"Footing the bill for both"

BRUSSELS german-foreign-policy.com spoke to Peter Mertens about the year-long wave of protests against the erosion of workers' rights and social standards in Belgium. Mertens is an author and the general secretary of the Workers' Party of Belgium (PTB-PVDA), which has been taking part in the trade union led protests and strikes from the very outset and is currently the strongest political force in the Brussels capital region, polling at over a quarter of the vote. Mertens sees a clear link between the protests against social cuts and the fight against militarization: "It's the same people footing the bill for both"; this can no longer be ignored. One of the aims of the protests is to restore "people's confidence in their collective strength". Mertens recalls that in 1945, even in the West, the power of gigantic industrial groups was considered one of the main causes of the militarization and the war. His new book "De laatste dagen van het oude normaal" ("The Last Days of the Old Normal") will be out soon. His most recently published work is "Mutiny". 
 

german-foreign-policy.com: Since the beginning of last year, Belgium has seen a wave of massive anti-government protests. What exactly are they about?

Peter Mertens: Actually, this wave of very large and far-reaching nationwide protests began back in 2024 – 16 months ago – when negotiations to form the current government were still in full swing. A hundred thousand people took to the streets. This had never happened before. In the 16 months that have since followed, there have been 14 national mobilizations, the most recent on 12 March, when 100,000 people again took to the streets in protest. Very soon, on 12 May, there'll be another nationwide strike. Meanwhile, a national day of action is being held on 1 May. It's one of the longest campaigns ever organized by Belgian trade unions, and it's also exceptional in terms of its reach.

Basically, the protests are about issues affecting everyday life, with pensions at the heart of the concerns. The government wants to introduce a "pension penalty", a punitive measure for those who retire before age 67. Those who do so could lose up to 20% of their state pension. State pensions in Belgium are already very low; Germany has the lowest statutory pensions in Western Europe, Belgium the second lowest. Women will be the hardest hit by this "pension penalty". There is a wage freeze – even in high-profit sectors – and there are many more cuts to come.​ People are very angry about this. The protests, which started out as a trade union campaign, run very deep.

The Belgian press, by the way, hardly covers the protest movement. When there were nationwide strikes over a decade ago, in 2014, the media reported on them in relative detail. Today, you might find a picture of the demonstrations somewhere in a newspaper, on page twelve or something. The lack of media coverage given to this major movement is unprecedented.

german-foreign-policy.com: Do you consider the protests a success so far?

Peter Mertens: There's always a certain dialectic at work. First, there is a "No": people are angry about certain government measures. The fact that people don't express their anger by sitting in their armchairs in front of the TV and throwing their slippers at them, but instead become active and act together in the street, is very important; it's a significant step forward, often underestimated. The art of organizing, the art of winning people over to a movement, is decisive.

You see, there are two sides to every expression of anger. On the one hand, there's the bitterness, the sense of being powerless as an individual. The far right knows exactly how to exploit this. We try to turn the anger and class hatred – this "No", so to speak – into something positive. It starts at a very basic level: we have to convince people to take to the streets, to act together. The system wants people to feel small and powerless. It tries to destroy all belief in collective strength, through intimidation, through repression. If people believe that their action is in vain and that their adversary is invincible, they give up. It's deliberate manipulation, a deliberate distortion of people's perceptions. The message is clear: there's no alternative, there's nothing we can do, "they" are too powerful, everything has already been decided. This is exactly what we on the left have to fight against. We need to restore people's faith in their collective strength.

And if we consider the socio-economic aspect, every demonstration, every strike has pushed back the government to some extent. The pension reform has not yet been implemented. Although not completely dropped, it has already been considerably weakened on several fronts thanks to the pressure the movement has exerted on the government. There are also many contradictions within the government. Without the protests, these contradictions would not be so serious. Discussions are being held, for example, about how to deal with today's high energy prices, which are a consequence of the illegal wars waged by Trump and Netanyahu, along with all those in Europe who are supporting these illegal wars.​ It's clear that life is becoming more and more expensive for people. One wing of the government wants to make their austerity policy even tougher. The other wing considers this impossible, which again is thanks to the mass protest movement. Without this movement, there would be perfect unity within the government.

