Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 7, 1909
Ambassador Reid to the Secretary of State.
London, June 16, 1909.
Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of a note from Sir Edward Grey to the Count de Lalaing, the Belgian minister in London, dated the 11th instant, and also copy of the reply of His Majesty’s Government to the Belgium minister’s memorandum of the 15th of March to which the same refers.
I also inclose copy of the Belgian minister’s memorandum of the 15th of March.
I have, etc.,
Memorandum from the Belgian Minister, March 15, 1909.
In the memorandum which His Britannic Majesty’s secretary of state for foreign affairs transmitted to the Count de Lalaing on the 14th November, 1908,1 relative to the annexation of the Independent State of the Kongo by Belgium, the attention of the Belgian Government was called in the first place to a point upon which His Britannic Majesty’s Government lay stress as one of the motives of their intervention in this question, viz, the proximity of the British possessions in Africa to the territory of the Independent State of the Kongo. In view of that proximity, His Britannic Majesty’s Government appear anxious lest the manner in which the Independent State has been governed, and which in their eyes differs from that obtaining in neighboring countries, should injuriously affect the kindred tribes lving in British territory. They desire, therefore, to receive precise information as to the views and intentions of the new administration.
With a view to allaying the anxieties of His Majesty’s Government, the Belgian Government can not do better than remind them that, during the past twenty-five years, no frontier incident has occurred between the Independent State and British possessions which could be ascribed to the administration of the territories bordering on those possessions. The danger apprehended by His Majesty’s Government has not arisen during the whole existence of the Independent State and there is no reason to suppose that it will now arise under Belgian administration.
[Page 404]In addition to their right to secure the peace of their own borders, His Majesty’s Government in their memorandum recall the declarations exchanged with the international association of the Kongo on the 16th December, 1884, in order to justify their demand that the transfer of sovereignty shall be accompanied by the introduction into the Kongo of a system of government which will correspond more nearly with the intentions of the signatories of those declarations; it is expressly stated that the international association was created for the purpose of promoting the civilization and commerce of Africa, and for other humane and benevolent purposes.
Is it not now really superfluous to prove how little foundation there is for the fears of His Majesty’s Government? Is it necessary to repeat again that in taking the place in Africa of the Independent State, itself the outcome of the international association, Belgium has adopted all the declarations exchanged by the association with Great Britain, and that she will continue to carry out the civilizing and humane objects which the signatories of the 1884 arrangement had in view? Ample proof of this is forthcoming from the formal assurances given in the Belgium Parliament by members of the Government during the debates on the subject of the annexation of the Kongo State.
In statements made in public, as well as in former communications addressed to the British Government, the Belgian Government in the full exercise of their rights have confirmed their determination to insure the promotion of civilization in Africa while giving their attention at the same time to ameliorating the lot of the native population, and to safeguarding the interests bound up in the colony.
“Belgium,” said the minister of the interior on the 2d July, 1908, in the Chamber, “will carry out without wavering and in a spirit of generosity her obligations under the Berlin act. She will be happy and proud to add this mission of civilization and this economic task to those other undertakings which for seventy-seven years past have gained for her the commendation of the powers. She will, however, act spontaneously, depending on her rights and determined to maintain her independence and her sovereignty.”
These declarations were hopefully received by public opinion in Belgium; Parliament, on their side, clearly manifested a determination to uphold and support the cabinet in carrying out this great self-imposed undertaking. The value of obligations entered into by the Belgian Government with the nation at the time of the annexation can not be discussed or called in question. The British Government can surely be under no misapprehension as to this; their last memorandum, however, evinces some disappointment because no indication has, up to the present, been afforded as to the details of the changes which will be made, in order to improve existing conditions, nor as to the moment when such changes will be introduced.
To persist in putting forward such a request can scarcely be explained by a desire to be informed of the actual text of the amendments to be introduced into the laws and decrees in force at the present time, before such proposed amendments have been brought to the knowledge of the authorities in Belgium who will be called upon to consider them. How is it possible, in short, to ascribe to the British Government an intention to make the adoption of laws, which concern the colony and its internal administration, dependent upon a kind of preliminary approval of a foreign government?
