july 1933

Belgian Foreign Policy and the Nationalities Question

Emile Vandervelde

Volume 11 • Number 4

The contents of Foreign Affairs are copyrighted.©1933 Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this material is permitted only with the express written consent of Foreign Affairs. Visit www.foreignaffairs.com/permissions for more information. BELGIAN FOREIGN POLICY AND THE NATIONALITIES QUESTION By Emile Vandehelde

AT AN early session of the Locarno Conference, which I as xL3k attended Minister of Foreign Affairs for , I to was JL JL had occasion remark that Belgian foreign policy absolutely independent in every respect. The statement was received the of Chan skeptically by representatives Germany, ? cellor Luther and Dr. Stresemann. Those gentlemen Dr. ? on Stresemann in particular may later have changed their to some extent. at minds For Geneva in 1926 Belgium joined with to Sweden in objecting the Anglo-French proposal that the award a of permanent seat on the Council of the to a measure Germany should be in offset by the admission of Spain and Brazil. All the same, the view is still widely accepted in Ger many, and in other quarters too, that Belgium is bound hand and to same foot France, that she bears the relationship toward her that or Poland Jugoslavia does, and that the Franco-Belgian defensive never agreement of September 7, 1920, which has been formally constitutes a alliance of abrogated, military the pre-war type. In a Belgium itself, however, good half of the population is made up of Flemings who are in general unsubmissive, if not openly hostile, to French influence. Since the war, not to say even during the war, Flemish minorities, though inconsiderable have come out for or even for ones, autonomy downright separa a tion. Their platforms have sometimes demanded federal system which would all but disrupt the national unity, or have called for a Free State of Flanders along the lines of the Free State of Ire land. At home, the "Flemish movement" has never been taken so as some seriously it has been taken in places abroad. But as a certainly it has tended, coinciding it has with great uprising masses among the Flemish in favor of "parity of languages," to create an impression abroad that the Kingdom of Belgium, embracing populations differing widely in language and tradi never an tions, has been more than artificial thing destined sooner or later to be discarded. There is a feeling, at the very least, that a one the problem of national minorities is critical in Belgium, so as to a not critical justify very favorable prognosis for the future of the country.

Council on Foreign Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Foreign Affairs ® www.jstor.org 658 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

What are we to say to all this? Is there a real nationalities a issue in Belgium? And, in view of the fluctuations of fairly can we that is a con complicated domestic situation, say there sistent Belgian outlook on foreign affairs?

I. THE FLEMISH QUESTION

"Sire, there are no Belgians: there are Flemings and Walloons." a Such the words, studiedly trenchant, with which Socialist deputy from (in theWalloon section), M. Jules Des tree, an to began "Open Letter the King of the Belgians" just before war. on the And the letter went to protest against the centralizing policy that had been followed in Belgium since 1830, in imitation was of Napoleon's policy of centralization in France. Destr?e in was favor of what then styled "administrative separation." It would have involved a dual system of administration which left a good measure of self-government to districts and localities but was a state. quite compatible with unified Belgian As regards the two assertions in Destr?e's opening sentence, the first, that there were no Belgians, was questionable to say the least; and Destr?e himself eventually withdrew it. The second a had basis in fact. It is altogether true that when groups of come people speak different languages they inevitably to differ in other as well. And it is also true that in as in respects Belgium,? there are and have been two or more Switzerland, ? always strictly speaking three national languages. Scattered along the Prussian frontier (and not only in the cantons were of Eupen and Malmedy, which annexed to Belgium are under the ) there villages where consider able portions of the inhabitants (41,514 in 1920, as against 77,195 or as a in 1910) exclusively rule speak German. I remember that on a a visit to the trenches during the war I met Belgian soldier who did not understand a word of French or Flemish and knew no other language than that of the enemy he was facing. But a from any national standpoint that would be just curiosity. a excess The country at large, with population in of eight millions in 1932, falls into two linguistic groups of about equal weight: three millions of Walloons speaking nothing but French, three ? or millions of Flemings speaking nothing but Flemish rather a "Netherlandish," derivation of the platdeutsch dialects which are spoken also in Holland. Then, not counting little children of come a a course, would group of about million people who speak BELGIANFOREIGN POLICY 659 are both languages and who, it is worth while noting, nearly all serv Flemings; for, with the exception of candidates for the civil as ice, Walloons will a rule have nothing to do with the other national language of Belgium. A few basic facts have to be borne in mind if one would under stand the conditions under which the so-called "nationalities question" arises in Belgium. Neither in the direction of Holland, nor nor in the direction of Germany, in the direction of France, at is there any coincidence all between linguistic and political one common frontiers. Antwerp and Rotterdam have language;

