BOER WARS: Comprehending the strengths of South Africa

By Githmi Koralage

Rainbow Nation, a country popularized as the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is located at the southernmost end of the Eurasian-African landmass. A unitary, parliamentary republic with an executive president, South Africa is often considered a middle power in the region. Despite the beauty of its landscape, and diversity in the society, culture, as well as environment, the world acknowledges the country as one that was once home to gruesome systemic racial-segregation; and apartheid. It garnered a negative perception, leading the general public all over the world to view them as a developing nation at the end of the spectrum. However, when observing its history, especially the creation of RSA, it is evident that South Africa is a country with strong, courageous, determined, warriors who cannot be toppled easily. It is specifically understood when studying the Boer War. Accordingly, this article discusses the Boer War, and what it says about the reality of South Africa.

Time Before the Boer War

The indigenous San and Khoikhoi people who lived in the modern-day South African region were joined by settlers from the North African continent from the 4^th century onwards. The continent and region were introduced to the Europeans with the Portuguese navigator Bartholomeu Dias traveling around the tip of Southern Africa in the 1480s. The first European to land on African soil was however Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama when he landed on Natal coast in 1497. In 1652, the Cape colony at Table Bay was founded by Jan Van Riebeeck, a representative from the Dutch East India Company. (BBC News, 2022) It was established to provide refreshments to the ships voyaging between the Netherlands and the East Indies (modern-day Indonesian region). With time a population of “free Burghers” emerged, and expanded the settlements northwards and eastwards from the Cape colony. These Burghers were known as “Trekboers” and increasingly became independent from the Dutch East India Company. (Williams-Wynn, 2021)

In 1795, the British invaded and captured the Cape colony. The occupation did not last for a long time, because of the signing of the short-lived Treaty of Amiens in 1803, which resulted in the British returning the Cape colony to the Netherlands. In 1806, the British reoccupied the colony as a strategic move, due to Emperor Napolean Bonaparte including the Netherlands as a part of his empire. Meanwhile, another fighting force, the Zulu kingdom, which lasted from 1816 to 1826, was expanding in the Eastern part of the Southern African region. (Williams-Wynn, 2021)

The Trekboers increasingly became dissatisfied with the British authority in the Cape colony. It was especially because 80% of those who had farms did not receive titles for their lands (Williams-Wynn, 2021). This resulted in them migrating further north, which became popularized as the “Great Trek”. The migrated communities established Orange Free State and Transvaal. The British granted the Transvaal limited self-governance in 1852, which was followed by a republic being established in Transvaal in the late 1850s. (BBC News, 2022)

The Indian population which comprised the South African population today also migrated to the region from 1860-1911, as laborers (BBC News, 2022).

The First Boer War

The Transvaal Rebellion/ the First Boer War spanned from 1880 to 1881. In 1867, diamonds were discovered in the Transvaal region. The year 1875 saw a surge in neo-imperialism. According to that, the British annexed Transvaal in 1877 and defeated the Zulus in Natal. The annexation of the Transvaal was met with passive resistance. It turned into armed resistance with time, and on December 16, 1880, the first fight of the war broke out between the British garrison in Potchefstroom and a 'commando' under General Piet Cronjé. The Boers turned out to be experienced marksmen. Their knowledge of the territory of the region also contributed significantly to their success. Further, the “commando” system that was established contributed to getting the upper hand for the Boers in the fight. The final battle of the war occurred in Majuba Hill, where the Boers emerged as the victors. On August 03, 1881, the Pretoria Convention was signed and the Transvaal was given independence with the British having its suzerainty. Accordingly, the British had control over Transvaal’s foreign affairs and internal rules related to the black community.  It was on February 27, 1884, that Transvaal finally earned its full internal independence, until the Second Boer War. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011)