On the other hand, scarcely four months have passed since the transfer of the Kongo administration to Belgium took place. The British Government, with their long colonial experience, will appreciate better than anybody else the inadequacy of such a short period for drawing up in their final form weighty resolutions on colonial matters, which can only be put forward after careful preparation, and with a due regard for the necessary intermediate stages.
The Belgian Chamber, during the discussion of the first colonial budget, realized that such a work could not be hastily completed, and that a government, conscious of its responsibilities, could not permit existing arrangements to be changed without having some alternatives ready to put in their place; anxiety, which would be reflected throughout the entire colony, would otherwise be aroused.
The unanimity with which on every occasion since the annexation of the Kongo the Belgian cabinet, Parliament, and all organs of public opinion have expressed themselves on the colonial question, is a proof of the lofty conception which Belgium has formed of the mission conferred upon her in Africa, as well as of her fixed determination to develop her colonial enterprise in [Page 405] harmony with the interests of civilization and in conformity with her international obligations.
The Belgian Government will not fail to give effect to their intentions in the measures which, in the full enjoyment of their independence, they intend to draw up. The new administration have devoted their first efforts to the preparation of this work, and their activity has already been revealed in several practical measures.
The British memorandum goes on to examine three points which have already been dealt with in previous memoranda:
- (a)
- The extension of the lands to be assigned to the natives for the purposes of trade and cultivation;
- (b)
- The respect of the freedom of labor, as also of the right of the natives to dispose of the produce of the lands assigned to them;
- (c)
- The question of arbitration as to the interpretation of the treaties which bind the Kongo State in matters of commerce.
As regards the first two points, the British Government take note with satisfaction of the intention expressed by the Belgian Government to give effect to the decree of the King-Sovereign of the 3d June, 1906, under which inquiries are to be instituted in the native villages with a view to determining the extent of land to be allotted to them. The British Government, however, do not consider such a measure adequate to help the natives in their traffic in the natural products of the soil, a point which, in their opinion, is essential.
They point out that the landmarks, which are said to be still in existence throughout the whole of the Kongo State, were formerly set up by the natives with the object of marking the area within which each tribe was at liberty to search for rubber, and they suggest that these landmarks might at once be utilized to determine the boundaries of the lands on which the natives would be free to trade in all natural products, and which they could cultivate for their own uses.
The Belgian Government are, it is true, aware that the presence of landmarks alluded to in the British memorandum has been noted in some few parts of the Kongo, but it is beyond question that the erection of such landmarks by the natives had no other object than to fix the political territorial limits of the tribes, and to put an end to the disputes which arose amongst natives owing allegiance to different chiefs.
In this way these landmarks may have provided useful indications when, in conformity with the decree of the 3d June, 1906, on the subject of native districts it was a question of fixing the extent of the territory over which the chiefs of the tribe should exercise authority; but their existence is of no interest from the point of view of a delimination of native lands.
While not desirous of insisting further on the objections to a measure, the practical realization of which would be impossible, owing to the fact that the existence of such marks has only been established in a very limited area of Kongolese territory, the Belgian Government feel compelled to observe that as the political territory of each tribe is coterminous with the territory of the neighboring tribe, the adoption of such a measure would have the effect of converting into common native property the whole extent of the Belgian Kongo.
Such a solution would not only be opposed to every principle of law—it would be in opposition to the actual state of affairs existing throughout the whole of equatorial Africa, and confirmed, notably in the British possessions in the conventional basin, by legislation applied to populations of the same race and in the same state of civilization as those of the Belgian Kongo.
The British Government has been good enough to indicate the methods employed by British colonial administrations for dealing with similar questions in British possessions. The Belgian Government, on their part, desire to recall the fact that in the Uganda Protectorate the division of territory into native lands and vacant lands is carried out by methods of delimitation analogous to those laid down in the Kongolese decree of 1906. They desire further to point out that in British East Africa, far from recognizing as common property all the political territory of the tribes, the administration has not granted to the native any right to real property for the reason that the native possesses no notion what the right to property means. As indicated in the report of the land commission which conducted operations in this coloney in 1904, the Government proclaimed themselves proprietors of all lands unprovided with a proprietary title, whether occupied or not. By the application of this principle the Government has been enabled to deal with certain tribes in the manner set forth in the memorandum.