\ -4

so so have Herbesthal and Aix-la-Chapelle; have Tournai and Lille or Amiens. to ? Ignoring?just make.things simpler the on a German fringe the east, there is sharply defined internal frontier between the French and Flemish languages, and it has not varied greatly in all the years since the thirteenth century. to Running roughly from Ypres Tongres across the battlefield of Waterloo (some twelve miles south of ), it cuts the into a a country virtually halves. Brussels is bilingual city with preponderance of French, though topographically it lies within Flemish territory. 66o FOREIGN AFFAIRS

But from the linguistic standpoint there is one essential differ ence two so between the regions defined; and it explains most of the difficulties that have arisen recent during years and especially war. since the Wallonia is positively unilingual. In the Charleroi section one find some few might settlements of Flemish factory hands, but they have rapidly become acclimated and their are more even children aggressively Walloon than the Walloons themselves. The for their a natives, part, have dialect closely related to French. not as They only speak French their ordinary to language: they refuse speak any other. Most of them regard it as a sheer waste of time to learn Flemish. They have always are now objected, and increasingly hostile, to any effort on the of the to make what is called part "government "compulsory at as bilingualism the rule, least regards holders of public office, for the two sections of the country. across The situation is quite different the linguistic frontier, in Flanders. There too, as is the case with Wallonia, the bulk of the one or population is unilingual, speaking Flemish dialect another and using Dutch, which they choose to call "Netherlandish," as their written language. But all the way down from the Middle or Ages, when the leliaerts, "men of the fleur-de-lis," quarreled with the klauwaerts, who had a "claw" out for France, always ? there have been "Frenchies," or frasquillons, in Flanders Flemings who have been "gallicized." Down to recent times such an ? were people constituted influential element they the dominant portion of the ruling class. The old noble families, the more important business men, the members of the professions, a to made it point exemplify the best French culture, they thought as an one of Flemish only illiterate form of speech of which had to know just enough to get along with one's servants or farm hands. In very general terms, one might almost say that forty years ago the gulf between the French-speaking middle classes and the masses on Flemish was as as was territory great the gulf in the eighteenth century between the nobles in Russia, as a who could write rule only in French, and their muzhiks. a Professor , Fleming by birth and enthusiasm, explains that in the nineteenth century the dominion of the rich on was business classes Flemish soil re?nforced by the linguistic domination of French. He writes:

The origins of the Flemish movement are not to be sought in the fact that are there Walloons and Flemings in Belgium, but in the fact that the Flemish BELGIANFOREIGN POLICY 661

