Слике страница
PDF
ePub

true in regard to the past. That had undoubtedly been the policy of Holland a hundred years ago; but it was no longer the policy of Holland to attempt to dominate or to kill Antwerp. M. Hymans had expressed the hope that Holland would henceforth abandon that policy. It would be quite unnecessary for Holland to make any promise of that kind, since the policy in question had been abandoned over a hundred years ago. Perhaps M. Hymans would be glad to have his attention directed to a report of the French Minister at the Hague, written in 1838, that is to say, only a short time after the change of policy referred to. In that report the French Minister drew attention to the excellent results which had been obtained by the abandonment of the policy of domination, which M. Hymans had complained of. In regard to Southern Flanders (Zeeland Flanders), M. Hymans had stated that Holland possessed no interests in that region. That was a complete mistake. The mere fact that only one large town existed in that region did not justify the statement that Holland possessed no interests. Holland possessed great interests in that part, and the sentiment of the people had been clearly expressed recently to the Queen of the Netherlands and to the Dutch Government, thus leaving no doubts in the matter. In the next place, M. Hymans had spoken of the question of the regime of the Scheldt, as laid down at the beginning of the war. He, (M. Karnebecke) was not certain whether he had correctly understood M. Hymans' contention: he had apparently wished to imply that the regime imposed by Holland in 1914 was such that Belgium had the right to complain.

M. HYMANS interposing said that he had referred to the regime established by the Treaty.

M. KARNEBECKE, continuing, said that in that connection he would invite attention to a letter written in 1914 by the Belgian Foreign Minister to Baron Fallon for communication to the Dutch Government. In that letter Baron Fallon had certified that this question had been dealt with in perfect friendliness. No protest or complaint had ever been made by the Belgian Government. He had mentioned this fact in order to avoid any misunderstandings. He repeated that no complaints had ever been made by the Belgian Government in regard to the military aspect of the case.

Further, M. Hymans had wished to emphasise the fact that the canals of Terneuzen and the Scheldt remaining under Dutch sovereignty was prejudicial to Belgium, and the latter could not obtain the satisfaction to which she was entitled. He did not know exactly to what incidents M. Hymans had wished to refer. But before coming to the Conference, he (M. Karnebecke) had caused a careful enquiry to be made in regard to all the demands formulated by Belgium dur

'Baron A. Fallon, Netherlands Minister at Brussels.

ing the last 15 years. His enquiries went to show that the Dutch Government had always done all it could to give satisfaction to the desires expressed by Belgium. He did not wish to enter into details. All he wished to say was that no evidence could be found in support of the statement that the Dutch sovereignty had in any way been prejudicial to the interests of Belgium, as contended by M. Hymans.

M. Hymans had also stated that though a Joint Commission of management existed, the Treaty gave no rights to Belgium to improve the channel. He agreed that the statement was correct. On the other hand, he did not think Belgium had ever put forward any demands for the improvement of the channel and it seemed to him that if Belgium desired any works of improvement to be carried out, she should put forward her demands to Holland.

In regard to the Canal of Terneuzen, M. Hymans had brought out the fact that the Canal did not meet existing requirements. That was possible; but he wished to point out that the Canal had in its last stages been constructed, after the Treaties of 1895 and 1902, in accordance with the wishes of the Belgian Government, and against the suggestions and recommendations of the Dutch experts who had foreseen that the Canal, as designed, would not be able to meet the requirements of Belgium. The latter had, however, insisted that the Canal should be constructed in accordance with its own designs. Nevertheless, that did not mean that Holland would not now, or at any time, be ready as she was 100 years ago to consider any changes which might be required to improve the traffic of Ghent and the Scheldt.

In regard to Limburg, M. Hymans had made certain observations of a historical character, which he (M. Karnebecke) could not accept. When an exchange of territories had occurred in 1839, Belgium had received certain areas, namely, Liege, two-thirds of Luxembourg and certain French Cantons, whilst Holland had in exchange obtained a small piece of territory at Ruremonde. This being the case, he did not think it would be possible to accept the historical interpretation favoured by M. Hymans.