The Second Boer War

The discovery of goldfields in Witwatersrand in 1886 was a watershed moment in South African history. It made the struggling Boer Republic a potential political and economic threat to British supremacy. The failed scheme of Prime Minister of the Cape colony Cecil Rhodes to overthrow President Kruger of the Transvaal government during the Jamesson Raid ten years later flared up Afrikaner nationalism. The British colonial secretary Sir Joseph Chamberlain and the British High Commissioner in South Africa Alfred Milner were anxious that Kruger would unite South Africa under Afrikaners, which led to them being interested in getting involved in the domestic affairs of Transvaal. Milner agitated the English-speaking migrant workers for franchise rights, which President Kruger refused to grant. Instead, he gave ultimatums; disputes between the two states should be resolved through arbitration, British soldiers in the borders should be withdrawn, and troops bound for South Africa by ship should not disembark. British however rejected the ultimatum, which resulted in the breakout of the Second Boer War on October 11, 1899. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011) The war was marked as the bloodiest, longest, and most expensive war the British engaged in between 1815 and 1915 (History | South African Government, n.d.).

The course of the war, which was in favour of the Boers changed in February of 1900. After the British captured significant landmarks, Kimberly and Ladysmith, almost all Boer fronts collapsed, and the men were divided as some of the Boers joined the British. However, in August 1900, the military effort of Boer was revived under General Louis Botha. This revival lasted for two years and was known as the guerilla phase because of the application of the tactic of gathering swiftly to attack and dispersing quickly. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011)

End of the Boer War

Ending the Boer war with a clear-cut victory was not an easy task for the British. After the failure of the military methods, the British had to resolve to a different approach laced with strategy, tactics, brutality, and manipulation. In 1900, Lord Herbert Kitchener became Commander of the British Garrison, he integrated a three-fold strategy to end the Boer war. The first stage included the “scorched earth” policy, which deprived the guerillas of access to food and shelter. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011)

The second stage was expanding “concentration camps”. These camps sheltered the families of the guerillas especially the women and children whose houses were burnt during the first phase. Black people were also confined to the concentration camps to prevent the guerillas from accessing food and to get free labour for the gold mines. The terrible conditions and bad administration of these camps led to the demise of 28,000 Boer women and children and at least 20,000 Black people. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011)

The third stage included building blockhouses and barbed wire defenses. These blockhouses known as the Kitchener Maginot Line contributed to stopping the disruption of railway lines and bridges. Further, it prevented the Boer commanders from reuniting their units for coordinated action. (Blockhouses of the Boer War, n.d.)

The strategies were successful. By 1902, the Second Boer War formally came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging.  As a result, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were made self-governing colonies under the British Empire. (BBC News, 2022)

Revelations about South Africa

Boer wars reveal a deeper narrative about South Africa and its people than what is popularized. Even though Boers were of Dutch ancestry and white, we could say they have much ownership of the land of South Africa as the Black natives, because of the contributions they made to lay the foundation of South Africa.

The African continent is deemed a war-torn, underdeveloped, and less civilized continent. As a part of the continent, South Africa is viewed through the same lens by the masses. However, the Boer Wars challenge this perception by revealing qualities such as unity, pride, a sense of unique identity, intelligence, courage, perseverance, and resilience of the ancestors of the nation, the Afrikaners, and the native African clans. It was the reason why apart from using military capabilities, the British had to take measures to crush the soul of the Boer fighters, through policies such as scorched earth and concentration camps. Further, the victories of the Boers revealed their tactical intelligence and combat capabilities.

The advanced military weapons the Boers used were facilitated by Germany and France (Pom Poms in the Boer War, n.d.). This reveals that the Boers had the skill and ability to conduct stable foreign relations. During the war, both factions decided not to involve the Black community. However, the British started employing the Black community as soldiers. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011) Arguably this also played a part in deepening the racist attitude of the Boers, which shaped the policies of early South African governments and ultimately contributed to the establishment of apartheid.

Conclusion

The Boer Wars are more than just a conflict over territory. It is a testimony to how strong, courageous, and intelligent South Africans were and are. The legacy of these wars has impacted every aspect of the country. The most significant aspect of history is that South Africa is not a country that is easy to conquer. The strength displayed by its people, then and now, has made it stand firm against every adversity it has faced.