are a masses under the control of French-speaking class of property owners. From 1830 on, the Flemish factory hand received his directions in French. The Flemish soldier was drilled in French, the Flemish defendant was tried in French, the Flemish citizen was governed in French, the Flemish tax payer on was taxed in French. If the Flemish schoolboy chose to go from the primary school, he was taught in French. In the eye of the Fleming the Walloon fig ured, if at all, only because, speaking the language of "the bosses," the office holders, the army officers, the higher clergy, he seemed obviously to be serving a ? as prop for the dominion of the "Frenchies" he was not the principal common enemy, but the ally of the principal enemy. A matter of knowledge is the extent to which the supremacy of the French language in Flanders con tributed to make nineteenth what Marx called 1 century Belgium very properly the paradise of capitalists.'l as as That state of things prevailed long the Flemish masses remained, as an economist in grim humor put it, "a mere exhibit were of sociological infusoria." Around 1848 they not much better off than the Irish. They lay passive, inert, sunk in all the miseries a as as of illiteracy and in moral well material pauperism. Those a were the days when only taxpayers beyond certain amount not a a could vote. Parliament did contain single workingman, masses. was single representative of the The political class made up exclusively of businessmen and aristocrats, all of them speak one ? ? were or ing language French whether they Flemish Walloon. The Belgian Constitution had declared that "the use common of either of the languages in Belgium shall be optional;" a was ever but I doubt whether speech in Flemish delivered in the National Parliament building before the year 1894, when the was first suffrage reform bill passed. Save in the rural hamlets of was Flanders, all business transacted in French. Belgium looked a an like French country. Hence outward appearance of unity; was two masses it correlated, however, with the fact that great of were people, Flemish and Walloon, left almost without mutual contacts and entirely beyond the pale of political life. All that changed, as it had to change, with the abolition of the property basis for the vote (1894), and especially after the World War, when universal suffrage, purged of plural voting, was established a sort by of tacit revolution (1919) that dispensed with formal amendments to the Constitution. Belgian ? The Flemings had long since demanded and partially though ? or at inadequately obtained ameliorations of their wrongs, least of their more crying wrongs. But with the advent of univer x et "Nationalisme Socialisme," Brussels, Eglantine, p. 17. See also Pirenne, "La Belgique et la Guerre Mondiale," New Haven, Yale University Press, p. 31. 662 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

a came sal suffrage compact group of Flamingants into being in the Chambers. Then when all but unanimously the Flemish as as districts declared for "linguistic parity in fact well in law," an the Flemish movement became avalanche sweeping all before it. In response to the Flemish slogan of "Flanders for the Flem ish," French has been systematically eliminated from the region. Flemish is now the language of the courts in Flanders. Flemish soldiers are commanded in Flemish. Flemish is the one official language in government offices. The University of Ghent, where were not so long ago the lectures all in French, has been "Flem ishized" at one fell sweep. The same thing has been done in the now to lower schools; all the way from kindergarten university on as a mere French is taught Flemish soil secondary language, on a or footing with English German. These changes have not occurred, of course, without vigorous on resistance the part of the French-speaking middle classes in now Flanders, almost all of whom speak the popular dialect but as who have all along looked upon the University of Ghent the stronghold of their traditional French culture. All the same, the were so-called "Flemishization laws" passed by overwhelming moment majorities the that Parliament, under pressure from the Labor Party and the Christian Democrats, had reached virtual on unanimity of sentiment the formula: "Flemish in Flanders, French in Wallonia, both French and Flemish in the Brussels section." So the language question in Belgium is practically settled (one more law is still required and is about to be passed, regulating the use of languages in civil actions in Flanders). But it would be as a mistake to imagine that the question to the relations between Flemings and Walloons in respect of Belgian institutions has also been disposed of. Quite the opposite, if anything! as As long the two groups of three millions each, speaking cut were different languages and virtually off from each other, a held together politically by unilingual ruling class, the 1830 a amount system of state centralization, tempered by certain of to too local self-government, managed function without much no case creaking and groaning. That is longer the today. Now in masses of and possession of the vote, the deep-lying Flanders not Wallonia have become politically active. It is simply that a there is solid Flemish group of deputies in Parliament. There a mess to are "Flamingants" who would make of it if they tried BELGIAN FOREIGN POLICY 663

