Minister Wilson to the Secretary of State.
Brussels, December 18, 1906.
Sir: I have the honor to report to the department the proceedings and conclusion of the debate in the Belgian Parliament upon the question of the proposed annexation of the Kongo Free State to Belgium.
It may be useful at this point briefly to recite the antecedents upon which the present discussion is based, and the circumstances which have made this question since 1890 an issue in Belgian politics.
In the year 1890 the Kongo Free State, finding itself in financial stress, secured from Belgium a loan of $5,000,000, and simultaneously with the granting of the loan by the Belgian Government, of which the present minister of state, Mr. Beernaert, was then the head, the testament of King Leopold bequeathing the Kongo State to Belgium was made public. Though by its publication this testament transferring the sovereignty of the country acquired the force of a quasi-convention, the Belgian Government deemed it wise to take the additional precaution of stipulating, in granting the loan, that the Kongo State should “contract no new loan hereafter without the consent of the Belgian Government,” and, further, “the Belgian Government should be supplied with such information on the economic, commercial, and financial situation as will be desired.”
It was also provided that within six months after the expiration of a term of ten years Belgium might, if she found it to her advantage to do so, annex the Kongo State, “with all the property, rights, and advantages attaching to the sovereignty of the State.”
The year of 1895 found the Kongo State involved in fresh financial difficulties, and application was again made to the Belgian Government for authorization to contract a new loan. At the same time His [Page 796] Majesty the King announced his willingness to cede the sovereignty immediately. A measure providing for annexation was accordingly proposed to the Chambers on January 12 by the Count de Merode, Minister for Foreign Affairs. It met, however, with determined opposition, principally from sources which at the present time are supporting annexation. The discussion was prolonged until May 18, when a proposal was made, without qualification or stipulation, that an additional loan be granted.
On this question the Count de Merode resigned his portfolio. The loan, however, was granted, and during the next session the government withdrew the bill for annexation.
It is evident that during all this time His Majesty the King was willing, if not desirous, of transferring the sovereignty of the Kongo State to Belgium. But when the period fixed for the expiration of the right of Belgium to annex arrived in 1901 the situation had entirely changed.
In the intervening period the Kongo Free State had ceased to be a burden, and had become a very profitable source of income to the royal exchequer, and the royal disinclination to hand over the valuable revenues to Belgium became more marked as the revenues increased.
In accordance therefore with His Majesty’s desires, it was proposed to, and accepted by, the Belgian Parliament that in recognition of the signal success of the King’s administration the right of annexation previously conceded should be waived as to any fixed time, though the right itself was not otherwise modified.
The direct result of this legislation was that the conditions of the convention of 1890 were abrogated, and the Kongo royal revenues were freed from the necessity of meeting the interest of the loan of 1890. Belgium retained the right of annexation, but lost the right of demanding reports on the Kongo budget, and also the right of limiting the power of the King to contract other loans or grant additional concessions.
This situation, highly satisfactory to the King but not wholly so to Belgium, was not arrived at without the exercise of the full influence of the royal prestige and the strenuous exertions of the government party.
The dissatisfaction with existing conditions in the Kongo has, since the enactment of this legislation, been steadily growing, and the popular discontent found expression following the publication of the pamphlet on the Kongo by Mr. Félicien Cattier in a prolonged and vigorous debate during the last session of Parliament.
This discussion bore fruit in the reluctant agreement of the King to appoint a commission to inquire into the administration of the Kongo and report the result of their findings. The report of this commission, which was forwarded to the department in my No. 64, led to the appointment of a commission on reforms, whose report, containing numerous and valuable recommendations for the betterment of conditions in the Kongo, was forwarded to the department in my No. 99.a
In issuing the royal decrees to carry into effect the recommendations of this report His Majesty at the same time addressed a letter to the secretaries-general of the state.
[Page 797]The Belgian Parliament assembled under the pressure of a vigorous public opinion which demanded an early and definite solution of the question in harmony with Belgian interests.
Coincident with the opening of the session, an interpellation was made by Mr. Hymans (Liberal) on the “situation created for Belgium, with reference to the eventual annexation of the Kongo by the letter of the King Sovereign, dated June 3 last, and the testamentary act thereto appended.”
Some twelve or fifteen members participated in the discussion following this interpellation, but it will not be necessary to give more than an outline of the arguments.
Preliminary to the discussion, the premier, Count de Smet de Naeyer, stated that the Government was not wholly adverse to annexation, realizing that great advantages might result therefrom. He stated that a condition precedent to annexation would be the existence of a law defining the régime to be introduced in the Kongo following annexation, and the negotiation of a convention for the transmission of the King’s sovereignty in the Kongo to Belgium.
Mr. Hymans then opened the discussion, under the interpellation, by asserting that this was a question to be solved independently of outside pressure and in harmony with the interests and dignity of the Belgian Kingdom.
He directed his remarks in following to the conventional right of Belgium to carry annexation into effect whenever it should see fit, holding that the convention of 1890, which was fortified by the testament of His Majesty bequeathing the Kongo to Belgium, were irrevocable acts of two sovereign powers which could not be modified, except by the free and full consent of both of them; that, as the right of annexation had never been relinquished by Belgium, it remains intact—a State within a State—requiring simply the affirmative initiative of the Belgian Parliament to put it into practical execution. He protested in a dignified but resolute way against the tone and the matter of the King’s letter of June 3 last, and said that the letter was riot only ill advised and replete with false premises and erroneous conclusions, inacceptable to the Belgian people, but was calculated to promote rather than allay interference from the outside.
