Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Anne Preesman

Anne Preesman

Dutch tolerance: reality, myth, or something in between?

by

Dutch police forces preparing for more riots. Photo by Ben Koorengevel on Unsplash

If you ask Dutch secondary school students to describe the Netherlands in one word, they will probably answer: tolerant. The principle of tolerance – or rather being tolerant – is deeply embedded in Dutch history and culture. It finds its origin in the 80 years’ war (1568-1648) and the Dutch ‘Golden Age’ (17th century). After years of bloodshed between Protestants and Catholics, tolerance became the norm in the Republic of the United Netherlands. According to school books, tolerance allowed the Dutch to become leaders in world trade and attract enlightened thinkers from all over the world, such as René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza. Dutch tolerance has evolved over the centuries. The Netherlands was the first country to allow gay marriage and has highly liberal views on contentious topics such as prostitution and soft drugs. Tolerance is also reflected in the way the Dutch run their daily lives and national politics. In decision-making processes, tolerance is embodied in the so-called ‘poldermodel:’ a system of negotiation that focusses on consensus instead of confrontation. ‘Polderen’ is present in all layers of Dutch society and requires people to compromise and cooperate, all while tolerating opposing views.

The precious national value of tolerance, however, is not invincible. The country is no utopia; racism, sexism, and homophobia are, unfortunately, systemic issues many Dutch face daily. Furthermore, recently the Dutch ‘poldermodel’ has faced serious challenges, too. The aggressive riots that followed the introduction of the national curfew, ‘De Avondklokrellen’ (curfew riots, 23-26 January 2021), stand in stark contrast to the Dutch culture of consensus and compromise. This article investigates how these riots came to be and whether they should be considered an outlier or a severe crack in the Dutch idea of tolerance.

The Curfew Riots of January 2021

One might argue that the curfew riots are merely a product of the unique situation we find ourselves in, a global pandemic, and the resultant measures that have had to be implemented. Historically, many claim that riots are a common if not normal reaction to government-enforced quarantines. Riots, for instance, broke out in England and Russia during the 19th-century cholera pandemic. Last year, protests against governments’ COVID-19 measures were widespread and occurred in states like the US and Germany. Moreover, 2020 saw a general surge of protest movements challenging racism, sexism, and government corruption. This atmosphere of protest combined with the widespread use of social media on an (inter)national level by those involved might have led to a diffusion of these protests.

The Netherlands, however, has never before experienced such massive riots in reaction to global pandemics. Furthermore, during other crises, like the Second World War, there were few significant acts of public protest in the Netherlands. Additionally, there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that people will not necessarily react angrily or panicked during a crisis but will try to be cooperative and supportive of one another. So although these riots might be part of an international wave of protest, it is questionable whether it would be justified to name the pandemic the sole cause of the riots. Therefore, it remains unclear why so many Dutch recently took to the streets and whether this is ‘un-Dutch’ like many historians and criminologists claim.

It would be wrong to pretend the Dutch are the best students in the class. Indeed, they do not have a legacy of public protest like the French, but despite the poldermodel, protests occur in the Netherlands. This is not to say that all acts of Dutch public protest oppose the poldermodel. On the contrary, many public demonstrations are often used as starting point for new negotiations. Symbolic was, for instance, the meeting of Prime Minister Mark Rutte with the so-called ‘yellow vests’ protesters, which according to one of the attendees, led to ‘a little bit of hope.’ By focussing on conversation, not conflict, protests can thus be de-escalated. Still, famous Dutch historian and terrorism expert Beatrice de Graaf rejects the view that riots and mass protests are uncharacteristic of Dutch culture and society. Instead she argues that the Dutch have a long history of public protests that escalate into riots. Famous is the ‘eel riot’ (palingoproer) that occurred in Amsterdam in 1886. After a group of people played the forbidden game of ‘eel pulling’ as an act of protest (palingtrekken, a game in which people had to pull an eel from a rope while in a boat), the police intervened. This escalated into a riot during which twenty-five people died. There are even cases in which public protest does not proceed the riot. The Project X riots in Haren, 2012 are such an example. These riots started after a sixteen-year-old girl’s Facebook birthday invitation was accidentally shared with thousands of people. In response, many flocked to the small town, intending to cause significant damage. These examples show that the Curfew Riots might not be so ‘un-Dutch’ as some claim.