References

BBC - History - The Boer Wars. (2011, March 29). https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/boer_wars_01.shtml

BBC News. (2022, December 19). South Africa profile - Timeline. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14094918

Blockhouses of the Boer War. (n.d.). https://www.bwm.org.au/blockhouses.php

History | South African Government. (n.d.). https://www.gov.za/about-sa/history

Pom poms in the Boer War. (n.d.). https://www.bwm.org.au/pom_poms.php

Williams-Wynn, C. (2021). The Boers of Dutch Descent Under British Rule in South Africa [Review of The Boers of Dutch Descent Under British Rule in South Africa]. In Smart Surveyors for Land and Water Management - Challenges in a New Reality Virtually in the Netherlands. FIG e-Working Week 2021. https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2021/papers/ts_his/TS_HIS_williams-wynn_11143.pdf

BREXIT AND BEYOND: STRATEGIZING BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY IN 2020 THROUGH THE COMMONWEALTH

by George I. H. Cooke

As the United Kingdom exits the European Union, and Euro-skeptics draw parallels to a doomsday scenario, in which more members will opt to leave, it is relevant to reflect upon the United Kingdom, the country that is to be directly impacted in the months and years ahead. Member states of the EU still have each other and even have neighbours such as Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and even Turkey, all of whom are keen to gain membership. The EU will ride out the storm that hit it in the last five years since the now infamous referendum which David Cameron promised and held, and respected as he exited Downing Street. His successors have gambled as did Theresa May in holding elections and hoping to obtain a larger majority, but instead lost more seats. Her successor Boris Johnson, who was one of the architects of Brexit, who campaigned vigorously with Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party for Brexit in 2005, had more success in the polls in 2019 and is now prepared to lead his country out of the regional grouping. 

What options lie ahead for the United Kingdom? How will foreign policy be impacted? What will happen to the position of leadership the UK enjoys on the world stage? While questions abound, it is relevant to focus on the mechanisms within the United Kingdom which the country has relied on for centuries and attempt to understand how the UK has weathered many a storm and still retained its advanced place on the world stage

The United Kingdom, having ruled large swathes of the world for most of the 19^th and 20^th centuries and yet after giving up the empire in stages throughout the second half of the last century, has proved her ability to remain relevant and resilient against many odds. Having been a dominant naval power, which transformed into an industrial power house and built a remarkable empire which conquered countries across continents, the loss of one of its initial colonies, America, was soon overcome through a galaxy of other acquisitions of territory, earning for itself the designation of being an empire on which the sun never set.

As the 1^st of February 2020 dawns, the United Kingdom will turn another page in its dotted history, and gradually, but surely return to its position of prestige on the world stage. The referendum of 2015 is now a part of history and the steps being taken, although not irretrievable are certainly momentous for a country that shook the very fundamentals upon which two particular concepts of International Relations discourse, those of sovereignty and regionalism, have long been established.

Sovereignty challenged from within

The calls for the referendum centered on numerous issues, one being the diminishing sovereignty that the British people enjoyed over their policy formulation and implementation, as it was argued that Brussels, dictated terms and conditions. This, it was noted, was owing to the supranational form of cooperation that the European Union created. British people must decide on their own future, was the call, in a bid to strengthen sovereignty of a country that had delicately balanced and ensured a Union of its own for centuries. Yet the day after the referendum, when Nicola Sturgeon, first Minister of Scotland said that she intended “to take all possible steps and explore all possible options to give effect to how people in Scotland voted - in other words to secure our continuing place in the EU, and in the single market in particular”, alarms bells rang at Downing Street and the new Prime Minister Theresa May flew swiftly to the north to reassure Sturgeon.

The Scottish leader’s statement that she thought “an independence referendum is now highly likely but I also think it is important that we take time to consider all steps and have the discussions, not least to assess the response of the European Union to the vote that Scotland expressed yesterday,” was not what was expected by leaders in London, or even hard line Brexit campaigners. Even if they had not envisaged such an outcome, they certainly hadn’t bargained for such stiff resistance from Scotland in relation to the results.

Theresa May’s “commitment to preserving this special union that has endured for centuries” was a quick fix attempt to reassure the people of Scotland that despite their leaders’ sentiments, the central government would respect the “union, not just between the nations of the United Kingdom, but between all of our citizens.” Sovereignty and its preservation, which had been a crucial element of the Brexit campaign, was under fresh strain, not from Brussels this time but from within the United Kingdom itself.