[Page 406]The Belgian Government have held that the grant of lands to native communities should be governed by a consideration of existing circumstances, as well as of future requirements; that is to say, that in fixing the extent of lands granted to each tribe account should be taken of the number of individuals comprising the tribe, the methods of cultivation peculiar to primitive populations, and of the necessity of insuring as widely as possible the future development of the native communities. In carrying out the provisions of the decree of the 3d of June, 1906, the Belgian Government are acting in conformity with this principle, both in those parts which are being developed by private parties as well as in the national domain.
They are convinced that such principles applied in a manner identical with that adopted in other possessions in the conventional basin of the Kongo will provide a solution of the question of native lands in the Belgian Kongo more favorable to the interests of the natives than in the generality of colonies in equatorial Africa.
Other measures forming part of the system which is being studied by the colonial administration will result in the natives benefiting to a still greater extent from the development of the colony.
The latter portion of the British memorandum reverts to a request, already made by the cabinet of London to the Belgian Government, to be furnished with a formal assurance that the latter will not, if invited, refuse to submit to arbitration any divergence of views as to the meaning of articles of treaties which bind the Kongo State in regard to commercial questions. In view of the reasons advanced to justify a repetition of this request, the Belgian Government fear that they have not explained with sufficient clearness the conditions attached by them to their ultimate acceptance of this proposal.
The sympathy with which the Belgian Government regard a recourse to arbitration as a solution of international disputes is well known, but it appears to them impossible to admit that, amongst all the powers having possessions in the conventional basin of the Kongo, Belgium alone should enter into an engagement of such a general nature as to submit compulsorily to arbitration, whilst, for the other powers signatories of the Berlin act, arbitration, according to article 12 of that act, remains optional.
The Belgian Government find, however, no difficulty in repeating that if they were invited to refer in the last resort to The Hague tribunal a dispute arising from a divergence of views as to the interpretation of treaties binding the Kongo State they would examine any such proposal with the utmost good will, animated by the liberal views displayed in the preparation of the arbitration conventions concluded by Belgium, and reserving, as was explained in the memorandum of the 12th of July last, the sanction of Parliament as required by article 68 of the constitution.
In that event, however, they would be obliged to insure that the arbitration procedure should be in harmony with the application of article 84 of the convention drawn up at The Hague conference, of which they are one of the signatories. That article imposes on the parties to the dispute the obligation, when there is a question as to the interpretation of a treaty of which other powers are signatories, of informing in good time all powers who have signed such treaty. Each of these powers is entitled to intervene in the proceedings; if one or more avail themselves of the right, the interpretation given by the award is equally binding on them. Now, the Berlin act is a collective treaty. In order to avoid all the difficulties which might result from a different application of the clauses of this treaty in the various territories which go to make up the conventional basin of the Kongo, a result which, contrary to the spirit of the Berlin act, would set up differential treatment to the disadvantage of one of these territories, it follows that recourse to arbitration could only take place if the other powers having possessions in the conventional basin had consented beforehand to intervene in the proceedings or to accept for their possessions the interpretation given by the award.
The British memorandum makes no mention of this essential condition.
As regards the question of arbitration, the Belgian Government, on their side, must abide by their former reply, their attitude, and the reasons advanced in explanation of it, having been approved by Parliament at the time when the annexation of the Kongo was discussed. Even amongst speakers of the opposition the contention of the Government as regards the conditional acceptance of arbitration found many supporters who would not understand any departure from it now.
[Page 407]The Belgian Government in their memorandum of the 12th July1 said that, in their opinion, there was a better method than arbitration for solving questions and disputes in the conventional basin of the Kongo, and that was a direct understanding between the powers having possessions in this region. The Belgian Government adhere to their belief that such a procedure would, despite the difficulty foreseen by England of obtaining the adhesion of the different States interested, have the immense advantage of insuring the general observance of the clauses of the Berlin act and their uniform interpretation.