It remains to be seen whether the current Belgian government will remain in office until the end of 2026. It's under enormous pressure, there's a lot of tension within the government, and even though this wasn't the primary aim of the protest movement, it is nonetheless a consequence of the pressure it is exerting. The contradictions within the government are also, of course, being exacerbated by the pressure exerted by the socialist trade union – one of Belgium's largest – on the Flemish social democrats who are part of the government. And that's perfectly understandable when you consider that the social democrats are heading a government that is pursuing a policy contrary to everything the socialists have ever fought for.

german-foreign-policy.com: What role does militarization play in the social cuts imposed by the Belgian government?

Peter Mertens: I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the government is trying to sweep an elephant under the carpet. It's rather difficult, however, because an elephant is quite large, and the elephant in the room, in this case the military budget, which amounted to 3.9 billion euros in 2017, has kept growing, reaching 12.7 billion euros in 2025 – more than triple in just eight years. It's crazy. And yet, the government has promised Mr. Trump that it will increase the military budget to 22 billion euros, which would amount to 3.5 percent of Belgium's GDP. The Belgian government cannot run up a debt, like the German government, to reach 22 billion euros. So it has to cut spending in other areas.

This can be seen in the debates in parliament: every ministerial department is pretty depressed – they all have to implement austerity measures. The situation is drastic. As a result, the prison system is completely collapsing, the healthcare system is crumbling under the weight of austerity measures, and care staff are suffering from excess workloads and chronic understaffing. So all the ministers are a bit downhearted – except the Minister of Defence, who is beaming with joy. He'll be able to spend billions and billions in the years to come. The ministers themselves say: if they have to choose between cannons and butter, they choose cannons.
We have a far-right Minister of Defence who likes to be called a "Minister of War" like Pete Hegseth – Theo Francken, a very Trumpist figure. He says: "Well, we have to adopt the US model in Belgium, and if that means attacking social security systems with chainsaws, then we'll do it." If that means people have to pay 1,000 euros for dental treatment – I'm quoting him word for word – then they'll have to pay 1,000 euros. In his view, we can no longer afford the "Cuban model of free medicine". So the government itself is associating militarization with austerity measures.

There was recently a scandal in Belgium. Do you remember the drones that were spotted all over Europe last year? In Belgium, too, it made the headlines; at one point, the national airport at Zaventem even had to be closed due to a supposedly imminent threat. We were told they were Russian drones, and that we urgently had to purchase expensive military equipment to shoot them down and protect ourselves from the Russian threat. However, a recent investigative report by the public broadcaster revealed two explosive facts. The images of the alleged drones over Zaventem airport actually showed a police helicopter. And the second revelation is even more astounding: it would appear that it was Defence Minister Theo Francken himself who leaked the images to the press. People are laughing at him now, as it becomes increasingly clear that the government is making up stories to sow fear and to justify military spending. In a way, I'd like to thank our Minister of War for lying so openly to the public.

german-foreign-policy.com: It's clear, then, that militarization is closely linked to social spending cuts. Do you think we can also draw a link between the protests against these two things – that is, between the protests against militarization and those against social cuts?

Peter Mertens: It's the same people footing the bill for both: for the wars and the austerity measures. This link is now difficult to ignore. What's added to military spending is taken away from social spending – it's almost a one-to-one ratio. This has to be our starting point.

And we must not give up the fight for these existential issues. I sometimes hear this question: "Is it really worth taking to the streets for pensions and wages, when everything is going to be wiped out by a devastating war?" My answer is: it's worth it. Whether it's pensions or wages, housing or energy prices, childcare or care for the elderly, why should we abandon the working class to the far-right charlatans of Hamelin?

