publicdiplomacy – IPDGC Smart Power

The Cooperative Narratives of the EU, NATO, and the Netherlands

April 18, 2022May 10, 2022Europe, Russia6 Comments

By Yael Velvel, MA Media and Strategic Communication ’23

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (Ukrainian Presidential Press Office/AP)

The Netherlands has historically served as a humanitarian home for political and religious refugees. Following the Second World War, the country recognized the need for a strategic alliance with its neighboring countries in order to preserve this identity, and became a founding NATO member in 1949. Despite the Netherland’s size, it took on an unusually large role in preserving peace and international order for the new alliance of nations.

While Russia portrays the Ukrainians as a Nazi-infested government, the Ukraine’s goal to elicit Western support prior to Russia’s invasion has proven fruitful in the West. Unsurprisingly, the Netherlands’ diplomatic narrative stands in solidarity with Ukraine, the EU, and NATO, and in stark opposition to that of Russia.

As Russia loomed outside of Ukraine in February, 2022, threatening to invade, Dutch Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Marke Rutte met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv to celebrate the upcoming 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relationships between the two countries. Together, they expressed ongoing support for mutual interests – a key strategy of Ukraine’s to elicit support and legitimize its democracy in the eyes of the West. In a joint statement, Prime Minister (PM) Rutte expressed his unwavering support for Ukraine in its efforts to combat Russian aggression at its borders, and both leaders emphasized the importance of a peaceful solution. PM Rutte vocalized his appreciation for Ukraine’s allied efforts and supported Ukraine’s EU aspirations.

The Netherlands echoed the EU and NATO’s contestation of Russia’s narrative. In their official statements, the Dutch government framed the conflict as an illegal act of aggression and an attack on Western Europe’s democratic values. It is an open contestation of Russia’s narrative, which argued that their invasion is a strategic military operation to free the Ukranian people of a fascist, Nazi regime, and expressed its desire to re-absorb the nation into Russia. NATO’s official statements framed the invasion as an attack on democracy and internationally recognized borders. In her first statement following the invasion, EU President von der Leyen framed the invasion as an attack on Europe, European stability, and international peace.

The Dutch statement on PM Rutte’s visit with President Zelenskyy underscored the nations’ concurrent values and identity narratives. In their meeting, the two leaders underscored that their alliance is based upon “shared values and principles of freedom, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights”. These values are part of the Netherlands’ core identity as a liberal democracy, and the statement evidences the Ukrainian government’s commitment to instilling these values into the identity of their own young nation. Even more, it demonstrates Ukraine’s attempt to raise its status in the new global order. Dutch support for Ukrainian resistance to an invading nation also taps into their own historical identity: the Dutch, although swiftly defeated by German forces, were committed to resisting foreign occupation during the Second World War.

When Russian forces invaded Ukraine, the Netherlands joined their defensive allies, the United Kingdom and Canada, in releasing a joint statement. The trilateral statement condemned Russia’s violations of international law and reiterated their unwavering support for Ukrainian resistance. As a member nation of the EU and NATO, the Netherlands’ statements closely resemble the rhetoric and stance of the EU and NATO in combating Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine. The Netherlands underscored in the trilateral statement the importance of humanitarian action to protect Ukraine’s most vulnerable populations: women, children, and the elderly. Its identity as an EU and NATO member nation is also demonstrated in the trilateral statement with its strategic defense partners, the United Kingdom and Canada. The three NATO nations’ shared identities as free, democratic nations and history as cooperative allies during WWII undoubtedly influenced their commitment “to sustain and coordinate the political, humanitarian, economic and defence support that is so vital for a free and independent Ukraine.”

Dutch membership of NATO and the EU demonstrates cohesiveness between national identity narratives and global system narratives. The Netherlands’ joint statements with President Zelenskyy, and the U.K. and Canada, tap into the core qualities of NATO and EU: the importance of democracy, independent sovereignty, and peaceful resolution; as well as NATO and the EU’s desire to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty.