Similarly, views expressed by Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein President that “the British government should respect the popular vote in the North for European Union membership by bringing forward a referendum on Irish unity. The Irish government, too, should act on this,” created further concern as another integral part of the country, which shares the only tangible border with the EU, was appearing to test sovereignty at its very core. Given that the Good Friday Agreement and relative peace in Northern Ireland, arrived at through a delicate and complex process, might be jeopardized, the cautious note of the Prime Minister led to her delaying invoking Article 50 to commence the process of leaving the Union.

Regionalism threatened

The European Union is held up as the most integrated, progressive and visionary regional grouping of all those that exist at present. From its initial steps through the Coal and Steel pact, to the complex, multinational union of today, the EU has been the epitome of regionalism. Yet the results of the 2015 referendum sent shudders through this hugely consolidated structure with nationalist frontrunners such as France’s Marine Le Pen claiming that “this is the beginning of the end of the European Union. And I hope the birth of the Europe of nations, a Europe of cooperation that we’ve been propounding for years.”

Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom in Netherlands proclaimed that “We want to be in charge of our own country, our own money, our own borders, and our own immigration policy. As quickly as possible the Dutch need to get the opportunity to have their say about Dutch membership of the European Union.” Related issues such as the Euro were being raised in Italy with Luigi Di Maio, Vice President of the Lower House of Parliament stating that “We want a consultative referendum on the Euro. The Euro as it is today does not work. We either have alternative currencies or a 'Euro 2’”. The decade long process of building a region of stability and certainty upon this overarching concept of regionalism was facing its gravest threats.

Other regional blocs, which aimed to emulate the EU and its comprehensive progress, especially in understanding mechanisms such as the European Commission, which remains one of the most unique apparatus aimed at protecting regional interests over national interests, were suddenly faced with the daunting question of whether integration needs to adopted only up to a certain stage, and if the EU had integrated too much.

United Kingdom: Having it her way

The ensuing crisis created by the referendum and the need for its implementation, given the democratic form of governance prevalent in the United Kingdom, was yet another scenario unfolding in which the UK had had her way. From the refusal to convert the Sterling Pound to the Euro and the rejection of the offer to join the Schengen Agreement, the UK has consistently ensured that she was able to chart her own course despite being within a grouping such as the EU.

In the developments post January 2020 it is apparent that the United Kingdom will once again push for swift settlement of the multitude of issues arising out of this move to depart. From travel to savings, pensions, investments, personnel, the value of the Pound, the proposed Free Trade Agreement, the border with Northern Ireland and numerous other issues that require settlement, the task ahead for British leaders is daunting to say the least, but undoubtedly a challenge they will accept and emerge from relatively unscathed, if past experiences are to be relied upon. 

The United Kingdom is today a United Nations Security Council Permanent Member, a position retained through her victorious alliance during the Second World War. The Prime Minister is the current Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth, a position which will be relinquished later this year to Rwanda. The UK is a leading power in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), an integral member of the G7, possesses the fifth largest economy with a $2.83 trillion GDP, and also has the eighth strongest military in the world with an estimated defence budget of $47.5 billion. 

This is a country which gave up an empire and gained the Commonwealth. It is a nation that despite many trials and tribulations has always been able to survive and remain resilient in the face of much resistance and strife. The foreign policy trajectory actively pursued in the UK indicates a nation state which, through centuries of experience, is at the top of her game, still, and doesn’t appear to be about to lose that exalted position among nations. 

West Asia referred to as the Middle East

Countries that fall within the West Asian region or those to the north of Africa that straddle global territory from Europe to Central and South Asia have long been termed the Middle East. From peace accords to conflicts, this terminology has remained in use. Yet a clear viewing of the map would clearly indicate that the region hitherto referred to as the Middle East isn’t the middle of the East by any stretch of the imagination, especially in the current context of world affairs. At a time when Britain ruled a major portion of the world, and power was centralized within the context of Europe, it was understood that everything beyond Europe was the East and it stretched to the Far East where countries like China lie.