De Graaf, however, argues that the recent curfew riots can be separated from previous riots because they had a strong political motive. This is unique since the last significant riots (partially) driven by a political reason were the squatters’ riots (krakersrellen) in the 70s and 80s. However, whilst these past riots were predominantly supported by the political left, the recent curfew riots of the 2020s saw support from the (extreme) right. The leader of the right-wing populist party Forum voor Democratie, Thierry Baudet, called upon the people to ‘resist’ the curfew. Although he disapproved of the violence, many politicians and scholars claimed that he was guilty of sedition. Some went as far as to compare Baudet’s statements to the speech Donald Trump held before the storming of the Capitol. According to many, Baudet’s words showed no intention of de-escalating the violence. The political motive of the attacks can also be derived from the targets of the rioters. Although many rioters looted local supermarkets and tobacco stores, hospitals and train stations were also attacked. In the town of Urk, protesters went as far as to burn a COVID-19 test location to the ground. According to Dutch sociologists, attacking these governmental institutions symbolises a direct and violent attack against the Dutch government.

The question arises then, do these political riots represent the beginning of the end for the Dutch culture of tolerance and compromise? Is the ‘poldermodel’ on its way out? Any answer cannot realistically be garnered from one act of deviancy, as it would be wrong to dismiss years of faith in these norms and values. However, it might be time for the Dutch to look in the mirror and recognise that the perception of Dutch tolerance does not match reality. In short, the Dutch are not as tolerant as they always claim to be.

The Dutch can prevent their precious value of tolerance from going downhill. To do so, the deeper sociological causes of the riots must be comprehended. Shortly after the riots occurred, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte referred to the rioters as ‘scum’ that need to be locked away, preferring to contain the problem rather than discuss the causes of it. Of course, those who committed crimes need to face justice. However, according to sociological experts, Covid-19 only acted as the catalyst of the riots. They believe a research committee should investigate the real motivations, which are likely to be much more complex, systemic, and diverse.  Neglecting the underlying causes of the rioters’ behaviour will not help to prevent future riots. Therefore, the Dutch need to continue ‘poldering’ with those they disagree with to prevent people from abandoning dialogue and resorting to violent forms of protest. The poldermodel, just like the polders themselves, is essential to Dutch society. Without polders, the country would not exist.

Female Suicide Bombers: An Uncomfortable Truth

by

By Anne Preesman

Black Widow ready for action (Daily Star, 2010)

In the early 2000s, Russia engaged in a violent war with its southern republic of Chechnya. During the conflict, the Chechen insurgents increasingly resorted to terrorist attacks, the hostage crisis in a Moscow theatre in 2002 being one of them. The attacks were characterised by female suicide bombers who the press named ‘Black Widows’ because many had lost their husbands during the conflict. These women are not unique; other terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda, also employ female jihadis as suicide bombers.

There is a broad literature on how conflict is related to gender roles; Enloe, for instance, argues in her work ‘Bananas, Beaches, and Bases’ that militarisation enforces the masculine social order. At the same time, we observe that women take over traditionally ‘male’ roles during war, such as working in military factories. However, society tends to be more uncomfortable with the idea of women being active combatants. Elshtain argues that this is caused by the fact that society tends to view women as ‘life-givers’ instead of ‘life-takers’. According to Cook, this leads to women’s roles in war and terrorist organisations not being accurately recognised.
Although women historically played a more passive role during times of conflict because they were often not conscripted, we should not neglect those who were active in combat. For example, the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) sent women to occupied France to sabotage German operations during the Second World War. Female suicide bombers are, thus, not the first women to act as active combatants during times of conflict. Still, female suicide bombers are unique because of their high commitment; they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. The common view of female suicide bombers is that they are from highly traditional Islamic societies where they have an inferior position. Although this piece will focus on Islamic female suicide bombers, it is essential to note that not all female suicide bombers are connected to Islam. Furthermore, the idea that women in Islamic societies have an inferior position is a Western perspective; instead, the Quran argues against female oppression in various verses. 

