A short history of Belgium

by Léon van der Essen

Some time after the provisional government had declared Belgium an independent state a conference of the powers was held, on November 4, 1830, in London, to consider the new situation created by the Belgian revolt: Van der Weyer was sent to represent the Belgian interests. On December 20, a motion made by the British delegate, Lord Palmerston, was adopted, which declared Belgium an “independent power.” The victory of the revolutionists was thus confirmed. At the same time, the plan of a small but active party among them, who had attempted the reannexation of the country to France, was defeated.

Another important question was now to be settled—the choice of a monarch for the new kingdom. The Belgian congress excluded the candidacy of the Prince of Orange, who was favored by England and Prussia, since the accession of this prince would mean practically reannexation by Holland. Under the influence of the French sympathizers, led by Gendebien, of the provisional government, and by its president, Surlet de Chokier, the Belgian congress decided to offer the crown to the Duke of Nemours, younger son of the French King, Louis-Philippe. This scheme could not be acceded to by England, since Belgium would then have been under the direct influence of France. The English ministry, on February 4, unanimously resolved to declare war on France if Louis-Philippe accepted the offer. So the French King was compelled to decline it on behalf of his son. Finally, on June 4, 1831, the Belgian congress elected Prince Leopold of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha, widower of the Princess Charlotte of England. Leopold had fought gallantly in the army of the Allies against Napoleon in 1813 and 1814, and had just refused the crown of Greece. He was solemnly inaugurated at Brussels on June 21 as King of the Belgians. He was considered an English prince, and for the moment France resented his election; but Leopold quieted the jealousy of Louis-Philippe by marrying the daughter of the French King, Louise of Orléans.

Another question to be settled was the delimitation of the boundaries of the new kingdom. On January 20 and 27, the Conference of London had issued two protocols, proposing that Belgium be made a perpetually neutral state; that Holland take all the territory that belonged to the Dutch republic in 1790, and that the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg become an appanage of the house of Orange; that Belgium should be charged with 16/31 of the national debt of the former United Kingdom of the Netherlands.

These protocols, favorable to Holland, were immediately accepted by the Dutch King, but unequivocally rejected by the Belgians. The second article of the London protocols robbed them of Dutch Flanders—the north of the ancient county—of the towns of Maestricht and Venloo and the strip of Limburg surrounding them, and also of the Grand Duchy, a part of the old Belgian province of Luxemburg. The loss of this territory seemed the more unjust as the inhabitants of those regions had participated in the Belgian revolt and did not desire annexation by Holland.

The negotiations between the powers and the Belgians would never have reached a settlement but for King Leopold. The Belgian King persuaded the Conference of London to supersede its protocols by a declaration in eighteen articles, leaving the matter in dispute to be directly negotiated between Leopold and William of Holland, with the good offices of the great powers. The Dutch King refused to recognize the eighteen articles and, on August 2, twelve days after the accession to the throne of Leopold, invaded Belgium. King Leopold displayed military skill and courage, but the Belgians had no strong army and their ill-trained troops were badly defeated at Louvain and at Hasselt. Impending disaster was prevented by the sudden arrival of a French army, sent by Louis-Philippe, to whom the Belgian King had appealed for help. The French repulsed the Dutch. This intervention of France seriously alarmed the other powers, and especially England. Fearing that French influence might regain a foothold in the new kingdom, they precipitately drafted another protocol, called the Twenty-four Articles, in place of the former eighteen, and took from Belgium the whole of the area in dispute, except the district of Arlon, in Luxemburg. Again the Belgians refused to be stripped; but the threat of invasion by a German army finally compelled them to accede. On November 15, 1831, Belgium, France, and England signed the Treaty of the Twenty-four Articles, to which Russia, Prussia, and Austria soon afterward assented.

This time Holland was unwilling to yield, and the Dutch refused to evacuate the territory they occupied, especially the citadel of Antwerp. A French army, under Gérard, marched for the second time into Belgium, besieged the Antwerp stronghold, and forced the Dutch to capitulate (1832). King William continued to refuse to subscribe to any agreement until 1838. Then, suddenly, he gave his adherence to the Twenty-four Articles. The Conference of London met again and, on April 18, 1839, the final Treaty of London was signed. The Belgians were given a large reduction in what was agreed should be their contribution to the debt of the Netherlands, but were forced to surrender the territories agreed upon by the treaty of 1831. They did it very reluctantly, but had no other choice.

This Treaty of London is the famous “scrap of paper” of which the German chancellor spoke so disdainfully on August 14, 1914. It settled the external relations of Belgium in Europe. By that treaty, Belgium was declared to be an independent kingdom and was to remain “a perpetually neutral state,” under the guaranty of the five great powers. The neutrality of Belgium had been imposed upon the new kingdom at the instance chiefly of England, who desired above all to maintain it as a bulwark against France. As King Leopold I himself writes to Queen Victoria on February 15, 1852, “this neutrality was in the real interest of this country, but our good congress here did not wish it: it was imposé upon them.”

Owing to the fact that so much has been said about the neutrality of Belgium since the beginning of the European war, it seems worth while to explain briefly what ought to be understood by the words “permanent neutrality,” used by the Conference of London.[22]

Article VII of the Treaty of London declares: “Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality toward all other states.” A distinction must be made between the neutrality imposed by this article on Belgium and the occasional neutrality of a state, which during a war between other powers wishes to avoid the conflict and, in a perfectly voluntary manner, proclaims that decision to the world. In the recent European war, the United States of America observed such an “occasional” neutrality.

Permanent neutrality is quite another thing. History shows that there are certain countries, certain geographical zones, which, by virtue of their situation, are in some way predestined to become periodically the theater of struggles between nations. The subjection of such a country to the exclusive influence of one great power has always marked a breakdown of the European balance of power. The idea of placing these zones by means of a treaty in the position of countries outside the possible zone of international conflicts corresponds to a general plan of establishing a régime of peace on the basis of reciprocal and voluntary restriction of action. From this point of view, neutralization is essentially a factor for peace. It follows that the state which is perpetually neutral has not only its own individual meaning and independent mission, but is an important “wheel” in the general policy. This is the case with Belgium, as it was established by the great powers after the revolt of 1830, and that is the true meaning of the statement that it was to be “perpetually neutral.”