The British memorandum expresses in conclusion the desire that equal facilities should be given in all parts of the Kongo territory to Christian missionaries of all denominations, and to their converts, for the prosecution of their work and the free exercise of their religion.
The putting up for sale of the domain lands was duly announced in the memorandum of the 12th July. The Belgian Government intend, however, to give facilities to religious missions for the acquisition of the land necessary for the prosecution of their missionary work, whilst not submitting such land to public adjudication, as provided by the present laws for the sale and lease of the domain lands.
Favorable consideration has therefore now been given to a series of demands formulated by Protestant missions. The decisions arrived at will be brought to the knowledge of those interested as soon as the necessary alterations entailed by them in the decree of the 3d June, 1906, have been made.
As regards the choice of sites thus granted, the colonial administration will endeavor to suit the convenience of the missions, reserving to themselves, of course, the right to decide in each case, according to the right of all governments, which lands can best be alienated so as to coincide with the general interests represented by the administration.
Whilst proclaiming by one of their first acts their desire to protect all religious undertakings without distinction of nationality or creed, the Belgian Government rely upon the missionaries of all Christian denominations considering it their duty to respect the laws and public authorities of the country, the hospitality of which they enjoy.
The Belgian Government are not insensible to the reference in the British memorandum to the traditional friendship which exists between the two nations. This friendship, to which they on their side attach as much importance as His Majesty’s Government, encourages them to cherish the hope that the cabinet of London will understand that the explanations offered could not be more exact nor more detailed.
They also hope that it will be understood in England how painful it is for the Belgian people to see their intentions called in question after the innumerable proofs which have been given of their love of civilization and after the great progress which they have made and which has won for them a position of such respect. The Belgians are resolved to develop and to advance the great work accomplished by the founder of the Independent State, despite the slender means at his disposal. Neither in Africa nor in Europe will they fail in their duty, nor will they fall short of that which the civilized world expects of them.
To succeed in her colonial enterprise Belgium has need of an atmosphere of calm, of sympathy, and of confidence. At a time when she has assumed responsibilities, the gravity of which she fully realizes, she would welcome as an especially valuable encouragement an assurance that in the mind of the British Government her past history is a guaranty of her present loyal intentions.
Sir Edward Grey to Count de Lalaing.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you herewith the reply of His Majesty’s Government to the memorandum regarding the Kongo question which you were good enough to leave with me on the 15th March.
I have, etc.,
Aide mémoire.
His Majesty’s Government have given their earnest consideration to the memorandum communicated to the secretary of state for foreign affairs by the Belgian minister on the 15th March, and especially to the observations there made on three of the principal points raised in their memorandum of the 4th November last. Those points were briefly (1) the extension of the territory reserved for the natives; (2) free labor and the right of the native to dispose of the produce of the soil; (3) arbitration.
With regard to the first point, His Majesty’s Government feel bound to state that, in their opinion, the Belgian Government have been misinformed as to the nature and extent of the native boundary division; equally, they feel bound to state that they can admit no analogy between the method of assigning territory to the natives which has been adopted in the British protectorates and that adopted in the Kongo Free State.
Writer after writer of published works on this region has given copious evidence regarding the native boundaries, and His Majesty’s present vice consul in the Katanga district, who has traveled across the whole country, states that they are “known and recognized to within a foot’s breadth by the natives themselves,” a fact which “is abundantly clear to anyone traveling through the country, and it is corroborated by older residents.” In their memorandum of the 4th November His Majesty’s Government referred, it is true, to landmarks erected at a comparatively recent date to prevent disputes as to the collection of rubber, but they did not thereby commit themselves to the opinion that this was the only evidence of the rights of the various tribes in particular districts. On the contrary, they are satisfied that the country is divided up to a much greater degree than the description in the Belgian note—“exception-nellement en quelques endroits”—would imply, by perfectly well-defined boundaries indicating the extent of the tribal possessions. These boundaries sometimes follow natural features of the country and sometimes arbitrary lines, but they can always be ascertained.
