BELGIUM AND THE CONGO.
LTO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—" Recent events have, unhappily, led to the belief that the confidence in the rulers of Belgium, very properly assumed by H.M. Government, has been misplaced." That sentence in the recently issued "Appeal to the Nation" was criticised in some quarters. If the sentiment it expressed then was justi- fied by the facts, bow much more is it justified by a careful perusal of the Treaty of Cession drawn up by the King's mandatories, and countersigned by the Belgian Government. Since the "Belgian solution" was adopted by his Majesty's Government last August twelvemonth, it has been defended mainly on the ground that they conceived as impossible that the Constitutional rulers of Belgium could do otherwise than bring in a scheme of annexation which would do away with the present system, and at the same time provide primarily for the interests of Belgium as opposed to the interests of those who for fifteen years have robbed and decimated the natives, and plundered a real or hypothetical Belgian dependency.
The belief may have been sincere, or it may have been diplomatic. It included, in any case, a loudly proclaimed certificate of virtue for the Cabinet of the late M. de Trooz, and showed a reluctance to examine too closely either its singular composition or its still more singular antecedents. Be that as it may, we have been urged to place confidence in the Belgian Government, despite the Annexation Bill (Colonial Law) which they produced, and which came as so rude a shock that it brought forth the "Appeal to the Nation "; and we were told that the Treaty of Cession would prove that Government's desire to recognise their duties to civilisation.
The documents which, after months of waiting, have now been issued comprise a Treaty, Preamble, Report, and voluminous Annexes. The first three are unintelligible without the last. Together they afford the clearest proof —unnecessary to some of us—that in the present condition of political life in Belgium it is impossible for any Belgian Government to act independently of Royal pressure in any- thing that touches the Congo; that Belgium pirouettes in the Congo's wake, not the Congo in Belgium's ; and that the ruling element in Belgium cannot be trusted to do justice to the native population of the Congo.
From the last point of view it suffices to state that the present system under the Treaty is affected not one iota. All the gigantic monopolies in land and in the produce of the soil, including the monopoly of the Crown, remain intact. They cover over three-fifths of the area of the State. Through- out this enormous area the native is a serf with no rights in land, save, theoretically, where he has built his hut or where he cultivates his foodstuffs, when he has time to ; and with no rights in the natural produce of his soil. Native economic expansion—the enrichment of native communities through the development of commerce—is made impossible. Com- mercial intercourse is wiped out by agreements made binding upon Belgium, but invalid in international law, until 1938, 1960, 1980, and even in some cases until 2005 A.D. The natural wealth of the country and the bodies of the people in it—if there are any people left by that time—belong to the handful of Belgian financiers who have exploited both since the new • " lialpi n. Rice," 2 W.B. 1901, p. 593.
dispensation was ordained in the secret circulars of 1891-92. So much for the future.
But these documents also reveal the present, to some extent. And that which is revealed to us is a revenue reposing to the extent of 62 per cent. of its total upon natural produce obtained by forced,, labour,—euphemistically so called; an expenditure a few pounds less, composed to the extent of 28 per cent. of military expenditure and interest charges upon a debt raised in some cases at heavy discount, and expended no one knows how (certainly not upon the Congo); assets made out to be £4,893,474, of which £1,236,606 is composed of real estate, museums, and public buildings in Belgium (bought or constructed out of sums pillaged from the revenue!) ; and 22,391,552 of stock held in the monopolies, stock which has already depreciated since the Schedule was drawn up to the value of £486,000, and which would fall utterly to pieces the moment legitimate commercial inter- course was reintroduced into the country.
"The most convinced annexationist," writes a Belgian Deputy to me, "recoils from this Treaty in horror." This is the result of trusting to the rulers of Belgium. That for Belgium to take over the burden of the Congo single-handed after these revelations would be madness is as clear as that it would be criminal folly on the part of Europe—on the part of Britain especially—to push her into doing so. Even if Belgium forced the King to abdicate his person and his pretensions, the burden would be too heavy. To administer the country might not cost as much as a Belgian official, who knows it well, told me the other day, £1,250,000 per annum ; but it would certainly cost more than half that amount ; and a large proportion of the territory is a squeezed lemon.
But that, after all, is not the main subject from our point of view. Four years have elapsed since Consul Casement's Report confirmed the unofficial testimony of a decade. The case against the Congo State was completed with the publication of the Report of King Leopold's Com- mission at the end of 1905. Since then the British Government and the Congo Reform Association have published evidence, abundant and detailed, showing that nothing has been changed. Within the last few weeks the British and the American Governments have received from their Consular Staff in the Congo still further corroboration. The greatest human tragedy of modern times drags on its uninterrupted course. We are confronted, in Belgium, with two alternatives, and with one positive fact. Of the alterna- tives, one is a rejection of the Treaty by the Chamber and a return to the status quo ante, followed by an interminable vista of internal quarrelling, the reformers at sixes and sevens as to what they want. The other is the thrusting of the Treaty through the Belgian Chamber by a narrow majority, which brings us face to face with a grave European complication in addition to an African scandal. The one positive fact is that neither of the two political parties in Belgium which command the polls has shown the slightest indication of recommending to the Belgian electorate an annexation of the Congo which would involve the Belgian taxpayer in expenditure and replace dividends by grants-in- aid, the only medium through which justice to the native population can come.
What are we going to do? The American Government is said on good authority to be anxious to fulfil the moral obligations it contracted in 1884 when it recognised—first among the Governments to do so—the flag of the Inter- national Association as the flag of a" beneficent and humane" Government. Are we less anxious to do so P The inter- national horizon is clearer than it has been for years. There are solid grounds for believing that any opposition which might have been expected at one time from Germany is not now to ):)e looked for. But some one must give the lead. Is it conceivable that an Anglo-American lead would fail in its object ? What is there to fear? Is our immense power impotent in the face of a moral issue in which we as a people have such definite and peculiar responsibilities ? And is our vaunted Christianity such a thing of shreds and patches and make-believe that we cannot derive from it sufficient strength to grapple with an evil which the apathy of European states- men has allowed to grow to its present dimensions ? Is the coming year to bring no relief to an enslaved and tortured public opinion makes is that the Belgian people wish to annex the Congo. Voluntarily or involuntarily, this is looked upon in certain quarters as an established truth. I maintain, on the contrary, that if a Referendum were taken there would be an overwhelming majority against annexation. The Belgian Constitution. does not provide for a Referendum, but a vote of the Chambers is sufficient to enrich the Constitution in that regard. But there is another means of securing a national vote,—viz., by a Dissolution of the Chambers. In any case there are to be partial elections in May. If the Chambers were dissolved at this moment, a truly national vote could be taken. Meanwhile it is ridiculous to accuse Congo reformers of offending the susceptibilities of the Belgian people because we object to the clique which has made hay of the interests of the Belgian people prolonging its operations in Africa.
Previous page
