Apologies to Rene Magritte, and thanks to The Guardian's Jon Henley for his clear summary in today's paper of the incredibly complex political situation in Belgium. Just like NATO, which has been headquartered here since France's withdrawal from its military command in 1967, the imminent demise of the organization and its host country are hardy perennials in the world of journalism. Somehow, both NATO and Belgium have so far managed to muddle through, despite seemingly existential crises.
But Henley puts his finger on why the outside world might care about "whither Belgium:"
Should we feel remotely concerned by this? If you dislike unfeasibly potent beer, naff statues of permanently peeing boys, mayonnaise with your chips, and Tintin, maybe you will not. If, on the other hand, you feel a vague sentimental attachment to the idea of a country whose very existence, in the absence of anything resembling a national language, a national culture or much more than a century-and-a half of national history, depends on the virtues of goodwill, understanding and compromise, then you should.
Europe has seen other recent examples of the collapse of nations whose existence had long been taken for granted: Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in the late twentieth century, though the terms of divorce differed considerably. In the aftermath of World War I, empires were sundered, and the consequences of the splitting of ethnic groups - or the stitching together of disparate communities - laid the foundations for the irredentism, nationalism, and fundamentalism that still plague countries as distant as Iraq.
But I stray from Belgium. Read Henley, who does a much better job than I did last week in the initial heat over Belgium's worrisome new stage in its puzzling politics. And then consider another reason why Belgians should care: despite its complex (some would say crazy) proliferation of layers of government, it has somehow managed to be the number 4 country in the world in foreign direct investment. Belgium's FDI has doubled to $72 billion, behind the US, the UK, and France - not bad for a country of only 10 million people. No wonder the country's chambers of commerce and industry leaders have started to tell the politicians: enough is enough, you've played your political games for long enough now, now let's get on with the serious business of running an economy. They have reminded the politicians that foreign investors will put decisions on hold - and could very well decide to put their money elsewhere - while Belgium dithers. Already, the American manufacturer of Monopoly, Hasbro has held off on its Belgian national edition - and is studying whether it should produce versions for Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels, the country's three regions - and potentially separate political entities.
And how about that other Belgian-based institution - NATO - that is always in danger of demise? Well, it is due to begin construction of a new (actually, its first permanent) headquarters in 2008. When it's completed in 2012, will it be in Brussels, Belgium - or Brussels "DC?" The city-state or European option is taken very seriously by Belgians - especially among the francophone residents of Brussels. As long as the residents of "Brussels, D.C. get a better deal on "taxation without representation" than the citizens of that other D.C., it might not be so bad an option. But we are not there... yet.
Stay tuned for future posts on the role Brussels (the city, not the euphemism for the European Union) plays in the "whither Belgium" question, and why I think that "Brand Brussels" should be a key consideration in whatever solution emerges from the pouting politicians of the polders (sorry, couldn't help myself).