NATO and the EU operate as global peace keepers, and proponents of democracy and liberal society. Following the Cold War, the EU’s primary strategy to stabilize Europe was to expand its membership and encourage neighboring nations to adopt EU values. Although Ukraine is not an EU member, it has made its intentions to join the EU exceptionally clear. The EU has not been unsupportive of Ukraine’s intentions, but has expressed that certain reforms must be put into place before Ukraine has the strength and values of an EU member nation.

Moreover, the Netherland’s individual statements are strategically aligned with the narratives of Ukraine, NATO, and the EU in stark contestation to Russia’s. Given the Netherland’s historic ties to NATO and the EU, it is highly unlikely they will stray from the approved messaging frame, and will continue to be a cooperative player in the war against Russia.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Narrative Misalignment on the Ireland/UK border

April 16, 2022May 10, 2022Europe6 Comments

By Julie Harrington, MA Media and Strategic Communications ’23

The border dividing the Ireland from the UK is an international border that has become fiercely important in terms of the EU and Brexit negotiations. Since 2005, the border has been almost nonexistent as the security and checkpoints were removed due to the Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998. The lack of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is vitally important for the peace of both countries and the greater UK. Throughout what has been dubbed “the troubles”, or the series of conflicts in Northern Ireland from 1960s – 1990s, bridges and roads were closed and patrolled by police with comprehensive security checks that disrupted daily life and restricted those who lived close to the border. Most bombings, shootings, and violent acts took place near the border and a policing culture shaped the area for nearly 30 years. A soft border has ensured peace among all parties.

Policy debate regarding the border has risen recently. There are several narratives that are being contested in the media by the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain, which are all examined below. Each country is promoting their own desire regarding the border, with deep histories underlaying their messages.

The Irish Narrative

The Republic of Ireland believes that the UK has always involved itself in Irish affairs when it is not welcome, and there is a long history of abuse that leaves most Irish people believing that UK involvement is never welcome. The President of Ireland cites British imperialism frequently, as it is a vital component of their past and therefore current relationship.

Great Britain Counter Narrative

The British Parliament and non-state actors have publicly said several times that the UK does not intend on installing a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and they want to maximize trade among the three countries. Nobody outside of Britain seems to believe this is true, thinking that Britain will take any loophole it can to somehow hinder the relationship between Northern Ireland and Ireland by disrupting the lack of border and the Good Friday agreement.

Northern Ireland Narrative

Northern Ireland projects the fear of a hard border the loudest in the media; they claim the border is a highly volatile place for the trade and security purposes, and both Ireland and the UK have means and intention to exploit Northern Ireland and the on-going policy debate for personal gains. Political party representatives are extremely vocal in the media, with rallying cries in the papers as well as protests happening in cities and on border lines.

Aspect of Narrative Contestation	Irish Narrative	GB Counter-Narrative	Northern Irish Narrative
Formation/Content	The UK has always meddled in Irish politics and trade and should leave Ireland alone	The UK does not intend on installing a hard border, and wants to maximize trade with Ireland/Northern Ireland	The border is a highly volatile place for the island of Ireland. Both GB and Ireland could try to exploit it for their personal gains.
Projection	Irish politicians such as the President speaking about this only when asked	Non-state actors such as professors, business leaders, etc. publicly speaking upon this narrative	Political party representatives (ie, unionists, democrats) putting forth rallying cries in the news and protests.
Reception	The Northern Irish are weary of Ireland’s messages, thinking that Ireland is trying to secretly advocate for a United Ireland	Most people believe that the UK will not try to disrupt the Good Friday agreement	Their message is received broadly as the UK and Ireland pushing NI out of the way for trade purposes

In sum, it is a complicated clash of narratives for a few countries with dark, complex histories. Where there really should only be two narratives (The UK and Ireland), there are three, due to Northern Ireland’s own history as part of the UK. The intricacies in messaging around this policy issue are sensitive, and state agents need to navigate this conflict carefully to not evoke a hostile war of words.

