I know it's a geopolitically boring country, but I've heard nothing from the media about their current political crisis. Maybe because there's no guns and bloodshed.

The reason for the split is that the northern Dutch-speaking right-leaning half of the country, Flanders, wants to split from the southern French-speaking left-leaning half, Wallonia. It is thought Wallonia would then merge with France. Flemish right-leaning nationalists won the Flemish half of elections on June 10th, and a governing coalition after three months still cannot be formed with no one in sight. So right now, Belgium "does not have a government". And Flemings are starting to wonder why not go ahead and declare independence.

Also, if you're interested in such things, the capital of the European Union is in Brussels, which is fully surrounded by Flanders. Flanders' proposed disentigration from Belgium would be a pretty stunning rebuke toward the EU's postmodern outlook on nationalism.

Some background:

http://crisisinbelgium.blogspot.com/2007/09/85-days-of-political-crisis-in-belgium.html
http://crisisinbelgium.blogspot.com/2007/09/background-elections-of-june-10th.html

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 12:40 PM. Reason : /]

9/5/2007 12:29:58 PM

Wow, and here I thought that guy in chit-chat was just drug-addled.

I wonder what France's position on all this is. It isn't as though Wallonia can just unilaterally say, "Bounjour, guys, we're moving in!"

And you have to admit, it's just hard to take a political crisis seriously when the opposing factions are called the Flemish and the Walloons.

9/5/2007 12:54:35 PM

france will undoubtedly surrender to wallonia and will be annexed

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : *]

9/5/2007 1:07:37 PM

^ That's so f***ing original.

^^ Of all the places that would have a thread on Belgium, the last I'd expected was Chit Chat. I have an excuse though, I typed "Belgium" into TWW Search and nothing showed up. TWW Search sucks.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2395

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 1:24 PM. Reason : /]

9/5/2007 1:15:20 PM

I really need to renew my subscription to The Economist. news.google doesn't really cut it much anymore.

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2007 1:18:53 PM

Quote :

"And you have to admit, it's just hard to take a political crisis seriously when the opposing factions are called the Flemish and the Walloons."

9/5/2007 1:20:05 PM

Quote :

"france will undoubtedly surrender to wallonia and will be annexed"

i laughed

9/5/2007 1:24:00 PM

^ Me, too.

9/5/2007 2:55:31 PM

Next time someone mentions Darfur to me I'm going to call them out for not giving a shit about the Belgians and their strife.

9/5/2007 2:59:49 PM

stupid sexy flanders

9/5/2007 3:50:11 PM

feels like I'm wearing nothing at all - nothing at all - nothing at all

9/5/2007 4:54:37 PM

You've made fun of us for the last-diddly-ast time!

9/5/2007 5:58:45 PM

flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaandeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers

9/5/2007 6:48:11 PM

DANG DIDDLY DING DONG CRAP!

9/5/2007 6:50:50 PM

4th reich?

9/5/2007 7:21:31 PM

well its a good thing that this really isnt that important

9/5/2007 7:52:22 PM

i'm having difficulty mustering the strength to click any news link called "crisisinbelgium.blogspot" ...

... but isnt this "crisis" between the Flemish and the Dutch, one of those things that goes back many hundreds of years?

I mean, when eastern Washington wanted to secede from western Washington some 10 or 15 years ago... i dont think it made international news. i have to admit, however, we didnt have "blogspot" back then.

and FTR:

Quote :

"france will undoubtedly surrender to wallonia and will be annexed"

i chuckled out loud.

9/5/2007 9:29:57 PM

^ I can't think of a single precedent in post-World War II Western Civilization if it occurs. That's why this "crisis" intrigues me. Canada and Quebec came within 1% of the vote in the 1990s, but the split still did not happen there. The only country breakups and border changes we've had in recent history were Central and Eastern Europe after the Iron Curtain fell just because the states were no longer sustainable when there was no communist strongman dictator to hold the state together (best example of that being Tito in Yugoslavia), there's been some independence movements in far off spots in the world (East Timor from Indonesia, Eritrea from Ethiopia) and occasional mergers (West and East Germany, South and North Vietnam), but this is the first time in most people's lifetimes that a culture mostly similar to ours (similar meaning western civilization) is seeing a breakup due to political reasons. These sorts of things, from the perspective of your New World Order globalization type, should not happen in "an enlightened country".

I think it's very fascinating from a "geek" point of view.

I read up on it, it only goes back 177 years to 1830. The French citizenry defeated the Dutch Army and chased them out of what came to be known as Belgium because they wanted to be a part of France. The Dutch-speaking half as far as I can tell considered themselves to be a part of the Netherlands. Neither half of the new Belgian state wanted to be a part of a new country, but the new country was imposed by the Treaty of London, a British/French-brokered document.


