[*] Former Ambassador and Principal Advisor, Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development (CRRID), Chandigarh.
Indian attendance at Commonwealth
Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics:
Indian attendance at Commonwealth Heads of Govt. Meeting (CHOGM)
By Paramjit Sahai[*], former Ambassador of India; University of Malta.
Indian foreign policy, which earlier had enjoyed national consensus, is coming increasingly under pressure of domestic politics. It is apparently so, given the fact that the Indian government is run by a coalition of parties; some are a part of the government, while others are giving support from outside. It is not India alone but other countries, with a coalition government that are facing a similar problem. Recently, the British government had to cancel its announced migration policy on bonds for student visas, as the Prime Minister Cameron did not get support from Nick Clegg, leader of its coalition partner – Liberal Party. Even countries with Presidential system, like USA, have to face the brunt of domestic politics.
Indian foreign policy was recently subjected to a grueling test of domestic politics, on the eve of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) 2013, which opened on November 15, 2013 at Colombo, Sri Lanka. The initial pressure was from the two main regional parties, DMK and AIDMK; later all the regional parties embraced this agenda. This led to the passing of a unanimous resolution at the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly imploring Prime Minister (PM) not to attend the CHOGM 2013, as a gesture of support to the Tamil sentiments in support of the minority community in Sri Lanka, which had been subjected to human rights violation.
Arguments for and against Prime Minister’s participation at CHOGM were advanced. There was a running debate in the media, based on developments and information, provided by the interested parties on a daily basis. The two main contentious points were that CHOGM was a multilateral forum and the agenda was more than the Human Rights issue in Sri Lanka. Would non-attendance set a wrong precedent? The second was a tactical issue, whether engagement would be a better option or not, as participation could help in conveying a collective message from the Group and thereby enhancing its value and strength. The media was not a reflection of Indian viewpoint only, howsoever, diverse it may be. Sri Lankan strategic viewpoint and its official opinion were equally provided with prominent space in the print media.
Prime Minister was faced with a Hamletian dilemma, ‘To attend or not to attend’. This dithering on the part of the government resulted in it being subjected to intense pressure. The debate was further muddled when senior Cabinet Ministers from the government started openly voicing their concerns over Prime Minister’s attendance. Information was also leaked that the Cabinet was itself divided over the issue. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the Ministry of External Affairs and the National Security Advisor pushed for PM’s attendance, while the others, on account of regional connection were not in favour of participation. It was a cache 22 situation, whether foreign policy interests should be allowed to prevail or regional interests, based on ethno-sub-nationalism be allowed to carry the day. The verbal duel was carried against the backdrop of impending state elections in November-December and General Election in early 2014. The Congress needs the support of regional parties, as it is not likely to get absolute majority.
The Tamil political leadership further tightened the screws on the central government. The State Legislative Assembly passed another resolution, adopting a stringent and tougher posture, escalating the stakes by asking the Government to boycott the CHOGM 2013. It was a tough call to answer. Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs was made to spell out the criteria that would be adopted to take a decision, which would include national interest, international obligations and foreign policy priorities. Various options were explored and one important one included PM attending the Summit, while simultaneously paying a visit to Jaffna, as a gesture of support to the newly elected regional government in the North Region, led by Tamilians. At the end of the day, die was cast against PM’s attendance as ‘domestic politics’ triumphed over the foreign policy interests, as reportedly decided by the Congress leadership under Sonia Gandhi.
The Government, however, did not go full hog with Tamil aspirations and India was represented at CHOGM at the level of External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid. This did not fully satisfy Tamil leadership, which continued to voice its concerns. Sri Lankan Government had to put a brave face, in not openly criticizing India’s non-attendance at PM’s level. In the past also, India had missed attendance at CHOGM at that level. In his formal communication to President Rajapaksa, Prime Minister reportedly did not spell out reasons for his non-attendance. This left each party to make out their own prognosis for public consumption, although the reasons were apparent. Sri Lankans kept their reaction at low key, even though they would not have been happy at these developments.
In India, non-attendance of CHOGM by Prime Minister was viewed in negative light, as forsaking its national strategic interests at the altar of domestic politics. Practically, all the editorials adversely commented upon this development. It was seen as ‘Surrender on CHOGM’ (The Hindu), as attendance including a visit to Jaffna would have been ‘a powerful reaffirmation of New Delhi’s stakes and interests in the region’. Another viewed it as ‘a signal of foreign policy paralysis’ and India ‘risking all its strategic capital in Colombo’ (The Times of India). Still another editorial saw in this as ‘Delhi’s abdication’, caving in ‘to narrow considerations’, as India ‘diminished itself’ and undermined itself in ‘this important multilateral forum’ (The Indian Express). It is, however, debatable as to how important is Commonwealth at the present juncture.
