Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Council of Foreign Ministers, Volume II

740.00119 EW/11–1446

[Translation]

Memorandum by the Belgian Government³¹

New York, November 14, 1946.

A. Proposal Relating to a Rectification of the Germano-Belgian Boundary

I

By Article 34 of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany renounced, in Belgium’s favor, all rights and claims on the territories comprising the entire districts (Kreise) of Eupen and Malmédy.

An International Commission constituted by virtue of Article 35 of the same Treaty was charged with delimiting the new boundary between Belgium and Germany, taking into consideration the economic situation and the means of communication. That Commission was led to issue proposals relating to the new situations created in consequence of the marking out of the boundary.

By virtue of a decision made by the Commission on March 27, 1920 and ratified by the Conference of Ambassadors on July 22, 1920, the section of the railway connecting the two Belgian towns of St. Vith (in the south) and Eupen (in the north) lying between boundary markers 657 and 900, or between the Kalterherberg and Raeren stations, was assigned to Belgium.

In that section, the railway, for a distance of about 30 km., passes alternately through Belgian and German territory, while at certain places it coincides with the boundary itself. This peculiarity has caused the formation of six German enclaves on Belgium territory; namely, from south to north: Ruitzhof, Mutzenich, Konzen, Lammersdorf, Rötgen, Munsterbildchen. (See map No. 1.³²)

This situation was the reason why the Belgian administration of the railway line, and the Belgian customs control were, at the beginning, subjected to a certain number of servitudes, which proved, with experience, as annoying to the users as they were costly and inoperative for the administrations concerned.

The special régime worked out by the International Boundary Commission is based on the settlement entitled “Provisions Relating to the Boundary Common to Belgium and Germany”, which was signed at Aix-la-Chapelle on November 6, 1922.

It nevertheless appeared, from the time of its coming into force, that certain of its provisions were practically unenforceable. Hence, Belgium endeavored to conclude a “modus vivendi” on those points with Germany. The German Government consented at the very most to making certain of the most inapplicable rules more flexible.

Those amendments were the subject of the Belgo-German Arrangement of November 7, 1929 and the Additional Belgo-German Arrangement of May 10, 1935.

II

Nevertheless, the various negotiations in question permitted—and in certain cases even confirmed—the continued existence of the numerous disadvantages resulting from the decisions previously made by virtue of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles concerning the Belgo-German boundary. The principal ones are set forth hereunder, proceeding from north to south. (See map No. 1.)

[Here follows a detailed description of the following areas in question: 1) Hergenrath Salient; 2) Road from Aix-la-Chapelle to Raeren; 3) Rötgen Road at the place called Fringshaus and bifurcation at Fringshaus in the direction of Lammersdorf and Konzen; Raeren-Kalterherberg Section of the railway—German enclaves west of that railway; 5) Sourbrodt Notch; 6) Hemmeres Enclave along the Belgian railway from St. Vith to Trois-Vierges.]

III

The configuration of the Belgo-German boundary at various points located between markers 1008 and 151, and the complicated regulations to which that configuration has given rise, have caused countless restraints on the inhabitants of the region in question. They have at the same time been the source of numerous incidents between the authorities and the inhabitants subject to them, as well as between the local authorities of the two countries. That situation has not failed to exercise an unfavorable influence on the relations between Belgium and Germany.

Also, with a view to meeting these disadvantages, the Belgian Government has taken under consideration a plan inspired by the desire to make the most rational corrections while changing as little as possible the boundary line and the status of the inhabitants. The proposals of the Belgian Government aim, on the one hand, to free Belgian sovereignty from unjustifiable servitudes, and, on the other hand, to bring about territorial changes adapted strictly to the necessity of eliminating the causes of or the pretexts for the present difficulties.

The Belgian proposals may be summarized as follows:

The Settlement of November 6, 1922 and the Belgo-German Arrangements of November 7, 1929 and May 10, 1935 would be abrogated.

The Belgian Government would reserve the right either to maintain in force certain of their provisions, or to adapt the latter to the new situation, with a view, particularly, to settling the frontier régime covering the position of persons and merchandise.

In addition, the Belgian Government proposes the following territorial changes:

1) The new boundary-line between markers 1,008 and 980 would follow a transversal cutting off the present salient of Hergenrath.