deliver a in French; and there in front of them sit a speech ? good third of their the whole of colleagues? contingent representa tives from Wallonia who do not understand a blessed word of what they say when they speak in Flemish. a One need hardly observe that such state of things is most are embarrassing, especially when "burning issues" up for dis a cussion. When Flemish deputy takes the floor, the French come to speaking deputies make for the exit; and they back reply to or not speeches which they have not heard clearly grasped. Whence misunderstandings and "incidents." A first effort to deal with this situation was made all holders of by compelling ? public office?judges, army officers, civil servants, deputies to learn the other language. But in that direction one brought an non on up against energetic volumus the part of the Walloons, who were resolutely determined not to put up with any "com some pulsory bilingualism." Now Belgian thought is seeking can modus vivendi whereby each of the two groups "flavor its own soup to its taste," and (aside from special regulations for the Brussels district) some dual system of government which to will give equal opportunities Flemings and Walloons and allow to anybody reach the upper rungs of public service with knowl a edge of just single language. a of course comes This kind of solution has defects. It really a down to reducing friction through reduction in the number of of contact. Such a course is criticized points ? continually by groups of bitter-enders French-speaking Flemings, for instance, who bitterly denounce the Walloons (their natural allies in the battle for French culture) for handing them over to the "Flamingants;" are now and also by groups in Brussels who afraid that by one now under now of concession, by another, pretext decentraliza now now tion, of home-rule, of federalism, Belgium will get back was ? to the situation it in under the Old R?gime to a hodge podge of regions and localities held together by such tenuous a bonds that Belgian unity will be thing of the past. Personally, I do not underestimate the soundness of such can fears and the seriousness of the objections that be made to certain formulas that approximate the platform of the Flemish can no a Separatists.2 There be doubt that the establishment of to a Free State of Flanders, tied Wallonia by personal union under the sovereign, or the erection of any system of absolute 2 8 An insignificant minority in the country: deputies in 187. 66A FOREIGN AFFAIRS

federalism which would not pay due regard to centralization in the essential attributes of government, would unchain unmanage to able centrifugal forces and spell mortal danger Belgian unity. as was after are But, apparent during and the war, such formulas never more a defended by than handful of eccentrics; and between a the centralized system of 1830 and deliberately separatist room r?gime there is for any number of compromise solutions. I am well aware that even these attenuated solutions arouse alarm for the unity of Belgium, but I think the alarm is exag are an was gerated. People forever repeating untruth which trite as as of III: an long ago the days Napoleon that Belgium is artificial a fiction of The truth is that state, diplomacy. Belgium was born of a revolution, in fact of the first of the liberal revolu tions that broke into the treaties of 1815. She was born of a spontaneous uprising of Catholics and Liberals, of Walloons and Flemings alike, and also of the inhabitants of the Limberg (on the right bank of the Meuse) and of the Grand Duchy of Luxem were torn bourg (which unwillingly from the Belgian community true save sea by the treaties of 1839). It is that towards the no Belgium has natural frontiers. She is separated from the lower a The Scheldt by Flemish Zeeland, Dutch province. frontier a toward Prussia is purely political, running through district of meadows and pastures. On the south, the line often cuts through an at industrial plant where French and Belgian citizens work same the same machines and use the languages. I have already no as pointed out that Belgium has linguistic frontiers regards true her neighbors. It is also that in spite of the many common create a traits which willy-nilly do Belgian type, the Fleming and the Walloon present appreciable differences which are attributed in the one case to a of commonly predominance the Germanic element, and in the other to the predominance of the Celtic element. Professor Laurent Dechesne seems to me to strike the sound note when he writes:3 The Walloons and the Flemings complement each other admirably. Quite are apart from the traits that distinguish the two races, there other traits that draw them together. The constant and uniform pressure of identical living a a conditions has finished by constituting, if not Belgian race, at least Belgian common type. Variez in his time noted the particularism that is to all Belgians ? a to love of individual independence which at times is carried refractoriness to discipline. Add to that a conception of life that is realistic rather than ideal 3 "Histoire et Sociale la Paris: ?conomique de Belgique." Sirey, 1932. BELGIANFOREIGN POLICY 665 own istic. The Belgian has his ideas as to individual liberty. He regards it less a or a as sum of positive moral material advantages than as manifestation of independence, of impatience of all constraint. as a One may argue forever to whether there is Belgian nation, whether Walloons and Flemings represent two races or are of a common type. The fact nevertheless remains that within the lines drawn in the treaties of 1839 there is a little country with a to sure population, made up be of heterogeneous elements, but which came together in 1830 in a common resolve on freedom and not a common which feels held together today only by fund of are memories and experiences, but by other bonds which tending to grow stronger rather than weaker. By no means insignificant is the fact that in the Labor Party, which represents about two-fifths of the population of Belgium, Flemings and Walloons belong to to same ? the same labor centrals and the political organism a to whence the tribute of party adversary the effect that Socialist one are unity is of the pillars of Belgian national unity. And there to of other reasons, say nothing international considerations, an which justify the existence of independent Belgium. Politically cannot speaking, the country be divided. Brussels, the capital, is located within Flemish territory but is essentially bilingual, a and could not be incorporated in hypothetical State of Flanders reason without losing its principal for existence by that simple a fact. Then Antwerp, which is strictly Flemish city, would lose were to cut a customs incalculably if it be off by barrier from its industrial hinterland, Wallonia. The economic texture of the so Belgian state is firmly knit that powerful interests will always be opposed to the establishment of any system giving undue to forces as the essential functions of play centrifugal regards government. From the moral standpoint, finally, it is, as Renan said, the memory of great things achieved by common endeavor a that makes country. What holds the Belgians together in spite won a of all differences is their having free institutions by revolu tion in 1830, and their having successfully defended them in the war of 1914-18. II. FOREIGN POLICY