Ironically speaking, what was an option planned by India was executed by the British Prime Minister Cameron, as it is likely that he picked up this idea in India. Otherwise also, ideas freely travel in this age of globalisation. Cameron thus became the first foreign dignitary to set ‘foot in Jaffna after a gap of over five decades. He stated, ‘I want to shine a light on chilling events there first hand’. His message struck a positive chord with the Tamilians, who became beholden to his empathy towards them. He also did not shy away from sending a strong message on human rights issue, prescribing the March 2014 deadline for the setting up of an independent investigation agency. This obviously was rejected out of hand by President Rajapaksa.
While Cameron scored on both the above fronts, it was a case of lost opportunity for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It was, therefore, not surprising to see Salman Khurshid publicly lamenting this missed opportunity. This would have been an excellent occasion to flag Indian presence, where it is involved in infrastructural development projects, including construction of 50,000 low cost houses in the Northern Region. An editorial in the Indian press noted that Cameron ‘has stolen the spotlight from the Commonwealth by visiting Jaffna’ (The Tribune). Another editorial noted that PM’s absence at the Summit had ‘brought no political or diplomatic advantage’ (The Hindu).
History will tell us, whether India made the right or wrong choice. Withdrawal from international scene and not taking the matters upfront has only weakened India’s profile in the international arena. How can India be expected to play a major role, as a world leader, which it wants to emerge, if it shies away in making a mark in its own backyard and the region? It is here that India has to shine first. India’s strategic interests are likely to suffer and others are likely to fish in the troubled waters. It also went against the grain of India’s foreign policy as recently espoused by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the Heads of Missions’ Conference on November 4, where he stressed that sub-continent’s shared destiny required greater regional cooperation and connectivity.
How can India connect with the world, if it allows its foreign policy to be shackled by its regional compulsions based on domestic politics? It has to rise above these narrow interests as it reimages a strong India. It has to use both, hard and soft power options, to emerge as a benign power in the region and take its responsibilities as a world leader. Engagement is the only way out, as India has seen that disengagement with Pakistan was not a way out, as a search for a window for engagement continues. India has to calibrate its foreign policy in such a way that it represents its national interests, while it takes on board regional concerns and perceptions. There cannot be two opinions that there has to be one Indian foreign policy, and not Punjab, Tamil Nadu or West Bengal foreign policy.
Irish Presidency of the EU Council
“The experiences of the Irish Presidency of the EU Council in the field of external relations”
By Dr. Aaron Matta, Senior Researcher in EU Law, Academic Programme Coordinator of CLEER (Centre for the Law of EU External Relations)
On November 6th T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER) organised in cooperation with the Irish Embassy in The Hague a special lecture event devoted to the legal review of the experiences of the Irish Presidency of the EU in the field of external relations.
The lecture, chaired by Dr. Aaron Matta, Senior Researcher in EU Law and Academic Programme Coordinator of CLEER, took place in the context of the CLEER special lecture series that look at the Presidencies retrospectively focusing on the role of the incumbent presidency in coordination and leadership in regional and global issues.
Her Excellency, Mrs. H.E. Mary Whelan, Ambassador of Ireland in the Netherlands gave an insightful presentation on the major challenges and achievements in representation, negotiation and coordination at the helm of the EU Council. She explained that the EU Presidency was seen as opportunity to take measures directly linked to Stability, Jobs and Growth which was the central three-pillar theme developed by the Irish Presidency. The Ambassador referred to the main achievements internally aiming to build a stronger Europe at an economic level. With regard to the Union in a wider world, she particularly mentioned the Irish Presidency’s efforts to promote trade and its achievement to secure a mandate within Council to start official negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US. She further referred to the progress made on the EU Enlargement and development cooperation which had been key parts of the Irish Presidency’s programme. Regarding the role of the Irish Embassy in projecting the priorities of the Presidency, she presented her reflections on the cooperation with international institutions based in The Hague, especially with the ICC and OPCW which acquired particular attention during the Irish Presidency.
