A win for Eurosceptics

The Netherlands, the traditional country of dykes and bikes and a founder member of the European Union, has dealt a mighty blow to the proposal of wrapping up Ukraine into the Western group in the teeth of Russian opposition by saying “no” to the treaty ratified by all the other members and the country’s own Parliament. In a referendum of low turnout, the treaty was rejected by just over 60 per cent to 38 per cent, barely above the threshold for validity of the vote of 30 per cent.

Domestically, it is a victory for the eurosceptics, in particular, the popular Geert Wilders, who tweeted joyfully that it was “the beginning of the end of the EU”. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte took a cautious but sombre view, saying he would consult leaders at home and across Europe. And if the vote was valid, he would have to reconsider the treaty. Obviously, the vote has a wider connotation in Dutch politics. But the EU commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, had warned that a “no” vote would create a wider crisis in the 28-nation EU.

What no one is talking in plain terms is that the “no” vote gives a unique opportunity for the EU to rethink the wisdom of taking Ukraine into the Western fold — a country of more than 42 million with deep religious, family and linguistic links with Russia and adjoining the Russian Federation.

The West blames Russia’s President Vladimir Putin for his assertive foreign policy, but anyone ruling Moscow would rebel at the Western provocation in seducing Ukraine into what is increasingly becoming an anti-Russian group.

Russia remains under Western sanctions for seizing the Crimean peninsula and for supporting pro-Russian Ukrainian fighters in eastern Ukraine, which is now under an uneasy second ceasefire signed by European leaders at Minsk.

For the pro-EU governments and supporters, the symbolic Dutch blow comes a few short months before the vote in the United Kingdom to stay or leave the EU. The fear is that it might influence the outcome of the British referendum on Brexit. British eurosceptics have their own reasons for wanting to leave the EU.

For European enthusiasts, the omens are hardly encouraging. For one thing, eurosceptics are gaining strength in many member states, including Greece, Spain and especially France, led by the National Front’s Marine Le Pen, who stands a chance of making it to the second round of the national presidential election next year. And the refugee crisis only recently demonstrated how divided Europe is in tackling the greatest influx of refugees since World War II.

The crucial question remains: Will the leadership of the European Union seek to exploit the Dutch opening to beginning a new era in European continental affairs? Given historical memories, there are hardliners in the EU, the Baltic states, Poland and, for good measure the Czechs and Slovaks. And German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the virtual leader of the EU, is facing domestic difficulties on her generous welcome to refugees and has had to sign a dubious deal with Turkey to stem the flow.

There are other factors involved in the equation, with the United States priming the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) and in seeking to take nations on the Russian periphery into the Western fold. Washington has been only too willing to buttress Nato defences at the urging of nervous Russian neighbours such as the Baltic states and Poland even while seeking Russian help in resolving the long Syrian civil war. In Washington’s political lexicon, Russia is now classed as an enemy.

In the short term, what are the options for the Netherlands, which ironically is the current head of the EU? Experts suggest that The Hague will work out largely symbolic opt-out clauses to the EU-Ukraine trade agreement. But the Dutch referendum result has been devastating for Ukraine, with most of the ire aimed at President Petro Pereshenko whose own comment was: “We will continue our movement towards the European Union”. It has not helped matters that his name appears in the Panama Papers for setting up an offshore vehicle for his chocolate company Roshen.

Indeed, the levels of corruption that prevail in Ukraine and its crony capitalist mores have often turned off West Europeans. But the President is unable or unwilling, or both, to impose meaningful reforms in a traditional corruption-laden system of doing business. And Ukraine has been battling a major government crisis, with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s fate hanging in the balance.

The key perhaps lies in Washington with its hardening approach to Russia. Some of the rhetoric out of the United States is reminiscent of the days of the Cold War. And the Obama administration is set to seek more funds to buttress the military preparedness of the countries in Russia’s neighbourhood.

The frantic American presidential election campaign is a handicap to sane policymaking, with President Obama at the near end of his two-term presidency. It would, however, be a pity if the US administration rolls with the rhetoric of the campaigning, instead of trying to steady the ship of state.

Indeed, the stalemate on Ukraine suggests that the larger geopolitical picture remains unsettled. The growing closeness of relations between Russia and China is a largely tactical ploy by Moscow suggesting it has other options in the face of Western sanctions. And the Europeans are stymied by their dependence on Washington.

How events will pan out in the future remains to be seen, but there is growing awareness in Western Europe that it is going through a major crisis that is tearing at the heart of the European enterprise started with such idealism. This crisis is reflected, above all, in Germany, whose post-war miracle is slowing and the anti-EU Alternative for Germany gathered strength in recent state elections. Ms Merkel’s own political future remains in some doubt. The truth is that Europe cannot be a major player when it is divided. The gainer will be the United States even as the European continent ruminates over its mistakes.