In the 21^st century, when global affairs are widespread, and the United Kingdom plays an important role, it is relevant to note that it is not the most dominant force it once was. Yet even at this juncture, when the subject of International Relations requires evolution and appropriate terminology suitable for the times, the term Middle East remains part of the vocabulary of the West and is even used in countries within this particular region. This century is argued to be the Asian Century, and thus usage of terms, especially by countries in Asia, in identifying this region as West Asia is appropriate and timely, but it is yet to happen.

High Commissioners and not Ambassadors

Whilst non-Commonwealth countries exchange ambassadors, it is an accepted norm within the Commonwealth for countries to exchange ambassadors who are identified as High Commissioners. India, which took on the British with Gandhi and Nehru at the helm, is a significant example of a country that, despite a bitter struggle with her colonial master, opted to join the Commonwealth and retain this terminology as well.

The usage of this term to date signifies the importance of the Commonwealth and the monumental role that the United Kingdom has played in this grouping. This role has seen the gifting of Marlborough House, the former residence of Queen Mary, for the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat; Commonwealth scholarships that have benefited thousands of students over the years in undertaking higher education and granting them opportunities in other Commonwealth states; the impressive quadrennial games which are said to be the third largest sporting event in the world after the Olympics and Paralympics; and the numerous programmes and initiatives, including the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy (QCC) which is designed to generate a network of forest conservation projects across member states and connect them through programmes of preservation for future generations. All of these initiatives have been possible owing to the dynamic leadership and cooperation stemming from Downing Street, which has ensured that the Commonwealth is relevant and Britain’s contribution is not overlooked or underestimated.

In its initial years the Commonwealth faced pressure and much doubt was expressed over its potential to exist. Then Australian Prime Minister Robert Gordon Menzies, who served twice from 1939 to 1941 and 1949 to 1966, opined that “there has been a great stirring of minds on the subject of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Its name; its structure; its internal rights and duties; its means of family consultation; its place in the world -- all are in debate. In the nature of things, uniformity of ideas about it would be unlikely.”

Relevance of the Commonwealth

Decades later when we reflect upon the Commonwealth and its achievements, which abound in multiple sectors, it is possible to note that its very existence in 2020 is one of its greatest accomplishments, and the British deserve a significant amount of credit for this feat. Even when the UK opted to move closer to Europe and get deeply involved in the activities of the EU, at gradual stages of growth and integration from 1973 onwards, the Commonwealth remained a key foreign policy priority for the British government.

The inability for Vanuatu to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 2017 led to the United Kingdom stepping in and offering to host it in London in 2018. This was yet another momentous opportunity for the British to take over the Chair-in-Office position which will be retained until the next CHOGM. Prince Charles’ position as the next Head of the Commonwealth was also established at this meeting at which The Queen requested that her son continue what her father started.

It is in and through the Commonwealth that the United Kingdom will seek its greatest source of support post-Brexit, and the mechanism through which the country will look to work more with fellow member states in this grouping. Likewise member states of the Commonwealth will see renewed interest, formidable policies, favourable trade, fresh opportunities and above all a rejuvenated platform from which regionalism in its newest form, which Peter Katzenstein defined as “regions (that) are politically made”, wherein there is less emphasis on the geographic aspects of regions altogether and instead focus is on the political and ideological characteristic of the regions.

It is at this stage that the Commonwealth is being reborn. Serving the interests of the UK, and its member states, it also possesses the potential to become the new, innovative form of regionalism, which would also bode well for other aspirant groupings and unions.

Winston Churchill played a fundamental role in leading the United Kingdom and the allied powers to victory in the Second World War. Similarly Boris Johnson is determined and resolute as he takes on the challenge of leading the United Kingdom out of the European Union and into a new form of existence. Despite the challenges faced a century ago and throughout the 1900s, and through the difficulties forecast for the country in the short to medium term after leaving the EU, the United Kingdom will bounce back reinvigorated and re-energized to take on the world and continue to secure the special place the country has on the global stage, owing to her timeless policy of strategizing amongst all else, her foreign policy.

Wilders’ ‘Patriotic Spring’ meets its Waterloo: Will Nationalism too?