M. Hymans had also spoken of the necessity for the construction of new railway lines in order to improve the lines of communication between the Meuse and the Rhine and between the Scheldt and the Rhine. He, (M. Karnebecke) was fully conscious of the importance of this question to Belgium. He also fully realised that in the Treaty of 1839 certain clauses dealt with that very question. Clause 12, in fact, decreed the construction of the Gladbach railway line. As stated by M. Haymans, the construction of the line in question finally fulfilled the conditions of the Treaty. But that did not mean that if

"British and Foreign State Papers, vol. LXXXVII, p. 403. *Ibid., vol. xcvI, p. 809.

Belgium required to build a second railway line, Holland would not be prepared to consider the question. M. Hymans' statement implied that since 1872 Holland had resisted the construction of further railway lines, whereas, as a matter of fact, no request to that effect had ever been received from the Belgian Government.

In regard to the Maastricht Canal, M. Hymans had stated that in Dutch territory the Canal was extremely narrow and this caused such a congestion of traffic that this part of the trip took from three days to one month. Furthermore, Belgium was unable to widen this Canal in Dutch territory and, therefore, could not improve it in their own territory. In this connection, he wished to point out that as soon as Belgium would express a desire to widen the Canal in Belgian territory, Holland would be prepared to do the same in her own territory. This was a question which could easily be settled by direct negotiation between the Dutch and Belgian Governments; but so far no demand had been received from the Belgian Government.

In the next place, M. Hymans had referred to a clause in the Treaty of 1839 on the subject of the construction of a Canal between the Meuse and the Rhine. He understood that a passage had been reserved for the construction of this canal and that the whole question merely required to be studied and considered by the Belgian and Dutch Governments, acting in concert. He thought, therefore, that this question presented no difficulties.

Lastly, reference had been made to the military importance of Limburg. He did not wish to discuss that question in any detail. He only wished to refer to two conclusions reached by M. Hymans. M. Hymans had apparently wished to prove that Dutch Limburg was a constant menace to Belgium, since Holland would not and could not protect that territory. In support of his contention M. Hymans had referred to the passage of certain German troops through that territory, and that the Dutch Government had been unable to prevent it. That statement contained a very serious error. He regretted that M. Hymans had put the question in that way. The Germans had passed through Dutch Limburg not because Holland could not stop them, but for reasons quite different, with which M. Hymans was fully acquainted, and Belgium certainly had no reason for complaint. M. Hymans had also spoken about the release of interned prisoners. He, personally, could not see what bearing that question had on the question of the revision of the Treaties of 1839. He need only point out that M. Hymans was fully acquainted with the correspondence which had taken place on that subject, including the conversations which he (M. Karnebecke) had had with Baron Fallon. M. Hymans would recollect that he (M. Karnebecke) had agreed to do his utmost to obtain the consent of the belligerent parties to the release of the Belgian interned prisoners in Holland. The incident in

question had, however, occurred before the signing of the Armistice. He would invite the attention of the Conference to the fact that he would have been fully justified to have given a point blank refusal to the demands of the Belgian Government. But, as a matter of fact, he had endeavoured to do his best to meet its wishes.

MR. LANSING, intervening, said that he failed to see that this question of the interned prisoners of war had anything to do with the question under consideration.

M. DE KARNEBECKE, continuing, said that in dealing with the historical aspect of the case, M. Hymans had stated that the reason why Holland had failed to defend Limburg was that she had received certain guarantees from Germany. That statement was quite incorrect, and in his opinion, M. Hymans had not been justified in making it. In conclusion, he would repeat his assurance in regard to the cardinal question, namely, the revision of the Treaty of 1839, that the Dutch Government would be ready to discuss the whole question and to cooperate with the Belgian Government in endeavouring to reach a satisfactory solution.

(The Meeting then adjourned to Tuesday afternoon, May 20th, 1919, at 3 o'clock.)

PARIS, 19th May, 1919.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/18

FM-18

Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Tuesday, May 20th, 1919, at 3 p. m.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

1. M. PICHON Suggested that the discussion concerning the Revision of the Treaties of 1839 should be resumed.

Revision of the Treaties of 1839

M. HYMANS said he would like to touch on a few of the points mentioned on the previous day, in order to elucidate them more fully. On the previous day, his

« ПретходнаНастави »