His Majesty’s Government do not suggest that in all cases these boundaries are still binding on the Belgian authorities. Tribes have in many cases shifted their quarters and emigrated to new districts, and the ravages of sickness and the results of the system of administration pursued by the authorities during the last 20 years have swept away altogether the population of some districts and greatly reduced that of others.
His Majesty’s Government feel, however, that it would be undesirable to delay their recognition of the annexation of the Kongo by Belgium till an exact agreement has been reached on this question.
With regard to the second point, His Majesty’s Government consider that the restriction or destruction of native rights has prevented those opportunities for trade in the produce of the soil which were expected to be available for British subjects under treaty, but they are much more concerned to see an end put to the system of forced labor and taxation in kind which accompanied the destruction of native rights. This question is one not of argument, but of fact. Under the previous government of the Kongo in large districts, if not in the greater part of, the whole Kongo State, the forced labor exacted from men, and in many cases from women, amounted to nearly, if not quite, the whole time of an adult year after year. In the Kasai district, under the guise of trade, taxation in rubber was exacted in open defiance of the laws of the Kongo State. It was by such means that the greater part of the rubber exported from the Kongo was obtained. The export of rubber has not fallen off, and no reports have reached His Majesty’s Government to show that the amount of forced labor and illegal or excessive taxation exacted from the natives have diminished.
In the Leopoldville district, for instance, the taxation has quite recently been increased, in the case of men, from 9 to 12 francs, which amounts to 40 per cent of the earnings of a government laborer, and in the case of women from 6 to 12 francs, and this although the poverty of the country is very marked and the people have barely sufficient food for their own needs. The Belgian Government officials discourage in every possible way payments in cash, and take the chikwangue which is offered as payment in kind at 6 centimes’ worth of trade goods for a kilogram, while 25 centimes is being paid in the native market.
[Page 409]Again, a letter of the 10th December last described the visit of a Belgian official to the village of Mibenga, where, on the ground that the full tax had not been paid by the villagers, 26 men and boys, all of whom had paid their own share, were arrested, sent in chains carrying burdens a distance of 20 days’ journey to a state station, and there kept in penal servitude for six weeks.
To this state of things, so amply described in the published reports of His Majesty’s consuls, His Majesty’s Government can not give recognition and they are sure that the Belgian Government desire to put an end to it; for it is, in fact, indistinguishable from slavery. They are anxious to recognize the Belgian Government of the Kongo, but they can not do so until it is clear that the abuses of taxation and forced labor, including the system carried out by the Kasai company, have ceased, and that the treatment of the natives in these respects has been assimilated to that which is found in other European colonies. Meanwhile British subjects are unable to enter the Kongo and to trade in the natural produce of the soil, and His Majesty’s Government feel that they can not withhold their support should complaints reach them from British subjects who may be prevented from trading, owing to the fact that the natives are deprived of the rights to sell the natural produce of the soil.
Whether the application of the decree of the 3d June, 1906, will restore the freedom of trade, which His Majesty’s Government believed to have been secured by the act of Berlin and the convention of 1884 between Great Britain and the Kongo, His Majesty’s Government can not foresee. They have already had the honor to point out in the memorandum of the 4th November that a delimitation of the land to be assigned to a native village in accordance with the decree of 1906 will not by itself provide a sufficient remedy for existing conditions if it is based solely upon the extent of land required for purposes of cultivation, and takes no account of the extent of land to which the natives, unless they are to be deprived of all right to trade in the produce of the soil, are clearly entitled.
Any differences of opinion with regard to commercial rights under treaties His Majesty’s Government would desire to refer to arbitration, but it is obvious that arbitration can not take place so long as one of the parties has not recognized the annexation of the Kongo State by Belgium.
His Majesty’s Government anxiously await reports from the Kongo which will show that the Belgian Government have succeeded in stopping the system of forced labor which has hitherto prevailed, for His Majesty’s Government are sure that the Belgian Government will agree that a system such as that described in British and American consular reports is indefensible.