[POLL] Will Belgium last?
Aug. 30th, 2006 06:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldFrom United Press International, hyperlinks within added by me:
Strictly speaking, Leterne is of course correct. The Belgian state can trace its ancestry back centuries, at least as far back as to the Hapsburg Netherlands and before that to the lands of the Burgundians, even (if you want) back to the Celtic Belgae. That said, Belgium is very much a product of contingent circumstances. Even as late as the 1830 Belgian Revolution, things could have gone differently: the France of Louis Philippe might have managed to partition the Netherlands' southern provinces with Prussia and the rump Netherlandic state, or the Belgians might have been able to take Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and the modern Grand Duchy of Luxembourg from the Dutch state, or the Dutch might have managed to reconquer their southern provinces. The ten-province, three-language, three-region Belgian state that exists now is very much a product of generations of constant effort.
It may all come to naught. The major problem facing the Belgian state is the confrontation between the self-governing regions of Flanders and Wallonia. The gallicization of Brussels and the growth of Francophone communities in Brussels' periphery is an issue of note, as is the dependence of the post-industrial economy of Wallonia on massive transfers from Flanders, as is the growth of Flemish nationalism. Little unites Belgium's peoples, and much divides them.
Flanders and Québec are roughly of a size, but the Flemish--most unlike the Québécois in Canada--form a majority of Belgium's population. If, frustrated, they opted for independence, the viability of a rump Wallobrux state consisting of Wallonia and Brussels is eminently open to doubt. The rattachistes favouring the annexation of Francophone Belgium would be happy. (I've heard little said of the likely French attitude towards the annexation of economically troubled areas with a total population. France doesn't need an East Germany, not in its present state. Might it want one? Different story.)
I'm agnostic on the question. My readers, now, likely are not. At least three are living in Belgium right now. I'll throw the floor open to all of you: A poll!
[Poll #810596]
The political leader of Flanders says Belgium is an "accident of history" and only its king, soccer and beer have any value.
The Telegraph reported that Yves Leterme started a brouhaha when he made the comments about a nation that is increasingly divided between Flanders, the Dutch-speaking north, and the French-speaking [Walloon] south, with Brussels as a bilingual international city in the middle.
The Telegraph said Leterme sniped that years of devolution had eroded the kingdom to the point where Belgium "now amounted to nothing more than the king, the national football team and certain brands of beer."
He added that the 175-year-old Belgian nation was "an accident of history with no intrinsic value." The country was created in 1830 when southern provinces broke away from the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Strictly speaking, Leterne is of course correct. The Belgian state can trace its ancestry back centuries, at least as far back as to the Hapsburg Netherlands and before that to the lands of the Burgundians, even (if you want) back to the Celtic Belgae. That said, Belgium is very much a product of contingent circumstances. Even as late as the 1830 Belgian Revolution, things could have gone differently: the France of Louis Philippe might have managed to partition the Netherlands' southern provinces with Prussia and the rump Netherlandic state, or the Belgians might have been able to take Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and the modern Grand Duchy of Luxembourg from the Dutch state, or the Dutch might have managed to reconquer their southern provinces. The ten-province, three-language, three-region Belgian state that exists now is very much a product of generations of constant effort.
It may all come to naught. The major problem facing the Belgian state is the confrontation between the self-governing regions of Flanders and Wallonia. The gallicization of Brussels and the growth of Francophone communities in Brussels' periphery is an issue of note, as is the dependence of the post-industrial economy of Wallonia on massive transfers from Flanders, as is the growth of Flemish nationalism. Little unites Belgium's peoples, and much divides them.
Flanders and Québec are roughly of a size, but the Flemish--most unlike the Québécois in Canada--form a majority of Belgium's population. If, frustrated, they opted for independence, the viability of a rump Wallobrux state consisting of Wallonia and Brussels is eminently open to doubt. The rattachistes favouring the annexation of Francophone Belgium would be happy. (I've heard little said of the likely French attitude towards the annexation of economically troubled areas with a total population. France doesn't need an East Germany, not in its present state. Might it want one? Different story.)
I'm agnostic on the question. My readers, now, likely are not. At least three are living in Belgium right now. I'll throw the floor open to all of you: A poll!
[Poll #810596]
