THE BELGIAN DEMANDS.
TT is sincerely to be hoped that the questions between .I.. Belgium and Holland will be satisfactorily settled, for they concern many others besides the principals in the dispute. Unless Belgium feels that her security is guaran- teed and that her grievances with regard to her waterways are removed, the settlement of the Peace Conference will not in itself be an improvement upon the old Belgian arrange- ment which ended so disastrously in war. The Belgian claims may be divided into two parts. There are first those which concern the sovereignty and the navigation rights on the Schelde and the Meuse, and there are secondly those which concern the " lost provinces " of Belgium. Zeeland Flanders and Dutch Limburg are in their way the Alsace- Lorraine of Belgium. But these provinces have been under Dutch rule so long, and; according to some accounts, have been so far absorbed into Dutch ways of life, that the interests of the majority of the population might be best served by leaving them where they are. On the question of the lost provinces Belgian opinion itself is divided. We do not propose to discuss this matter now, and we certainly have no present inclination to think that Belgium would have a glievance if she could not establish a right which she has in any case yet to prove. It has been said, of course, that the territorial claims of Belgium have had' a certain amount of official support, and documents have been published in Holland and elsewhere in evidence. But it must be remembered that a great deal of propaganda work is going on at this crisis of the Belgian-Dutch contro- versy, and it is difficult to distinguish between evidence which is genuine and• that which is not. Particularly one must bear in mind that a subtle influence is being exercised by the Activists—those Flemings who accepted the German occupation and laboured on behalf of. Germany. Now as regards what-seem to us to be the undoubtedly legitimate grievances of Belgium. Neither on the Schelde nor on the Meuse has Belgium the key to her own house. The great city of Antwerp has no absolute access to the sea, as the Lower Schelde runs entirely through Dutch territory, On the Meuse there is the obstacle of Maes- tricht. Though many accommodations in the past between Holland and Belgium have been made, Belgium has had to pay for them pretty heavily, and the truth is that if Holland ever cared to " turn nasty," Antwerp could be entirely cut off from the sea. In war it would be impossible to send men or food by sea to Antwerp. We are, however; looking at the matter now rather from the point of view of peace than from that of war, and there seems to be no reason why Belgium should be an exception to the rule laid down by the Peace Conference that every nation should have a guaranteed access to the sea. We all know what a strong point has been made of the necessity of giving Poland a free overland passage to her port. The invention of the precarious- corridor system was the price paid. On both the Danube and the Vistula traffic has been freed from all restrictions. No wonder then that Belgium is asking for a revision of the Treaties of 1839. A most useful summary of the triangular negotiations between Belgium, Holland; and the Peace Conference was published by M. Emile Caramaerts in the New Europe of July 31st. Since Belgian neutrality had been destroyed, it became' obviously necessary to examine the relations of Holland and Belgium in the light of the new situation. The Council of Ten at once handed the problem over to a specially appointed Commission—the Commission for Belgian Affairs. In a short time this Commission adopted a resolu- tion to the effect that as- the Treaties of 1839 had been Imposed as a whole they must be revised as a whole, and that such a revision was necessary. The general aim of this revision, the resolution went on, " must be to liberate Belgium from the limitations of sovereignty imposed upon her by the 1839 Treaties ; and to do away with the risks and various inconveniences resulting from the aforesaid Treaties in her own interest and in that of the general peace." The resolution was accepted unanimously by the Supreme Council, and thus it was decided that the Belgian question was not a mere issue between Holland and Belgium but was an international question. The " risks " suffered by Belgium and mentioned in the resolution refer no doubt to the fact that, being in a subordinate position to Holland on both the Schelde and the Meuse, Belgium is deprived of strategical frontiers. The " inconveniences " refer of course to the impediments to the development of the ports of Antwerp and Ghent owing to Dutch sovereignty over the Schelde and the Terneuzen Canal and owing to the Maestricht enclave on the Meuse. That first stage of the negotiations was quite satisfactory to Belgium; but a second stage followed. This began with the institution by the Supreme Council of a Conference including the five Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Great Powers and representatives of Belgium and Holland. M. Hymens, the Belgian representative, who made no territorial claims, though popular report has credited him with them, urged that Belgian sovereignty should be extended to the Lower Schelde ; that Belgium should also be given sovereignty over the canal and railway from Ghent to Terneuzen ; should be safeguarded in Southern Limburg against aggression from the East ; and should be guaranteed free communications by water between Liege and Antwerp. The Dutch representative took the line that Holland was in no sense pledged to accept revision of the 1839 Treaties, and that any negotiations should be conducted between Belgium and Holland without outside interference. In other words, the Dutch argument was that the question was not international, and that Belgium must be at the mercy of Holland. The last point could not be disguised by all the undeniable courtesy, and no doubt excellent intentions, of Holland. The Conference tried to conciliate these opposing arguments by adopting a curious resolution. They determined to entrust the revision of the Treaties to a Commission including representatives of the Five Powers and of Belgium and Holland, on the under- standing that revision should involve " neither transfer of territory nor of international servitudes." " The Commis- sion," it was added, " will invite from Belgium.and Holland common formulas in reference to navigable waterways inspired by the general principles adopted by the Peace Conference." The upshot of the second stage of the negotiations appears to be in fact a contradiction of the first stage. For Belgium already enjoys on the Schelde and in Limburg " international servitudes," as the old legal phrase is, granted to her by the 1839 Treaties. As M. Cam- maerts says, the only way to revise them would be to transfer the sovereignty over-the contested waterways from one nation to the other. Yet transference is prohibited. It may be that the wording of the second resolution is not to be taken too literally, and that, though there is a verbal contradiction, between the first stage and the second stage of the negotiations, there is no contradiction in purpose. We hope it may be so. From the beginning the Great Powers held the only sensible opinion that the future position of Belgium was the concern of all the world. At present the Belgian Government are whispering that they may withdraw altogether from the negotiations. It would be a calamity if the matter were not settled so that Dutch and Belgians may live as friendly neighbours. It is not right to leave Belgium at the mercy of Holland. The trade rivalry of the two is symbolized by the age-long rivalry between the great cities of Antwerp and Rotterdam. If ever there were a case for international settlement this is one.
Previous page