However, it remains interesting to study if women’s social status pushes them to suicide attacks; therefore, I ask: Does a woman’s place in society push her towards suicide bombing roles?

Although women have been active in combat for centuries, men have actively resisted the idea of using women as a weapon, let alone employing their weaponised bodies as a tactical ‘tool’. It namely conflicts with the idea of women as ‘life-givers’. Using women, however, offers a tactical advantage. Women can pass security checks with greater ease, allowing them to have better access to potential targets. This makes female suicide attacks often more lethal than male attacks. Female attacks also receive more media attention, giving the terrorist group a broader reach. The Chechens were not the only ones trying to benefit from these tactical advantages. One of the first known attacks dates back to 1985 when a teenage girl drove a bomb-laden car into an Israeli defence force in Lebanon. In the modern day, other acts of terrorism committed by women can be found in Sri Lanka, Israel and Palestine, Turkey, Nigeria, and Russia.

In the literature, views on female suicide bombers and their motivations differ enormously. There is the idea that female suicide bombers are ‘failed women’; they are divorcees, infertile, victims of rape, or they lost their husbands, meaning they cannot fulfil their designated societal roles as wives or mothers. This can have two reinforcing consequences. First, these grievances can cause women to commit to the cause and make them willing to participate in suicide attacks. Interestingly, research finds that female empowerment is only a minor motivating factor for women joining a terrorist group, let alone perpetrating a suicide bombing. Second, being more controversial, one could also argue that such ‘failed women’ feel useless in society, making them useful to terrorist groups. These women may feel that the only way to become worthy to society again is by sacrificing themselves. Additionally, because women are hardly ever found in leadership positions, they are ‘replaceable’ to the group and thus suitable suicide bombers. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Samantha Lewthwaite, the White Widow who likely orchestrated the terrorist attack on a university in Kenya. Still, terrorist organisations remain very much a man’s world. 

However, it should also be pointed out that not all female suicide terrorists are necessarily ‘failed women’. We also see highly educated, politically engaged, and/or married women committing suicide terrorism acts. Furthermore, female suicide bombers are not only from non-Western states; Western women have committed suicide bombings too, Muriel Degauque being a notorious example.

In short, it would be incorrect to argue that there is one specific ‘type’ of female suicide bomber. At the same time, however, the attacks also affect women’s roles after they have occurred. Female participation does not necessarily lead to emancipation; instead, suicide attacks can reinforce women’s inferior positions. Although some female suicide bombers have been romanticised, like Palestinian Wafa Idris, most of them are perceived as ‘failed women’ after being involved in terrorism. Palestinian terrorism especially, elevates men but shames women. Thus, women who were unsuccessful in perpetrating their suicide attacks are not only forced back into their traditional roles; their positions are even worse than before they joined the fighting. Finally, it should also be noted that not all female suicide bombers are voluntary perpetrators. Boko Haram, for example, is known to coerce women into committing suicide attacks, although it denies these allegations. For these women, suicide bombings are not a process of female liberation but a method of female oppression and a sign of male domination.

The presence of female suicide bombers shows that women are not only passive actors in times of conflict. However, there is no exact ‘type’ of woman that commits such attacks; different female suicide bombers can come from different societal positions. These women do have in common that their attacks do not elevate the positions of women in their societies. Although some women become martyrs, most societies look down on their terrorist acts. If women were to survive their time in a terrorist group, their positions are more likely to deteriorate instead of improve.

 

Anne Preesman is an MA student taking Intelligence and International Security. She is interested in the role of women in terrorist groups and conflict in the Post-Soviet space.