With foresight, fighting against false prophets: Frits Bolkestein (1933-2025)

By
BrusselsReport.eu
-

By former Dutch MP and MEP Derk Jan Eppink

I first met Frits Bolkestein in September 1991. He was the newly appointed party leader of the VVD and I had just started as political editor at NRC/Handelsblad, a Dutch newspaper he once appreciated but later complained about a lot. The only thing he still read was the column by J.L. Heldring.

On 12 September of that year, Bolkestein had published an article in De Volkskrant – the rival newspaper – about migration and minority policy; a debate that would intensify for decades. He struck me as a stately man, almost mayor-like, and he formulated his thoughts in a kind of Dutch that had been disposed of in the 1960s. He spoke like a textbook. I had never met a politician like him before.

What was striking about Bolkestein was his versatility, international outlook and foresight. He was a striking figure in the history of post-war Netherlands. Most politicians in the corridors of the Lower House are busy with a specific policy topic, or part of one, or are aiming to get another little comment of theirs published. The funniest was Frans Weisglas (VVD) who once called me on a Friday morning with a quote. The conversation could not last too long because he did not have enough change (quarters) with him in the phone booth.

Bolkestein was different in terms of knowledge because he had studied a lot: mathematics, philosophy, Greek, law and economics at various universities. No other member of parliament could say that. His level of knowledge towered above others, who saw that as ‘arrogance’. Furthermore, Bolkestein had missed the turbulent 1960s in the Netherlands. He had been working for Shell in East Africa, El Salvador, London, Indonesia and Paris. The cultural revolution had changed the Netherlands.

Bolkestein wanted to fight the excesses of that zeitgeist from within the Netherlands, and in 1977, he made an attempt to become a member of parliament. That was not easy from the outside, because nobody knew him. He had to travel all over the country to the VVD’s central offices to show his face. His friend Peter Rauwerda introduced him to the liberal leaders, such as party luminary Hans Wiegel – who, however, did nothing for him. The relationship between Bolkestein and Wiegel was never a smooth one; the characters clashed. Bolkestein the intellectual; Wiegel the entertainer. Bolkestein did not enter the Lower House until 1978, after the failure of the Den Uyl II cabinet. That was the very cabinet he wanted to fight.

Political motivation

His political motive was to fight communism. He was a proudly ‘anti-communist primary’. When Bolkestein was working for Shell in Paris, he read the book ‘Chinese Schimmen’ (Chinese Shadows) by the Belgian sinologist Pierre Ryckmans (the author’s name was Simon Leys) about the devastation of the Chinese cultural revolution. Bolkestein commuted between Paris and Amsterdam and preferred to read the book on the train. He criticised Western intellectuals who greatly admired communist dictatorships such as those in China, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. And also politicians such as the mayor of Rotterdam, André van der Louw, who laid flowers at Mao’s grave on behalf of the city council for ‘his humane values’. The number of victims Mao claimed, estimated to be between 40 and 70 million, was apparently a footnote in history. As soon as Western intellectuals were mentioned, Bolkestein’s fury was unleashed.

His broad historical knowledge and experience abroad gave Bolkestein the ‘farsightedness’ that was lacking elsewhere. When the Berlin Wall fell on 9 November 1989, he was proven right. The same happened with migration and minority policy. He foresaw what a large influx of people from different cultures, some with a different value system than in the West, would lead to.

He also pointed to the consequences of the enormous demographic growth in Africa. These were subjects that made the intellectual and progressive community feel ‘uncomfortable’. Bolkestein once joined a demonstration against discrimination and racism, while some demonstrators carried banners with the text: ‘Fuck Bolkestein’. He joined a demonstration that was actually directed against him.

NATO enlargement

In an opinion piece dated 8 February 1997, Bolkestein, as leader of the VVD parliamentary party, once again in de Volkskrant, which was nicknamed the ‘Bolkskrant’, opposed NATO expansion. In a parliamentary debate on 4 March of that year, he said: ‘NATO expansion will not increase, but decrease the stability of Europe. NATO expansion will lead the Russians to increase their pressure on Ukraine. Dormant pro-Russian forces there will feel supported in their rapprochement with Russia. What Bolkestein pointed out in 1997 has since happened.

Bolkestein subsequently opposed the expansion of the eurozone to include Italy because he feared that the criteria of the Stability Pact would be watered down. Under considerable pressure from Dutch PM Wim Kok’s cabinet and promised guarantees, he was eventually forced to concede. He lost the debate, but was proven right on the substance of the issue. The eurozone has since become a transfer zone.

He opposed the Iraq war in 2003 because he believed it would lead to great chaos. The invasion only strengthened Iran. He was also against Turkey’s EU membership because he believed the country was ‘too big, too poor and too different’. In 1999, the EU decided to make Turkey a candidate member state, but 25 years later, nothing has been achieved. Here too, Bolkestein had foreseen it. Not as a clairvoyant with a crystal ball, but through his thorough knowledge of history, politics and economics. A rare combination. As an expert by experience in Third World countries, he had already seen the failure of development cooperation with his own eyes.