The narrative within Great Britain must be one that holds empathy for the very recent political trauma that plagues both Northern Ireland and Ireland. The people who experienced the political warfare and terrorism at the border are still alive today, and the “UK as an interventionist” narrative has not yet ceased. The same narrative advice can be applied to Ireland; they must speak with caution, understanding that Northern Ireland is still slightly volatile due to modern history. The most encouraging narratives to these countries will be narratives that promote collaboration, allyship, and free-trade; narratives that paint all countries as winners and none as losers will promote peace and prosperity in this tumultuous policy discussion.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

Turkey’s Use of Narratives to Counter Anti-European Union Membership Narratives

April 14, 2022May 10, 2022Europe6 Comments

By Alexis Searfoss, MPA, MA Media and Strategic Communications ’23

The Republic of Turkey has been waiting decades to be moved from candidate for membership in the European Union to full member. As of 2016, accession talks were put on hold by the European Council but it still remains a top priority for Turkey. A member of NATO and prior iterations of European organizations, Turkey sees its future as a strategic partner for Europe, but, as it has shown in recent years, it is not willing to give up its sovereign rights to get there. If anything, Turkey is positioning itself to strengthen the reason why it should be granted membership.

The EU’s predominate narratives against Turkey gaining membership center around human rights, rule of law, media freedom, and accusations of democratic-backsliding due to a presidential system that has become more powerful in response to an attempted coup in 2016. These narratives target very real issues that have taken place including the treatment of Syrian refugees, jailing of Turkish nationals who speak out against the government, and the targeting of journalist alongside the pro-government takeover of media outlets.

To counter these narratives, Turkey is using its own to push back on the EU to emphasize its position as a country that the EU needs. Turkey has long highlighted its role as a bridge between Europe and Asia, messaging rooted in its former role as the once-powerful Ottoman Empire which was eventually forced, by Europe, to give away territory. Turkey is using its status as a majority Muslim country and willingness to work with countries that do not have strong relationships with the West as an invaluable benefit that it would bring to the EU and to entities looking for access to the West. These relationships could benefit European counties by expanding trade partners and, for Turkey, this showcases it as a powerbroker – a nod to its past as the Ottoman Empire.

A depiction of the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire and its dependencies in 1739.
Source: Wikipedia

Map of the Treaty of Sèvres on the day of its signing (August 10, 1920)
Source: Wikipedia

As a majority Muslim country constitutionally established as secular, Turkey can appeal to countries in the EU looking to better relations with their own Muslim populations. Anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe has been growing in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S. and discovery of terrorist cells in Europe. Anti-Muslim sentiment has also come from European leaders who are cautious of Turkey’s admittance because of their “different way of life.” In response to this sentiment, Turkey has called out efforts by European governments to legitimize anti-Islamic practices to highlight EU member states discriminating against Muslim populations within their own countries. Turkey continues to highlight its role as host to the largest refugee population in the world with over 3.6 million Syrian refugees in cities across Turkey. These issue narratives are used by Turkey to highlight the EU’s hypocrisy and counter the negative narrative of human rights. Turkey projects a frame that if granted admission into the EU, it would show that the EU is not Islamophobic and wants to work with its Muslim populations.

Turkey has also been leaning on its narrative as a world power and tapping into its past as the Ottoman Empire, particularly since the 2016 coup attempt, to emphasize that it will not be belittled. Turkey speaks about controlling both the land and the sea through its “Blue Motherland” vision. In its ongoing dispute over maritime borders with Greece and Cyprus, Turkey is focused on emphasizing agreements that are favorable to it. Turkey is using a rule of law narrative to fit within their desired narrative: Turkey is a maritime power and a larger world power because of it.

Turkey has been working to strengthen its argument as a necessary strategic partner. It broke with NATO allies in acquiring a Russian S-400 missile defense system that Turkey said would allow it to better protect itself. Many NATO members states spoke out against this deal and resulted in the US removing Turkey as a partner from the F-35 program. In Turkey working to normalize relations with Russia, those in the EU called for Turkey to no longer be eligible for EU membership. Turkey has leaned on the narrative that it’s a sovereign nation and world power and, therefore, able to work with any country it wants to in order to protect itself. This also allows Turkey to position itself as a much needed interlocutor with Russia, a role that they have most recently highlighted as the meeting ground for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Turkey’s ability to reframe some of the narratives being used against it shows a shift in thinking about its future. Turkey strongly believes that EU membership is valuable, but it has shifted the frame from one where it seemed like Turkey needed the EU to survive to one where the EU needs Turkey.

For more on the topic by the author, please click here.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.