Dr. Elaine Fahey, Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer at the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance (ACELG), complemented the presentation as a discussant providing a critical analysis of the legal impact of Irish Presidency from an EU external relations point of view. She discussed the Irish Presidency’s ‘best’ achievements along with the Irish practice pre and post Lisbon, especially in the area of freedom, security and justice. She further highlighted the Irish Presidency success in concluding the historic negotiations that will allow the Union to accede to the European Convention of Human Rights. At the end of her presentation, she expressed her concerns on the Bulgaria and Romania Schengen entry delay, an issue on which more attention was expected. She further noticed that with regard to the ‘management’ of the situation of a possible UK Brixit Ireland was more vocal only after the end of the EU Presidency.
A general discussion based on the questions from the audience closed the lecture that was followed by a reception afterwards.
The lecture series, initiated in 2011, has been particularly successful in engaging the diplomatic contingent of incumbent Presidencies posted in The Hague, giving them the opportunity to share their experiences with the broad networks of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and CLEER.
For a more detailed report on the Irish Presidency lecture see http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=26&level1=14473&level2=15397&level3=&textid=40833
Rethinking water
By Barend ter Haar, Clingendael Institute of International Relations, former Netherlands ambassador to UNESCO.
Think again about water. That is in short the main outcome of the conference on Water Security and Peace that was organised by the Water Diplomacy Consortium* on 14 and 15 November 2013.
After attending the conference some security specialists might doubt whether an armed attack is the largest threat against their country. Engineers might reconsider whether technical solutions will suffice to solve all water problems. Legal experts might be better aware of the limits of a top-down approach, while local stakeholders may have become convinced of the need of a global approach.
The meeting of a large number of experts in many different fields and from many different countries helped to clarify a number of key points or at least to bring our confusion to a higher level.
Everybody needs clean water, every day of his life, but hundreds of millions of people are still not assured of that. And clean water is becoming scarcer, inter alia because of its growing use for agriculture, cattle breeding, industry and energy production.
All this is relatively simple and straightforward. And so is the answer: we need to change the way we manage water. Regrettably, implementing sound water management is not a simple matter at all. Water is such a fundamental part of our culture, of the way we feed ourselves, we produce energy, we wash ourselves and we govern ourselves, that there is no master key to address water in all its aspects at once.
What is needed is a bunch of keys or, in the buzzwords of the conference, a multisector and multilevel approach. Multisector means that it is insufficient to deal with water in isolation. Sound water management requires looking also at how we produce food, deal with climate change, and so on. Multilevel means that we have to address water issues simultaneously at local, national, regional and global levels.
Assuring the availability of clean water at the local level is the ultimate goal. That means educating and empowering local people as much as possible. But a fair distribution of the available water requires also measures at a national level and at an international level, because rivers and underground aquifers often cross borders. Global cooperation is needed to facilitate and promote action at the local, national and regional level, e.g. by setting global minimum rules for the management of water.
Most if not all participants of the conference seemed to agree about the following:
- Water management cannot be split in separate jobs for engineers, lawyers, diplomats, etc. All stakeholders have to work together and should therefore make an effort to ensure that they are understood by other types of specialists.
- More and better information on the state of water should be collected and be made widely available, to prevent misperceptions and to promote a common understanding of the real challenges.
- A shared vision on global water management should be developed.
- New coalitions are needed, between different levels of government, between governments and private business, between private business and NGOs, etc.
- Leadership is needed.
Exposition at Museum Jan van der Togt
By Drs. Eva Maria E. Mennes.
On November 29th, his Excellency Mr. Chen Xu, ambassador of the People’s Republic of
China spoke a warm welcome and Mrs. Carolien Gehrels, loco mayor of the municipality
of Amsterdam opened the exposition of the two artists Aat Veldhoen and Man Kin Ho at
the Museum Jan van der Togt in Amstelveen.
Aat Veldhoen, a well known contemporary artist in Amsterdam is a long time friend of the
young Chinese artist Man Kin Ho. The traditional Chinese inkt technics and the special
mix of the old Chinese tradition, sometimes with European subjects give a delicate flavour
to the work of Man Kin Ho.
The Chinese Embassy is well known for the support of Chinese artists living in The
Netherlands and that concerns all sorts of fields from painting to fashion.
Foreign Service
by Abhay K.