European Commissioner

In 1995, I had left for Belgium to work for the Flemish newspaper De Standaard, which at the time still prominently displayed the slogan ‘Alles voor Vlaanderen, Vlaanderen voor Christus’ (Everything for Flanders, Flanders for Christ) on the front page. It seemed to me to be a new adventure. When you leave the “Binnenhof”, as the Dutch centre of politics is dubbed, contacts quickly become diluted. It’s a bit like leaving the stadium during a football match. But Bolkestein always stayed in touch; he invited me to dinners he held at his home in Amsterdam. Together with his wife Femke, he formed a ‘mix of people’ who had quite a bit to say to each other. Frits kept the conversation lively and enjoyed it. He also invited me to lunch when he and Femke drove via Brussels to their country house in Ramousies, France. We agreed to meet at the Brussels ring road in Hoeilaart.

One Sunday afternoon in the summer of 1999, he called me. ‘Good afternoon Derk Jan, this is Bolkestein. ’As you may have heard, I am in the running to become European Commissioner. Would you be willing to work in my cabinet?’ I answered yes, whereupon Bolkestein concluded: ‘Good, that’s settled then. I wish you a pleasant afternoon’. I had never had such a short job interview.

Bolkestein’s management style

Working for Bolkestein was of course different than visiting him. I became part of a cabinet of the Commissioner, responsible for the Internal Market and Taxation, in a group of six people: three Dutch and three other EU nationalities. I was involved in contacts with the European Parliament, contacts with the Dutch media, liberalisation of the European postal market and writing speeches.

The first was difficult because Bolkestein was not a European federalist, so he was sceptical. The second was a case of old wounds as Bolkestein was ‘provoked’ as soon as the national press was involved. The third was opposed by a majority of the member states and the European Parliament. And writing speeches was fascinating in order to express his ideas in a style and context that made a point of substance, without upsetting the cabinet of the President, Romano Prodi.

Bolkestein’s management style was schematic, everything at the right time. There was a clock on the conference table and if Frits thought it was taking too long, he would tap his fingers on the table. He also did this during interviews: it has to be over! Although he had more patience for the major British newspapers such as the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) was right at home. He described quite a few Dutch correspondents as ‘whiners’.

A European Commissioner has a cabinet to push his or her policies through the bureaucracy and to protect the Commissioner from traps and intrigues from the civil service. This means always being on your guard in meetings and forming the right coalitions with cabinets of other Commissioners who think in the same direction.

During his time as Commissioner, relations with Tony Blair’s British government were cordial, with the French government difficult and with the German Bundeskanzler bad. That was Gerhard Schröder, the Genosse der Bosse. The state of Lower Saxony has a decisive share in Volkswagen (VW) and the Commission wanted to put an end to this. Schröder was also the former minister-president of Lower Saxony and called in a furious tone. Bolkestein always remained calm and collected in negotiations, like a nobleman.

He also spoke many languages. He was fluent in English and French and could also get by in Spanish. His German, however, was not quite as good, mainly because as a perfectionist he wanted the cases of the nouns to be perfect. And that sometimes caused him to falter. He even took German lessons during his time on the Commission.

His relationships with fellow commissioners were quite good. After initial doubts, most found Bolkestein likeable and authoritative. He also had breakfast with his colleagues at the Commission’s top restaurant, la Convivialité, because good personal relationships are more important in European politics than in national politics.

Fortuyn

Yet Bolkestein was overtaken by Dutch politics: the rise of Fortuyn! In 1998, Bolkestein promoted Hans Dijkstal to the position of new party leader, a friendly man whom I had met during a Dutch Lower House mission to Indonesia in 1994. Dijkstal, former alderman in Wassenaar, was a cheerful guy with whom you could go in any direction. Ideologically too. With the departure of Bolkestein, the VVD shifted to the left and the party lost its ‘unique selling point’: migration.

Pim Fortuyn stepped into the gap. Had Bolkestein appointed the wrong successor? In the official car with Frits and Femke, I asked. Was Dijkstal the right man? Femke immediately said, ‘No, he can’t do it.’ Frits: ‘But who should I have taken? Hans was a member of parliament, minister, deputy prime minister. You would expect him to be able to be party leader.’ You only realise the latter after the appointment. If it doesn’t work out, the party is finished. The choice of successor was a disappointment for Bolkestein.