Geert Wilders

The ‘Patriotic Spring’ has ended, or has it? If Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s election at the German Federal Convention in February 2017 gave Europeans a glimmer of hope in trouncing the rise of nationalism, Mark Rutte and the Dutch ensured Geert Wilders ‘patriotic spring’ ended, and with it, the tide has been reversed. Wilders, having campaigned heavily on immigration issues and promising exit from the EU, was set to benefit tremendously if the Rotterdam rallies went ahead. Intended to shore up support for the Turkish leader, the rallies would have served as ideal ammunition for heightened tension and possible violence if the Turkish Ministers took to the stage. Thwarting the move, the Dutch Prime Minister drew fierce criticism from Erdogen but his hard stance contributed to another term.

Securing a majority of seats, Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy will, over the next few days, begin coalition talks and form a government. Leaders across the continent have breathed a sigh of relief welcoming the news. Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy noted ‘the Dutch people made a show of responsibility and maturity.’ France’s leader-in-waiting Emmanuel Macron claimed ‘you can defeat the extremes.’ European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker hailed the Dutch for preserving the values of Europe of free and tolerant societies, given that the Netherlands risked electing a leader who would have marked the 60^th anniversary of the European Union with an ignominious exit of a founding member state.

The celebrations will die down and euphoria soon disappear. Yet this Dutch election seen as a litmus test by many will remain a critical platform from which the sphere of International Relations and her adherents will engage in much reflection. How and why was the rise of nationalism stymied?

‘Trumpism’ and the possible fall out of Brexit have woken voters. Stirred out of the nationalist rhetoric that seemed to engulf everyday discourse as tension flared, animosity grew and violence remained imminent, most Europeans appear to have realized the gravity of the experiences of their British and American counterparts. Rallying as they did on the eve of the Brexit referendum, European countries used their heritage monuments, including the Eiffel Tower and Spanish Palace among others to display the colours and the Union Jack itself, sending the strongest possible signals across the Channel to refrain from opting out.

The referendum is history. As Prime Minister May prepares to invoke Article 50, Britain, having sought the preservation of sovereignty is today poised with a bigger and possibly more worrying issue: that of Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon’s repeated calls for a second referendum on independence. The impact of Brexit will be felt for decades to come, yet it is what the British wanted and it is what they will get. They wanted to retain the Pound over the Euro, and they did. They wanted to remain out of the Schengen Agreement and they did.

Impacting regionalism and integration, the British move questions the relevancy of integration. Timo Behr and Juha Jokela’s assertion that regional cooperation provided the high-demand global good of ‘certainty’ appeared to fail owing solely to Brexit, which proved just the opposite. Questioning the appropriateness of deeper integration and shaking the European Union to its very core, the effect has and is being felt by Europeans. Le Pen’s calls for a looser Union, Wilders’ promise to leave it and the general far-right taking umbrage at Brussels, although raising alarm bells, has stirred the European psyche to wake up and take note of ramifications and the rigors of the past.

Across the Atlantic, Americans, and more rightly the American electoral system chose to abandon the vision of Truman, for the vulgarity of Trump, and those cautionary remarks to Congress that faltering ‘in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world, and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this Nation.’ His warning seventy years ago, whilst unheeded locally, has gained credence with global and particularly European populations, many of which he endeavored to assist through his Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Whether it is the protests, climate change ignorance, travel bans or the high degree of frivolity with which attempts are being made to ‘make America great again,’ the United States is fast becoming an unenviable model of governance. Arguably herein lies the secret to the receding tide of nationalism.

Democracy and its intricacies, costly as they are, are weathering some of the roughest of storms, but experience remains the winner. The media, most of which in America has earned the wrath of the White House, has reveled in the disclosure of everything from minute details to gross misdemeanors and of course errant policies emanating from Washington. The information has if anything jolted populations. The level of awareness however remains questionable. Wilders may have lost his chance at governing, but his party garnered five more seats and taking their total to twenty, thereby becoming the second largest party in the Netherlands. Yet the Patriotic Spring he articulated has, if only for the present, passed.

While Steinmeier will be sworn in as the new German President on 19 March and the Dutch Premier as soon as he forms a coalition, Macron and Merkel have gained greater confidence in facing their own constituencies. Wilders has lived to face another day and unlike Napoleon this will not be the last we hear of him. 

- Editorial