Foreign service is a journey
And all the diplomats merely travellers
They have their wits and talents;
And one diplomat assumes multiple roles
His career spread over many grades. At first the probationer
Learning and unlearning at the institute
And then the shy third secretary, with his briefcase
With curious look, rushing like a bee
Earnestly to the boss’s cabinet. And then the first secretary,
Ever engrossed in work, with his laptop
Still unsure of his place. Then the counsellor
Full of strange note-sheets and growing graveness in looks
Risk averse, long hours at work,
Conscious of reputation, quick temper
Seeking new authority
Among the seniors and subordinates. And then the minister
With a paunch, receding hairline
With squint look and harsher commands
Full of jargon and clichés
So he gains perfection in officialese. Then plenipotentiary and
extraordinary ambassador
Into the linen and lace-less shoes
With reading glasses and daily jogs
Trying to fit into his old suit,
Then superannuation. Last journey
queuing up to enter the Foreign Office
That ends this glorious journey
Then second probation-hood, flowing with wisdom
Free of protocol, briefs, talking points, telegrams, free of everything.
Abhay K., an Indian poet-diplomat, winner of the SAARC Literary
Award, nominated for the Pushcart prize, is the author of seven books
including five collections of poetry. ‘Earth Anthem’ written by him has been
translated into major world languages including Dutch.
Embassy websites as a commercial diplomacy channel still in its infancy
By Dr. Huub Ruël, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences – Zwolle.
The use of technology and social media have impacted diplomacy, with all its pros and cons. Online channels can facilitate commercial diplomacy services as well, and can be used to serve businesses in their internationalization endeavors. This is called electronic commercial diplomacy (e-CD) or digital diplomacy. E-CD can enhance the access to and delivery of activities for international business.
We conducted a study on the commercial diplomacy service quality of embassy websites. The embassy websites of the countries that rank the highest on e-government were assumed to have the best developed electronic commercial diplomacy services (compared to others). The website of the embassy in a country’s most intensive trading partner was chosen as the unit of analysis. The ten countries included in our study were: The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the United States, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Singapore, and Canada [Korea was not included as its website in China (its most important trading partner) could only be accessed in Korean or Chinese. Therefore, Canada (no. 11 on the e-government ranking 2012) was included instead.
The overall conclusion of our study was that e-CD is still in its infancy, even among the countries that rank highest on e-government. None of the countries included in this study clearly exceeded the level of ‘presenting’, that is, the presentation of information on an embassy website, but without the option to respond (‘interaction’ level) to that information, for example by signing up to an activity.
The UK scored highest on e-CD (1.9 on a 5-point scale, 1 means low, 5 means high), Canada came in second, the Netherlands third, the United States fourth, and Sweden fifth. Finally, the commercial diplomacy services provided best via embassy websites were information on trade fairs, on how to establish a business in a host country, market information, export regulations, and import regulations. However, the level of advancedness of these services hardly scores more than 2 on a 5-point scale (1 means low, 5 means high).
The relationship ICT, internet, social media and commercial diplomacy is an open territory in terms of research and definitely needs more follow-up.
Sinterklaas
By Bonnie Klap.
Granted, each country has its own peculiar customs. For example, the Halloween-parties in the US comes to mind, with its skeletons and pumpkins and ‘trick-or-treat’- traditions. Strange as that may seem, in my opinion, placing a shoe, filled with a carrot and some water and hay ( for the horse) next to the fireplace at night, in eager anticipation of finding a gift in that very same shoe the next morning is a lot odder! This brings me to the Dutch tradition of the annual Sinterklaas –festivities. You might be under the impression that this is primarily a children’s feast, but a surprisingly large number of Dutch people –children and adults alike – enjoy celebrating Sinterklaas.
Interestingly, hundreds of years ago Sinterklaas, or Saint Nicholas as he actually was called, really did exist! He was a Greek bisshop in the town of Myra, which is located in present-day Turkey. The Saint-Nicholas feast used to be an occasion to help the poor and needy by putting money in their shoes, a custom, that has evolved into putting presents in the shoes of children. Sinterklaas rides a white horse ( ‘a gray’), carries a ceremonial gold shepherd’s staff and is accompanied by one or more “Zwarte Pieten,” ( Black Peters). The Black Peters, who are dressed up in colorful costumes resembling 17th century pages, provide a comical note and throw handsful of gingernuts to the children.
Each year Sinterklaas travels by ‘steamship’ ( supposedly loaded with children’s gifts) to Holland. The tradition of travelling by ship can be traced back to the days that St. Nicholas was a famous patron of the sailors. Of late, however, dark clouds have gathered above Sinterklaas, as can be read in the Dutch newspapers. Not only will the continuing economic woes undoubtedly impact the sales of Sinterklaas-gifts and therefore make for more ‘empty children’s shoes” as a journalist gloomily remarked, but more troublesome, the ‘Zwarte Pieten,” themselves have come under attack, as this tradition is viewed by some as a throwback to slavery. The issue has initiated a lively discussion between passionate proponents and opponents of Zwarte Piet on the internet as well as ample attention for the subject in the press. It will be interesting to see how this thorny matter plays out.