Pim jumped into the breach and Bolkestein, who did appreciate Fortuyn as a person, wanted to do something. But what? At one point he came into my office, which he did from time to time, to test something. He wanted to pin the label ‘toilet figure’ on Fortuyn: Pim as Dutch prime minister in Europe would lead to that. I was not convinced and said that Pim as an ‘underdog’ enjoyed the sympathy of many voters. The term ‘toilet figure’ would make him even more of an underdog and strengthen him electorally. Weeks went by and I hoped the term had disappeared. Suddenly Frits brought it up; a few days later on 6 May 2002, Pim was murdered. It came back like a boomerang.

Anglo-Saxon

Bolkestein as a negotiator was not easy. Once he took a position, he was almost impossible to move. The Latin approach was not for him. I noticed this during the negotiations for the liberalisation of the postal market. Digital communication would replace letter mail and the postal sector would only have a future as a modern logistics company. This trajectory had to be adjusted in the Directive so that companies could invest. But the mystique of the postman was still alive. Certainly among their unions.

It was difficult to persuade Frits; it was always ‘not fast enough’. Under the Belgian EU presidency, we managed to build a bridge to Southern Europe and an agreement was reached by the Council of Ministers. Frits preferred an Anglo-Saxon approach.

Bolkestein had quite a few enemies in the European Parliament, but that gradually changed. It took a lot of lunches to achieve that. He enjoyed Strasbourg, contrary to what I expected. We went to the European Parliament together and Frits felt at ease there. He also loosened up. He wanted to have a nice dinner in the evening, in a restaurant close to the European Parliament. He told jokes, including about Dutch politics. Ultimately, the House of Representatives shaped his politics: his relationship with Hans Wiegel, Ed Nijpels, ‘Nikkelen Neelie’. All three are in need of improvement, to put it euphemistically.

Bolkestein Directive

In the end, he chose not to continue his period in the European Commission. Femke could not find her footing in Brussels and was very attached to Amsterdam and her friends there. They had an apartment at Avenue Louise in Brussels. He arrived at work at 9.00 a.m. by company car and returned at 7.00 p.m. He did not have many friends, and would have to continue commuting for another five years if his contract was renewed. He made the decision: I’m quitting. The cabinet members were all given housing. I transferred to the cabinet of the Estonian European Commissioner Siim Kallas to see Europe from the perspective of Eastern Europe. Yet another experience.

Bolkestein did manage to get one European directive passed: the Bolkestein directive on the liberalisation of the European services market. Service providers from Eastern Europe were allowed to provide services in Western Europe under the conditions in Eastern Europe. The directive led to a storm of protest in the streets of Brussels, with the spectre of the ‘Polish plumber’ haunting the streets. Trade unions took action against Bolkestein, but he had already left because the directive was approved by the Commission at the end of his term, and later amended. Twenty years later, however, there is a severe shortage of plumbers in Western Europe, albeit from Poland or other Eastern European member states. Plumbers, bricklayers, construction workers: they are indispensable as ‘labour migrants’.

Fragile

Frits remained active, writing books and publishing articles. In 2011 he presented his book ‘De Intellectuele Verleiding’ (The Intellectual Temptation), which was to become his magnum opus. Bolkestein warned against new ideologies with totalitarian traits that would once again seduce Western intellectuals. An English version was also published: The Intellectual Temptation: Dangerous Ideas in Politics.

On 27 June 2013, a symposium was held in the Amstelkerk on the occasion of his 80th birthday – a kind of Bolkestein high mass. Friend and foe alike contributed, including his former opponent Jan Pronk. Bolkestein saw the symposium as his formal farewell to the great debate, although he continued to write columns, such as one on climate policy in which he discerned a glorified planned economy. In the 12 January 2017 issue of Elsevier Weekblad, he called himself a ‘climate realist’. According to him, intellectuals allowed themselves to be seduced by ‘prophecies of doom’.

I continued to visit Bolkestein regularly in his workspace on the Amstel, close to the Amstel Hotel. He wrote in that apartment, received guests there and even organised dinners there, as he used to do at home. He liked to go to Bar Lempicka on the corner of the Amstel and Sarphatistraat for lunch. That became a bit too noisy. After that we went to the Amstelhotel, preferably on the terrace along the Amstel. But Frits became more difficult to get around. He walked with a cane but wanted to remain as independent as possible.

Eventually Frits and Femke ended up in the Rosa Spier Huis in Laren. I also went to visit them there, in the middle of the woods of the Gooi region. We sometimes talked for several hours. For example, they told me where each of them was standing when Winston Churchill made his victory parade through Amsterdam on 8 May 1946. It was always fascinating, while enjoying a cup of tea and a biscuit.

Gradually, however, things went downhill, and at the end it was in leaps and bounds. Last Thursday I was still visiting. He was clearly not doing well. When we were leaving, Frits wanted to sit in his wheelchair in front of the window to enjoy the sunshine. He sat there contentedly, basking in the warmth and light of the sun. His body could no longer do it, but the name Frits Bolkestein lives on as a monument in Dutch politics.

Originally published in Dutch by 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