But we need to link this to the fight against militarization and war. The contradiction between labour and capital is inherent to the system and rooted in capitalism itself. In its quest for maximum profit, capitalism leads to crises and war. Climate collapse, food crises, crushing debt, economic and military conflicts: capitalism has no solution to these challenges. Only socialism has one. This is the argument I develop in my new book, which will be out soon.

german-foreign-policy.com: Does the fact that NATO has its headquarters and a large number of employees in Belgium have any impact on the political situation in your country? When it comes to NATO, Brussels is in the eye of the storm, so to speak.

Peter Mertens: That's right. When it comes to militarization, the situation in Belgium cannot be compared to that in Germany. There's the fact that NATO has its headquarters in Brussels, where some 4,000 people are employed. Another 1,700 people work at SHAPE in Mons. This is of considerable importance. It's important from a military point of view. This objectively makes Belgium an integral part of the US war machine – that's a simple fact. The wars are planned and waged from Belgian territory, from Mons. This is often underestimated.

Take a look at the new US National Security Strategy. It contains three pages devoted to Europe, in which the Trump administration describes its strategy to undermine European unity by supporting so-called patriotic forces. I'm simply quoting the wording as it appears in the document. US embassies play a key role here. The US embassy in Belgium is very aggressive and actively interferes in Belgian politics. It's a new kind of diplomacy, an aggressive "anti-diplomacy", if you will. Behind the scenes, in Brussels, the entire NATO and SHAPE network also plays a role.

In the run-up to the 2024 elections, the PTB-PVDA was the only party to speak out against NATO. This was certainly not our main concern, but the other parties and the media tried to undermine us by claiming that we were a purely anti-NATO party. We didn't bring it to the fore, but our political opponents did – and to be honest, it worked very well. Now, two years later, we can say: this position of questioning NATO and recognizing that it is a war machine, more and more people are open to it, given recent events. People felt the "Greenland moment" when Trump announced he was ready to buy Greenland from Denmark. People picked up on it when NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte admitted that NATO was an instrument of US intervention.

We've always maintained that NATO is an instrument of the United States, but we've always been accused of spreading Russian propaganda. Today, NATO's Secretary General himself confirms this. What's more, Trump is behaving like a madman, calling NATO a paper tiger for not officially taking part in the illegal war against Iran. The fact is, NATO members are of course involved – just think of Ramstein and all the other US bases used to wage war. The current horror of the war in Iran would not be possible without Ramstein. Today, Trump and the contradictions between the imperialists are showing what NATO really is.

german-foreign-policy.com: In Germany, there have been widespread school strikes against compulsory military service; the next one is scheduled for 8 May. Will there be compulsory military service in Belgium too?

Peter Mertens: There is voluntary military service here, which was introduced by the current Minister of War, Theo Francken. His ministry sends every 17-year-old male a letter inviting him to take part in voluntary military service. This is just the first step in mentally preparing people for militarization. You see, the government doesn't send a letter to every adult informing them that they're short of care workers, engineers, etc., and asking people to pick up the slack. Of course the government doesn't do that. The conscription letter is clearly intended to prepare people mentally and emotionally for militarization and war.

I would like to express my respect for the young people who organized the two strikes against compulsory military service in Germany. We support them. Our youth organizations try to draw inspiration from them. What they do inspires us. It's impressive that they managed to mobilize around 55,000 people on a clearly anti-militarist basis. One of the chapters in my new book tells the story of the school strikes in Germany. It's not so much the number of people who take to the streets that counts, but the gesture in itself. Every movement begins by saying "No". This first stage is often more difficult than the second, fifth or sixth. So the school strikes are really a great initiative.

Two years ago, a survey of 18 to 25-year-olds was carried out in the Netherlands. It revealed that three quarters of them were opposed to compulsory military service. So I think that, among the younger generation, the feeling that people instinctively want peace still prevails. No one comes into this world thinking: "I want to end my life at the age of 18 in a dirty trench full of mustard gas." No one dreams of that, surely.

german-foreign-policy.com:  How dangerous do you think the current political situation is? In a recent speech, you referred to the "five Ds" of 1945 and compared them to the current situation in the EU. It seems quite serious.