The Dutch learn about Diplomacy in The Hague
By Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland, Justice in the Court of Appeal and honorary Special Advisor International Affairs of the Municipality of The Hague
For most people outside the diplomatic world diplomacy is something they do not know much about. They see expensive cars with chauffeurs and a CD-registration in the streets of The Hague, they see the ambassadors only with a glass of wine in their hands on photo’s in some newspapers and wonder what kind of work they do. That’s why it was a very good thing that the national Dutch quality newspaper NRC Handelsblad had a four page article on ‘Diplomatenstad Den Haag’ on Saturday November 16th. The Ambassadors of Kosovo and Spain, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Mayor of The Hague, as well as I myself (The Hague’s ‘city ambassador’, the paper wrote) were interviewed for it. I think that the readers of NRC Handelsblad do now have a much better idea about the important work of diplomacy.
The ambassador of Kosovo H.E. Vjosa Dobruna had been chosen because she had to present her credentials to the King on October 16th, in the period that the journalist wrote his article. Other new ambassadors who we welcomed were on October 9th H.E.’s Ms. Liisa Talonpoika (Finland), Mr. Ahmad Mufleh (Jordan) and Ms. Maymouna Diop Sy (Senegal), on October 16th Mr. Taher Ahmed Farahat (Egypt) and Mr. Roman Kirn (Slovenia), on October 30th Mr. Ibrahim Sorie (Sierra Leone), Mr. Petar Vico (Serbia) and Mr. Wilson Masilingi (Tanzania) and on November 6th Mr. Emilian Brenici (Moldova) and Mr. Adani Illo (Niger).
Hopefully they and other ambassadors will learn about the history of our country –in the presence of the King- on Saturday November 30th on the beach of Scheveningen, because basically with the Landing of The Prince 200 years before, the Kingdom started (in 1815).
a.beelaerts@planet.nl
Water Security and Peace
By Fieke Maas Geesteranus, Freelance Reporter for UPEACE Centre The Hague and Henk van Schaik, Board Member UPEACE Centre The Hague
In a recent article in the September edition of this magazine, Henk van Schaik, Board Member of UPEACE Centre The Hague and Chairman of the international conference ‘Water Security and Peace’, advocated that water security demands water diplomacy. He cited Kofi Annan: “Water is mostly a shared resource that can be a catalyst for cooperation if we work together” (January 2002) and Van Schaik stated that “its realization will require stepping up of the efforts among all stakeholders towards cooperation”.
To address Water Cooperation and Peace, the Water Diplomacy Consortium[1] organised the international two day working conference ‘Water Security and Peace’ on 14 and 15 November 2013. The conference was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Municipality of The Hague and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. The consortium aspires to become an international knowledge hub for water diplomacy, governance and law, and to contribute to conflict prevention and conflict resolution related to intrastate and transboundary water management.
The conference took place at the Academy Building of the Peace Palace in The Hague, the International City of Peace and Justice, and was part of its centennial celebration. Moreover, it contributed to the UN International Year of Water Cooperation, wherein the celebrations on 21 March of World Water Day in The Hague took place as well. Over 200 people from more than 60 countries actively participated in the conference, amongst others diplomats, scientists, civil society leaders, lawyers and other professionals from international, national and local organisations, all dealing with water-related disputes.
Alexander Verbeek, Strategic Policy Advisor at the Climate, Energy, Environment and Water Department of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, argued that water diplomacy is an essential tool for the prevention of water conflicts around the world: “Water has no boundaries. Therefore it is imperative that we cooperate on a global scale and promote the two Water Conventions from the UN and UNECE to live up to that ambition.” He continued: “It is a real challenge to take into account multi-level interests while we see water resources becoming scarce – a task for which diplomacy is well-equipped.” However, this takes time. Verbeek concluded: “In the end, it’s about trying to create a win-win situation for all and to develop equitable and sustainable distribution and usage of water.”