Concluding, Mr. Hymans said that, preliminary to annexation, a detailed examination into the affairs of the Kongo Free State would be necessary to ascertain exactly what was being annexed, as there existed a variety of opinions not only as to the state of the Kongo’s finances, but also as to the obstacles to complete Belgium’s sovereignty created by concessions to the subjects of foreign powers, and the undefined juridical person known as the “Domain of the Crown.”
The speeches of Mr. Van den Heuvel, minister of justice, and Mr. Woeste (Government), who followed Mr. Hymans in behalf of the Government, present no essential differences. Both admitted that the right of annexation existed, though they were not equally as positive as to the advantages to be derived therefrom; both defended the King’s administration in the Kongo, asserting that the Berlin act had not been in any way violated by the granting of monopolies repugnant to the letter and spirit of that instrument, and both deprecated a preliminary examination into the affairs of the Kongo prior to annexation as a profitless and ungracious return for the royal generosity in bequeathing the Kongo to Belgium.
[Page 798]Neither speaker attempted to argue the constitutional points raised by Mr. Hymans.
Mr. Huysmans (Liberal) adopted practically the position of the Government, and, while declaring for annexation, pronounced himself as opposed to any action which might be interpreted as a reflection upon the King’s administration of the Kongo or would in any way detract from the merit and generosity of the King’s action.
Mr. Beernaert (Government) was not in accord with his party, but very nearly, if not entirely so, with Mr. Hymans.
He spoke with authority, as he had been premier at the time the original loan was made to the Kongo and had exercised a keen interest at that time in securing the convention with the King which is the basis of Belgium’s present rights in the Kongo.
The fact that Mr. Beernaert carried with him, in support of Mr. Hymans’s position, some twelve or thirteen government members, thus placing in doubt the Government’s position, undoubtedly exercised a very strong influence in determining the result at the conclusion of the debate.
At the conclusion of the debate it became evident that no one of the various motions which had been submitted had a majority, and it was therefore determined at a consultation between the liberal and governmental forces that a new “ordre du jour,” or motion, should be framed which would meet the demands of public opinion and command a healthy majority in the chamber.
The following “ordre du jour,” or motion, was therefore submitted and adopted, with only 30 (Socialists) votes dissenting:
The Chamber,
Referring to the order of the day voted at the session of March 2, 1906;
Rendering homage to the greatness of the work in the Kongo and of the patriotic intentions of its founder;
Convinced that the civilized ideas which governed the establishment of the Independent State should continue to occupy the first place in the consideration of the country;
Considering that Belgium is authorized by the royal testament of August 2, 1889, to exercise full sovereignty over the independent State of the Kongo; that it possess also the right to annex the Kongo in virtue of the royal letter of August 5, 1889, and of the law of August 10, 1901, asserting the principle contained in the convention of July 2, 1890; and that it is to the interest of the country to definitely determine the question of annexation during the lifetime of the King;
Acting on the statements of the Government according to which the declarations contained in the letter of the 3d of June do not constitute condition, “but solemn recommendations;” the convention determining the session will only have In view the completion of the transfer and the prescription of the executive measures connected therewith; the Belgian legislative power will exercise full right of control in instituting the régime for the colonial possessions;
Considering that the committee charged with the examination of the bill of August 7, 1901, relative to the régime of colonial possessions, should be advised to adapt said régime to the conditions and needs of the independent State of the Kongo, and should have at its disposition for this purpose all the information necessary for drafting the law;
Acting on the declaration of the Government that it is ready to give its assistance in furnishing the committee all documents necessary to the elaboration of a law for colonial possessions;
Desiring, without prejudging the conclusion, to have the question of annexation of the Kongo submitted to it within as brief a delay as possible, in accordance with the views expressed by the Government;
Gives expression to the wish that the committee should hurry its work and report in as brief a delay as possible.
The ordre du jour is adopted.
It will be noted from reading the “ordre du jour” that three definite and important declarations are made:
- First, the conventional right of Belgium to annex the Kongo in such manner and at such time as the Belgian legislative power may determine.
- Second, that the necessity for prompt and diligent action by the committee having the colonial law in charge is urgent.
- Third, that the Kongo administration is charged to immediately furnish the committee full information as to the present status of the Kongo State.
By the affirmation of Belgium’s conventional right to exercise sovereignty over the Kongo, the conflict between the King as absolute sovereign of the Kongo and the Belgian legislative power ceases, and a free hand is given for the institution of a Belgian colonial régime whenever the Belgian Parliament shall determine upon annexation.
By the injunction of haste to the committee, the Belgian legislative power announces its intention to accomplish annexation as soon as the details essential to the framework of the colonial law shall come into its possession.
By the instruction to the committee to receive, and the Kongo administration to furnish, all essential details of the nature, scope, and condition of the present Kongo régime, notice is given to the world that light will be shed upon an hitherto impenetrable situation, and, further, that as a condition precedent to annexation it must be demonstrated that there is something to annex.
A great forward step toward annexation has therefore been taken, and the question of the right of annexation having been clearly and definitely settled, it may be anticipated that the logical and certain resultant therefrom will be annexation itself within a year, unless it should be discovered in the investigation made into the existing system that carrying the right to its conclusion would involve Belgium in great difficulties without adequate compensation.
The further developments in the situation will be noted and reported to the department from time to time.
As of possible use to the department, I inclose copies of the “Compte Rendu Analytique,” which contains in the French text a resume of the debates.a
I have, etc.,
- Printed, Foreign Relations, 1906, p. 100.↩
- Not printed.↩