Peter Mertens: I like the idea that when fascism was defeated the Allies discussed how to deal with its roots, at Yalta. Of course, capitalism is the main root of all this, and only the German Democratic Republic really tried to eradicate it. But it's important to remember that such a discussion also took place among the Western Allies. Finally, the Allies identified the "five Ds" for ending fascism: demilitarization, denazification, democratization, decentralization and decartelization. Demilitarization was of great importance for Germany. What has now been almost completely forgotten is that monopolies were also dismantled. The Allies split IG Farben into BASF, Bayer and Hoechst, for example.

Why? Well, back then, there was a consensus that the concentration of economic power in the hands of the big monopolies was one of the main causes of militarization and war, simply because monopolies are always looking for higher profits. They are driven by a thirst for expansion that often leads to imperialist intervention and war. Awareness of the link between immense, concentrated economic power – at the time, for example, that of Thyssen, Krupp and others – and militarization and war was very much present in 1945 and the years immediately following. When I was writing my book, I learned that the CDU's 1947 Ahlen Programme included the demand to put an end to the capitalist quest for profit and power.

Today, the European Union is doing exactly the opposite of what the "five Ds" involved. It's astonishing, especially given the consensus there was on the matter in 1945. Well, let's not kid ourselves: this consensus only existed because of the counterweight provided by the USSR; but it did exist. Today, the EU is promoting militarization instead of demilitarization, authoritarianism instead of democratization, centralization instead of decentralization, big monopolies instead of de-monopolization – just think of the rhetoric about so-called "European champions". And then, of course, there's the normalization of the far right. The anti-Yalta trajectory of European capitalism is truly astounding.

german-foreign-policy.com: Is there still any hope of this catastrophic development being stopped?

Peter Mertens: Right now, a lot of people are wondering: are we living in a madhouse? Has the world gone completely mad? Every day, when we wake up, we don't know what's going to happen, let alone what Trump is going to do. European politicians claim to want autonomy for their countries, but at the same time they continue to make military bases available for illegal wars in the Middle East. On the one hand, they oppose Trump; on the other, they applaud Marco Rubio's speech at the Munich Security Conference. No one knows where we are or what the goal is. Why can't we reach a diplomatic agreement – if only a provisional one – with Russia to end the war in Ukraine? Why do we continue to support Israel when it is now extending to Lebanon the destruction it caused in Gaza?
I think we need to act on two fronts. It's very important that we continue to deal with the day-to-day problems; we must never leave them to the extreme right, and must try, rather, to defend workers' rights in the broadest sense, and as best we can. But we also need to question the entire economic system, as was done in 1945 and the years immediately following. We need to put an end to monopoly capitalism, because it carries with it a drive for expansion and war. What we need is socialism. What's the point of an autonomous Europe if that autonomous Europe is just a pale imitation of Trump's United States? Why send frigates to the Indo-Pacific? Why sell German submarines to Israel? Why on earth should we imitate this type of imperialism? We've been down this road before: when Europe was a colonial power, it set the whole world on fire.

Europe's real future lies not in being an imperialist power, but in becoming a socialist continent where normal things finally return to normal: healthcare, education and so on. It's hard to question the system, but I believe that people don't want to endlessly fight over everyday things; they want a real solution to their problems, they want a goal worth fighting for, not just a little change in Parliament, where a comma is added to a new law to avoid the worst. We don't need crumbs, we don't need a single loaf of bread, we need an entire bakery.

german-foreign-policy.com : You have just finished writing a new book, which is soon to be published. What is it about?

Peter Mertens: It's called The Last Days of the Old Normal and looks at the militarization of Europe and relations between Europe and the United States. I try to develop the argument that we need to break with American imperialism, but not for the sake of emancipating European imperialism. What we need instead is a socialist Europe. That's the goal. Let's try to keep this clearly in sight in this rapidly changing, confusing and dangerous world.