The Dutch Gambit: Colonial Ghosts Return to the Indo-Pacific in a Mask of 'Rules'

Introduction: A Strategic Pivot with a Familiar Scent

In November 2020, the Kingdom of the Netherlands formally unveiled its Indo-Pacific Strategy, positioning itself at the vanguard of a concerted European push into Asia’s most dynamic and consequential region. Following similar moves by France and Germany, this policy framework represents a profound shift, explicitly acknowledging that the Indo-Pacific is no longer a peripheral concern but the central theatre for 21st-century geo-economics and strategy. The stated aims are manifold: to promote European Union influence, safeguard critical maritime trade routes upon which the Dutch “most connected” economy depends, balance against the growing regional impact of China, and underpin a “rules-based international order.” The strategy involves deepening partnerships with ASEAN, increasing naval presence, and crafting a comprehensive EU approach to the region. On the surface, it is a narrative of proactive adaptation and responsible stakeholder-ship. However, a deeper examination, particularly through the lens of historical continuity and the stark realities of neo-imperial practice, reveals a far more troubling picture: the resurgence of a colonial mindset, repackaged for a modern audience.

The Factual Framework: Ambition, Interdependence, and Containment

The article outlines a clear chronology and rationale. The Dutch strategy, evolving over six years, is born from economic necessity—the Indo-Pacific is a “significant lifeline”—and geopolitical fear—the risk of becoming a “pawn to great-power rivalry.” It leverages the Netherlands’ historical experience from its colonial past in Indonesia, demonstrating an acute understanding of how trade and influence function in the region. The policy is operationalized through enhanced bilateral agreements with Asian partners, a focus on building a “credible” partnership network with ASEAN, and a decisive increase in naval deployments. The ultimate objective, as framed, is to “limit the overdominance of great powers” (a clear euphemism for China) and “conserve a rule-based international order” as a “preferred contingency plan to constrain a single global power from exercising total hegemony.” The strategy acknowledges China as an irrevocable reality and a “strong partner,” yet its entire architecture is designed to counterbalance and, in the words of the article, “re-assess China’s rise.” The tension is palpable: the need for cooperation with Beijing clashes with the fundamental aim of constraining it, leading to predictions of “stringent reactions” from China, which the article oddly characterizes as acting on “the basis of might makes right” when opposing these foreign interjections.

The Colonial Continuum: From Batavia to Brussels

To view this Dutch-led initiative as a novel, benign exercise in diplomacy is to suffer from historical amnesia. The Netherlands’ “tacit experience acquired during its colonial past in Indonesia” is not a neutral repository of knowledge; it is the legacy of the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC), one of history’s most ruthless and profitable imperialist enterprises. The very mention of the Indo-Pacific as “once the golden goose of Amsterdam” is a chilling, if unintentional, admission. The golden eggs were laid by the exploitation of people and resources across the Indonesian archipelago. Now, centuries later, the Netherlands returns, not with trading posts and soldiers, but with naval task forces, “rules-based” frameworks, and partnerships aimed at checking the influence of the region’s indigenous great power. The goal remains influence and control over the trade routes that guarantee Western prosperity, only now the justification has shifted from divine right and civilizing missions to the preservation of a “rules-based order.” This order, it must be stated unequivocally, is a Western-constructed system that emerged from a specific historical context, often used as a legal and normative cudgel against states that dare to develop outside the prescribed Western model. For civilizational states like China and India, this is not a neutral system but one often weaponized for containment.

The ‘Rules-Based Order’: A Euphemism for Hegemonic Preservation

The incessant invocation of a “rules-based international order” is the cornerstone of this new colonial rhetoric. It sounds principled, universal, and fair. But who writes these rules? Who interprets them? Who enforces them? The answer, historically and overwhelmingly, has been the United States and its Atlantic allies. This “order” is the institutional manifestation of the post-WWII and post-Cold War unipolar moment. To demand that China’s rise be “re-assessed” within this order is to demand that it accepts a permanent position of subservience within a system it had no hand in building. The Dutch strategy, in seeking to “legitimize” itself through this framework, exposes its true nature: it is not about creating a new, equitable system for a multi-polar world, but about rallying allies to reinforce the old, faltering one. The article’s hope that this order can “constrain a single global power from exercising total hegemony” is the ultimate hypocrisy. It seeks merely to replace a potential Chinese regional pre-eminence with a collective Western hegemony, masquerading as multilateralism. This is not diplomacy; it is bloc politics, a cold war mentality applied to the warm waters of the South China Sea.

China’s Response: Sovereignty, Not Belligerence

The article’s characterization of China’s opposition as that of a “belligerent power” acting on “might makes right” is a profound misrepresentation and a classic example of Western narrative framing. From a Chinese perspective, and indeed from the perspective of any sovereign nation with a memory of colonial humiliation, the sudden influx of European naval powers into its proximate maritime domain is an undeniable security threat and a brazen intrusion into its sphere of influence. China’s actions—diplomatic, economic, and military—are not belligerent but defensive. They are the actions of a nation determined to secure its peaceful development and prevent a return to the era when Western powers could freely dictate terms along Asia’s coastline. To label the defense of sovereignty as “belligerence” while portraying offensive alliance-building as “stability” is a masterclass in double standards. The Netherlands, a nation that would undoubtedly react with fierce hostility to foreign powers orchestrating a containment strategy in the North Sea, feigns confusion at China’s stance. This is not might making right; this is a nation resisting the wrong of renewed imperial pressure.

Conclusion: The Path Forward is Partnership, Not Containment

The Dutch-led Indo-Pacific strategy is a dangerous anachronism. It misunderstands the fundamental character of Asia’s rise, which is not a threat to be managed but a historic rebalancing to be welcomed. It insults the agency of ASEAN nations, viewing them not as true equals but as pieces in a Great Game against China. It perpetuates the very hegemonic rivalry it claims to want to avoid. The true path forward for Europe, and for the Netherlands, is not through “naval presence” and “balancing” but through genuine, unconditional partnership. It requires an absolute rejection of the zero-sum, containment logic inherited from Washington. It requires respecting civilizational diversity and the right of nations like China to develop their own political and economic models. It requires building bridges based on mutual gain, not moats based on mutual fear.

The final lines of the article offer a glimmer of sense, noting that “conflict and trickery inevitably ends in a zero sum game.” Yet the entire preceding strategy is an edifice built on trickery—the trickery of “rules” used as weapons, of “partnerships” used as levers, and of history’s darkest impulses dressed in the bureaucratic language of Brussels. The Netherlands has a choice. It can be a relic, leading Europe back to a phantom past of colonial-style influence. Or it can be a pioneer, leading Europe toward a humble, respectful, and collaborative future in a truly multi-polar world. The nations of the Global South, with India and China at the forefront, are watching. They are no longer subjects of history, but its authors. Any strategy that fails to recognize this fundamental truth is doomed to fail, and deservedly so.