Sustainable water management links up with one of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 conference which was held in June 2012: drafting a set of Sustainable Development Goals. In order to propose on these goals, an Open Working Group of the General Assembly has been created. Its first session in March 2013, was co-chaired by the Permanent Representative of Hungary. Balázs Attila Heincz works at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary and as organizer was present at the Budapest Water Summit last October, that strongly recommended the development of a dedicated and comprehensive Sustainable Development Goal on Water. Speaking to him, Heincz said: “I see many parallel processes between the Budapest Water Summit and this conference organized by the Water Diplomacy Consortium. At the Summit, water diplomacy was emphasized as a tool to build trust and to harness opportunities for shared benefits as well.” Heincz mentioned that he was pleased to hear that the Dutch Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation announced on the margins of the UN General Assembly this year, that a Sustainable Development Goal for water within the post-2015 development agenda is imperative. He added: “It is very important that the member states are aligned and that we share knowledge.”
The importance of knowledge sharing on Water Diplomacy was well illustrated by Carel de Villeneuve, Senior Policy Advisor for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. Within the UNECE Water Convention, which he chaired in the past, the Netherlands has organized several training sessions on transboundary monitoring, and took the initiative for creating a Task Force on Water and Climate Adaptation, stimulating mutual research and interactions between policy and technical developments. “The importance of such lies in its transboundary effect: the mutual research and extensive discussions on water and climate adaptation lead to a guidance document which is followed by a number of pilot studies, and besides, is being consulted outside of the European region as well.” This fostered a global outreach; even South-Asia for example is interested in the workshop outputs and lessons learned. De Villeneuve added: “Global knowledge sharing has a positive impact on the international water debate and should be a continuous process.” This conference on water security and peace aimed exactly to do so, addressing the growing needs for water conflict prevention and resolution.
As water resources are becoming scarce and further polluted in the years ahead, the participants of the international conference ‘Water Security and Peace”, indeed made a strong case for international cooperation to strengthen resilience and to find ways to ward off future water conflicts.
- · The key note Opening presentations and the final plenary of the conference can be viewed on: www.thewaterchannel.tv/peace
- · A video by Al-Jazeera on the conference, including interviews, can be found at: http://www.thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/index.php?page=Events-Events-Upcoming_events-International_Conference:__Water_Security_and_Peace&pid=123&id=134#.Unun-_lWySo
- · You can stay updated on the activities of the Water Diplomacy Consortium through: www.thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org
[1]The consortium consists of five partners: The Hague Institute for Global Justice, UPEACE Centre The Hague, Clingendael, UNESCO-IHE and the Water Governance Center.
Royal Sunset and the Anastasia Controversy.
By Malcolm McEwan.
The World War of 1914-1918 brought to an end three powerful European Imperial Dynasties – the Romanovs, the Hohenzollerns and the Habsburgs. What was the role of these dynasties in bringing about their own demise? This is the topic of a fascinating book by Gordon Brook-Shepherd and the subject of a recent talk I presented to the IWC in the Hague.
Alliances between the major powers changed dramatically between 1870 and 1914: Germany was close to Russia until Bismarck was pushed aside by Emperor Wilhelm II in 1890. Russia then sided with France. When Queen Victoria died in 1901 and her successor Edward brought about the “Entente Cordiale “ with France, Germany and Austria were “surrounded ”.
The assassination of the Austrian Crown prince Frans Ferdinand in Sarajevo led to a chain reaction: Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia mobilised and Germany declared war on Russia, and attacked her ally, France, through Belgium.
The families of the British, Russian and German dynasties were very closely linked – for example King Eward VII (ruled 1901-1910) was seen as the “Uncle of Europe and a photo shows a family gathering of the Russian and British royal families on the Isle of Wight in 1909. During the war brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles etc found themselves on opposite sides.
During the revolution in Russia of February/March 1917 the position of the Tsar was undermined by divisions among the Romanovs. When the Russian Imperial family were imprisoned by the new Provisional Government asylum in England was refused by King George V, the cousin of Tsar Nicholas, with tragic consequencies.
But did all of the Imperial Family die? In my talk I review the life of “Anna” – she appeared in Berlin in 1920 and died in America in 1984. She claimed to be Anastasia, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nocholas. She shocked and divided European royalty and was, I believe, the media sensation of the 20th century – headlines, Hollywood films, Broadway Plays, Cartoon films and controversy – over more than six decades.
She was positively recognised as Anastasia by Romanovs and others who knew Anastasia from before the revolution, and a German expert testified in court that photos support her claim – for example: Anastasia 1917 “Anna” in New York, 1928 DNA evidence has been produced that “proves” she was a factory worker born in a peasant family in Poland who escaped from a Berlin asylum in March 1920. Do we believe this or do we trust our own eyes?