2) The road from Aix-la-Chapelle to Raeren between markers 920 and 943 would be transferred to Belgian sovereignty, including the site of the German Customs Bureau situated at the intersection of that road and the Ober-Forstbach road. The section of the Ober-Forstbach road opposite the said customs bureau would be assigned to Belgium.

3) The roads from Rötgen to Fringshaus and from there to Lammersdorf and Konzen would be transferred to Belgian sovereignty.

4) Between markers 900 and 657 the boundary would follow the line of the railroad, the roadbed and stations serving which are already under Belgian sovereignty; a margin of about a hundred meters to the east of the tracks would be annexed to Belgian territory.

The six German enclaves mentioned in II, 4) above would be transferred to Belgian sovereignty.

Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the part of the commune of Rötgen situated to the east of the railway would be included in Belgian territory.

[Here follows a detailed explanation for the inclusion of Rötgen in Belgian territory.]

5) Between boundary markers 652 and 648, the Breitenbach stream would constitute the boundary-line. (See map No. 4³³)

6) Between markers 159 and 151, the territory to the west of the railroad of St. Vith at Trois-Vierges and a margin of about a hundred meters to the east of the railroad would be assigned to Belgium. (See map No. 5³³)

The whole of the territories included in the rectifications proposed above comprise a total area of about 30 square kilometers and contain a total population estimated at 3,850 inhabitants.

In the event that the proposals enumerated above should be accepted, the Administration of the Belgian railways would draw up, on the basis of the regulations which control the normal operation of its services, the provisions bearing on the new situation which would be created along the Belgo-German frontier.

The Belgian Customs, on their part, would proceed to establish the offices and stations required for local and frontier traffic.

IV

Thus:

1. —the enclaves and certain anomalies disclosed by the present frontier tracing would be eliminated.

2. —as the Eupen-St. Vith railroad no longer crosses German territory, it should no longer be subject to private servitudes and could be effectively operated as a Belgian line.

3. —there would no longer be superposition of mixing of sovereignty, which cause conflicts and friction between the two States. The respective administrative and jurisdictional spheres of the two countries would be delimited in a simple and normal manner and could be exercised with greater facility.

4. —the interests of the inhabitants, on the Belgian side as well as on the German side, with respect to traffic, would be protected by the frontier regulations which will be established by the Belgian Government. Moreover, highway traffic in the German frontier region, could be assured by the existing road from Schleiden to Montjoie, Imgenbroich, Simmerath, Lammersdorf, Zweifall, Stolberg. From Zweifall the junction through Breinig and Kornelimünster towards Aix-la-Chapelle could be easily improved [by] the German administration.

5. —these improvements would be obtained through minimum territorial changes, which do not envisage aggrandizement, but have the sole purpose of correcting the outstanding disadvantages of a defective situation.

The boundary rectification mentioned above is, for the present, the only claim of territorial nature presented by the Belgian Government. It reserves, nevertheless, the right to present additional claims in the event that other Allied States benefit by territorial increases and/or correlated economic advantages at the expense of Germany.

B—Proposals of an Economic Nature

I

Certain proposals have been considered which tend to transfer to some Allied States neighbors of Germany, with a definitive or temporary character, certain important components of the German economic domain.

For the second time within a quarter of a century, the people of Belgium must repair the immense losses which Germany, through aggression, has inflicted upon her. It is legitimate that Belgium obtain compensation commensurate to that which shall be accorded to the Allied States which are placed in a position similar to hers.

The Belgian Government demands an equitable share in exploitation of the natural resources of western Germany. It reserves the right to state later its demands in this regard.

II

Traffic relations with Germany, whether in reference to transportation operations or to commercial operations, have an essential importance for Belgium. The Belgian Government demands effective guaranties against all measures which may be adopted in Germany in the domains of public works, the policy on tariff and toll charges, control of exchange or any other means, which might affect these traffic relations, or which might tend to divert traffic from its normal channels leading to Belgian ports.

31. This memorandum was delivered to the Department by the Counselor of the Belgian Embassy, Louis Goffin, on November 21, 1946; see the memorandum of conversation by James W. Riddleberger, November 21, 1946, p. 1234. Copies of this memorandum were circulated to the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers.
32. Not reproduced.
33. Map not reproduced.
33. Map not reproduced.