous financial assistance of the other member states, which primarily was provided due to the connectivity provided by the European Union, it can be deduced that to ensure lasting peaceful coexistence supranational organization are needed albeit it implicates disadvantages. Even though the illustration of the necessity of supranational organization on the grounds of the euro crisis – being a quite exceptional event – as an assertion might seem far-fetched at the first view, but it is such exceptional events which make the European Union a necessity. However, the latter is exactly the right example for arguing for the establishment of supranational organization because its exigency comes from those exceptional events, which cannot be foreseen and thereby justifies related liabilities. 1 http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm 2 http://www.demokratiezentrum.org/wissen/wissenslexikon/drei-saeulen-modell-der-eu.html 3 http://www.economist.com/node/15452594 4 http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article 5 http://www.dw.de/der-zerfall-der-udssr-war-nicht-zu-verhindern/a-6514078 6 The Reasons for Wars – an Updated Survey, Matthew O. Jackson & Massimo Morelli, 2009, Columbia University, p. 21ff 7 http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/snyderd/mwh/webquests/9-dep&tot/9-main.htm

By Songül Arslan, economist and international relations specialist. For decades the Netherlands derived a certain kind of political stability from “pillarization”.  These pillars were formed around the different cleavages of Dutch society, such as religion and political ideology. One of the characteristics of these pillars was the fact that they were very well-organized, not only in a political way but also in a social way. These pillars also had their own social networks, banks, sports clubs and newspapers. The political figures of the different pillars were the representatives of their pillarized part of society and ‘fought’ out their differences in the political arena. People from different pillars hardly ever mingled, the social interaction between them was restricted to a minimum and there was no talk of integration yet. Another characteristic was the ‘social control’ within these pillars. During the period of pillarization times were different and simpler, or so it seemed. Some opinion makers refer to those times as more stable. Whether that is true or not, it does seem as if the current political system in the Netherlands is not as stable as it used to be. For instance, all past four governments Balkenende collapsed prematurely. The current cabinet is called Rutte II which was formed after the cabinet Rutte I also fell within 2 years which means that in the past 13 years not a single cabinet fulfilled its full term. Rutte I was formed around a minority cabinet. A minority cabinet in general fuels the expectancy of instability. A minority cabinet is the situation where the governing political party or parties don’t have the majority of the seats. In the case of Rutte I it was the VVD (Party for Freedom and Democracy) and CDA (Christian Democrats) who governed but didn’t have the majority of the seats. A minority cabinet is not unique in the Netherlands but is still quite rare. The reason for a minority cabinet in the Netherlands was that the Christian Democrats and the PVV (Party for Freedom) mostly differed regarding the topic of Islam, although there were a few other issues that needed to be ironed out as well. The current cabinet with the governing parties of the VVD and the PvdA (The Dutch Labour Party) have their own challenges and complexities. For example, they might even be placed at different points regarding ideology and labour issues which in times of a recession is a hot issue. However, Islam is still something of a cleavage in the Dutch political spectrum. The alleged lack of integration of Muslims remains a political issue, especially now with young Muslims joining the Jihad of ISIS. Not so long ago, some voiced the opinion that pillarization would have served the integration of Muslims well and therefore stability in society. Although that is an interesting thought to explore, times were indeed different back then. It would be nearly impossible to introduce pillarization again where people lived around and according to the various pillars and where ‘social control’ was omnipresent. People have become more individualized. They don’t need a pillar to organize themselves around, they form their own networks that are not limited to the same religion, class or ideology. Also, society at large and the world have changed. Best practices and solutions from the past are what they are: solutions from the past. Current politics should not only look for ideas in pillarization but past that and beyond that. Pillarization is something to consider and to derive inspiration from but not be seen as more than a remnant of what used to work in different times. To look for stability in the Dutch political system is to look into history, think of the present and see a future in line with the overall changes in society.  

Introduction Eelco Dykstra writes a monthly column called “A smile and a thought…” The columns put a playful spotlight on the interface between the Dutch and the International Community it hosts. Yes, his musings may appear at times to be mildly provocative at first sight but they are first and foremost playful – with a little irony thrown in here and there… You be the judge! His columns are intended to give you ‘a smile and a thought’. A smile because perhaps you hadn’t quite looked at something that way and a thought because the column may leave you wondering… ———————————————————————————————–—————————- “What If…” Imagine there would be an outbreak of Ebola in the Netherlands. What would you think? What would you do? Who would you call? Infectious diseases are normal. As long as we can remember, we have had them. Each year we get one or more attacks of runny noses and coughing, i.e. the common cold and, who knows, perhaps even a bout of flu. The good news about these kinds of infections is that after each cold we become resistant against that particular virus. The bad news is that so many new versions will develop that suffering the symptoms of ‘a cold’ is a lifelong fate. Accept it. Other infectious diseases are not so harmless. And to some extent, we humans are to blame. No, I’m not talking about antibiotics that are so over-prescribed that we now face the serious problem of microbes that have become resistant to all known medications but about our own behavior. And I’m also not talking about (not) washing your hands and other hygiene, that ought to be a given. What I am talking about is the inability to foresee and forecast where and when certain events and effects will take place – and to take appropriate measures before they happen. Ebola, like most infectious diseases, is not new. We know about it since 1976. So how come we act surprised about the emergence and extent of the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa? What does surprise me is the almost nonchalant way national governments are flying their possibly infected rescue workers back and forth to their home countries for treatment in their own ‘advanced facilities’. Already in 1977 the WHO recommended that “the patient must be isolated to prevent secondary infections by direct or airborne spread of the virus”. And what do we do in 2014? We fly thousands of military personnel into the affected countries to set up clinics (USA) and we fly rescue personnel with suspected infections out of the country to receive treatment at home (Netherlands, Spain, USA, etc.). Aside from these flagrant transgressions of the ‘isolation’ principle, another question beckons: if the current international response effort is aimed at saving as many lives as possible, shouldn’t these ‘advanced facilities’ be moved to victims in the affected countries instead of the other way around? Back to the “What If…?” scenario. So we face an outbreak of the Ebola virus in the Netherlands. The Dutch contribution to the international effort is coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Buitenlandse Zaken). The Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS: Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) obviously deals with the WHO and the medical treatment aspects of Ebola. The Ministry of Security and Justice (VenJ) aspires to coordinate everything, for instance through their website www.crisis.nl and its network of ‘Safety Regions’, or ‘Veiligheidsregio’s. ’ But where are the international helpdesks and websites that can assist non-Dutch speaking parts of the population? Where will members of the Diplomatic Community, foreign expats, non-Dutch speaking inhabitants, international students and visitors turn to for assistance and advice? They will probably contact their Embassy. You. What would you think? What would you do? Who would you call? What would you advise? Important questions, so think ahead. Think “What If…”  

Eelco H. Dykstra, M.D. 

International Emergency Management:

Member, National Council for the Environment and Infrastructure, www.rli.nl

Dykstra International Emergency Management (DIEM), The Hague, www.diem.nu

Director EMEA, International Katrina Project Inc.(IKP), Washington, D.C., www.ikp-europe.eu

Professor (visiting) of International Emergency Management, The George Washington University, Washington DC (2005-2010) and University of Kuopio, Finland (2001-2004)