[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : /]

9/5/2007 11:10:09 PM

I was just looking around online for any more credible related articles and found this old, from dec, but amusing article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6178671.stm

Quote :

"Viewers fooled by 'Belgium split' RTBF reporters kept up the spoof for nearly two hours Belgians reacted with widespread alarm to news that their country had been split in two - before finding out they had been spoofed. The Belgian public television station RTBF ran a bogus report saying the Dutch-speaking half of the nation had declared independence. Later it said Wednesday night's programme was meant to stir up debate. It appears to have succeeded. Thousands of people made panicked calls to the station and politicians complained. "It's very bad Orson Welles, in very poor taste," said a spokesman for Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, referring to the famous director's 1938 radio adaptation of War of the Worlds. That spoof fooled many Americans into believing Martians had invaded. ... The AFP news agency reported that even some foreign ambassadors in Brussels were taken in, and sent urgent messages back to their respective capitals. "

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 11:37 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2007 11:28:09 PM

it sounds like the butter battle book to me

9/5/2007 11:32:13 PM

^^^

correction, i meant to say "crisis between the French and the Dutch"

yes, you're right: the specific threat (however unlikely) of secession between the Dutch Flanders and the French Walloon regions of Belgium doesnt make sense before Belgium became an official country in 1830-31 (or 1839 with the Treaty) ...

but the antagonism went much further back than 1830.

That whole area (the Low Countries) was a powder keg since well back into the 1300 and 1400's, and especially during the Eighty Years' war. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands, from which Belgium eventually gained its independence, always had problems between the largely agrarian and uneducated French-speaking Roman Catholics in the south and the wealthier Dutch-speaking Calvinist Protestants in the north. When Belgium gained its independence the French Catholics turned the tables on the Dutch Protestants.

now, it's interesting that the reactionary Flemish Movement is fueled mostly by right-wing nationalists and religious zealots -- even though the Flemish north is by far more educated and multiligual than the French south. About 60% of the Flemish north is bi- or tri-lingual (Dutch, plus French and/or English), whereas the French south only about 15% speak more than their native French.

I tell ya, it's confusing my ability to continue viewing the world in black and white.



(you know, this is interesting to me, because part of my heritage is Flemish, and I have ancestors who emigrated from Antwerp circa 1720 fleeing religious hostilities still left over from the Catholic/Protestant wars in Europe of the 1600's.)








[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 3:10 AM. Reason : ]

9/6/2007 3:03:42 AM

So Belgium is not about to split and have part of it merge with France?

It seemed bizarre that something like that could happen with no bloodshed. That would seem a big change for things in the EU with lots of ramifications.

9/6/2007 3:10:28 AM

^ highly doubtful.

With the headquarters of both the European Union and NATO located in Brussels ... and the Treaty of London that had every major European power agreeing to defend Belgium's neutrality in the event of invasion (which was a direct cause of WWI ) ...

i just cant see Belgium casually voting to split into two countries.




[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 3:19 AM. Reason : ]

9/6/2007 3:16:59 AM

Are you saying there would be violence if they tried, or that they're not really going to do it?

If it is the latter, then you are probably right. But I seriously doubt, whatever they do, there would be widespread violence. It sounds to me like both sides would just be getting what they want, autonomy from the other. That combined with widespread wealth and a tradition of stability, I just don't see it.

9/6/2007 8:52:24 AM

no violence.

but no split, either. too much vested interest there in every major European country.

9/6/2007 12:07:45 PM

So will they be Flanders' waffles, or Walloonian waffles?

9/6/2007 1:00:59 PM

This sort of reminds me of the Italian split between the Northern and Southern provinces. The richer, more educated, and more heavily industrialized provinces in the north, built on the Milan-Florence-Venice triangle, seems to be sick of subsidizing their poorer, crime ridden neighbors in the south, particularly around Naples and Sicily. There's not only the traditional political rivalries, but a small political movement calling for the North to break free and bolt. I doubt this will go anywhere, again because of the crisis it would cause in the EU, but its interesting nevertheless.

9/6/2007 2:22:00 PM

Four British-originated articles saying it might be time to call a day for the country.

Most interesting part in all of them: an idea for Brussels to become the European version of Washington, D.C.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9767681
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/sep07/belgium-election.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/08/dl0803.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2409877.ece

9/8/2007 9:47:25 AM

no shit?

hmm...

what will we call the waffles, then?

9/8/2007 5:00:31 PM

Historic Belgian Waffles

9/8/2007 6:18:47 PM

Fuck, the Economist is saying they should call it a day; that's some heavy shit right there.

9/9/2007 12:15:33 AM

Quote :

"Tomorrow a hundred days will have gone by since the elections of June the 10th in Belgium, and negotiations for the formation of a new government have still not really started. But how worrying, how deep is the Belgian crisis? Since a few weeks foreign correspondents in Brussels – there are a few thousands of them, mainly to cover the European commission and parliament – have started to file stories about the break-up of their host-country. But oddly enough, in the 177 year old nation that seems to fall apart, no bloodshed, no riots, no protest are to be reported. Not even a demonstration larger than the usual twenty nationalistic hotheads. How real then is this story? The political stalemate in the country is unprecedented, but few people let their sleep over it. Some passionate arguments about Flemish and Walloons filters through in the newspapers, but the television-talkshows still think the subject will not make them cash in more viewers. In search for an explanation many commentators call for the late surrealist and Brussels painter René Magritte: ceci n’est pas une crise. But there are serious analysts too who defend the thesis that all the nationalistic rhetoric is nothing but a cover-up for personal ambitions or ideological preferences that have to be hidden, at least for the moment. For personal ambitions they look to Didier Reynders, the leader of the Walloon liberals (picture: the man in the middle). He is still minister of Finance in the outgoing government and a shrewd politician from Liège who would love to become the first Walloon prime minister of the country in 34 years. Analysts who see in this ambition the linchpin of the crisis point to the provocative comments that Reynders uttered each time the Walloon christian democrats were about to give in. In that way he torpedoed every chance of success of the main candidate for prime ministership, Yves Leterme, during the forty days that the latter was formateur. No, no, other analysts say. This is above all an old Belgian story. Each time a governement of christian democrats and liberals is made possible by the electorate, the union wing of both the socialists and the christian democrats will do everything to impede it. This happened in 1977, 1987 and 1992, and is happening now again. Look to the behaviour of the Walloon christian democrats, says the argument, who are refusing every compromise on the nationalistic issue. And they will probably continue to do so until the other parties accept that the Walloon socialists are invited to the negotiating table. For this latter thesis exists a Flemish variation. Ever since the introduction of universal suffrage there has always been a strong majority of the left in Wallony. In Flanders it was usual centre-right majorities that the electorate turned out, sometimes interrupted by moves to the centre-left. Since the national parties have split in Flemish and Walloon wings in the nineteen seventies every formation of a federal government has therefore been a match of armwristing: shall the coalition be centre-right (good for Flemish voters) or centre-left (good for Walloon voters). For 27 of the last 35 years this resulted in centre-left federal governments. When between 1981 and 1987 a centre right government came into power to tackle an extreme budgettary crisis, it was highly popular in Flanders and extremely unpopular in Wallony. The result was that the Walloon socialist, then in the opposition, rose to almost 50 % of the Walloon votes in 1987. The Walloon christian democrats made the government fall after only two of the four years in its second term, formally on a nationalistic issue. There is also a third analysis about the present crisis. This one is mainly to be heard in Walloon media. In this scenario the villain is Bart de Wever, the president of the Flemish nationalist N-VA(picture: the man on the left: the man on the right is the president of his cartel partner CD&V, Jo Vandeurzen). This rather small party formed a cartel with the CD&V of Yves Leterme. Together they became stronger than apart, and in an orange-blue majority the five or six seats the N-VA obtained on June the 10th are needed to obtain a majority in parliament. Now, say the analysts, de Wever is an advocate of Flemish independence – he acknowledged many times that this will be the outcome of history – so it is logic that he defends his nationalistic demands so sharply as to prevent a compromise and bring his ultimate goal nearer. De Wever, by the way, denies. The future will show whatever analysis was the right one. But all of these theses demonstrate again that the nationalistic issue only becomes a political hot spot when it gets mixed with other themes. But the reverse is also true: if it should be true that the politicians play the nationalitic card to hide some more trivial political ambitions, they never are fully sure how long they ride tiger and when the tiger starts to ride them. The breaking-up of countries has never been a simple rational affair, and, although everything is still remarkably quiet in Belgium, in the present stalemate and uncertainty every unexpected or even stupid incident can start a process that nobody will be able to control."

[Edited on September 19, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : /]

9/19/2007 3:33:20 PM

now this is the way to break up a country. No civil war or military coup, no ethnic cleansing or genocide.
If a country is split between two different cultures/languages/religions, why not let them split peacefully?

9/19/2007 4:29:07 PM