Political and social struggle is intense in Belgium. It is there common one fore the remark that foreign policy is the important not subject productive of sharp disagreement. Three-quarters of a century of obligatory neutrality have accustomed the Belgians 666 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

to living as it were to themselves, without too much interest in on across a what is going their borders. Then again, Belgium is pacific country, fundamentally, convincedly, in all classes of her a population. One might repeat of her today remark made by von B?low in his Memoirs in connection with Leopold's visit to Berlin in 1904: "No territorial ambitions, no room for tempta tion!" Belgium wants nothing but her independence, but on one that she insists. To be sure, just after the World War might an note in various quarters itching for annexations at the expense or of Germany of Holland. But when the fevers induced by four a years of occupation had worked themselves out, rational frame of mind returned, and the one general thought was to make sure to some new of security and seek it through the guarantees of international agreement that would replace the treaties of 1839. But if the thought was nation-wide and the sentiment common to was as to to all Belgians, there precious little unanimity how and in that connection there were guarantee security; conspicu ous as differences of opinion between Flemings and Walloons. are Even when they Socialists and internationalists, the as as Walloons, generally speaking, well the French-speaking elements in Brussels, have an inclination toward France. The inclination sometimes finds expression in fantastic proposals look to a France or at to some ing customs' union with least system of preferential rights which would imply Belgium's abandonment of the clause. It also the of most-favored-nation prompts advocacy a common on eastern organization of defense the frontier in case anticipation of another invasion in of another war, which is to as now as was a held be probable it in 1914. In addition there is more little nationalist group, noisy than influential, which has connections with the action fran?aise of Maurras and Leon Daudet. Since 1918 that group has occasionally agitated for the annexation of Flemish Zeeland and the Dutch Limberg, an a for Belgian support of independent Rhineland, and for Franco-Belgian mailed-fist policy toward Germany. Among the Flemings precisely opposite tendencies prevail. strata Almost all of the population (the shop-keeper in Ant at werp, the farmer in the Campine, the factory hand in the mills or are ? Ghent Courtrai) not only inclined toward peace that true ? are would be of all Belgians but emphatically anti-mili to tarist and hostile any policy which might drag Belgium into the French orbit. That is far from meaning that the average BELGIAN FOREIGN POLICY 667 or opinion is anti-French; much less that it is pro-German pro as a Dutch. In Flanders the "Catholics," considered political are party, in the majority. Many of them would reaffirm for a themselves the particularist credo of Catholic of fifty years ago: "We Flemings do not care to be either French sans culottes, or or Prussian slaves, Dutch heretics." Flanders is being rapidly industrialized and the Socialists there have increased in numbers. a see As matter of principle, they eye to eye with their Walloon on are comrades all matters of foreign policy, except that they not an influenced to such extent by ideas coming from France. In Flanders too there is a group of nationalists. It is small, but it exerts an on matters influence public opinion in of foreign policy to which is entirely disproportionate its numbers. These Flemish nationalists are as anti-French as the nationalists of excessively or are Brussels Li?ge anti-German. So Belgian foreign policy is at courted the two extremes by frankly opposite tendencies; and all Belgian ministries since the war have tried to follow a course them. midway between to The international status assigned Belgium by the treaties of l%39'?a status of and under perpetual obligatory neutrality, ? guarantees from England, Austria, France, Prussia and Russia became a thing of the past in the World War. The idea has therefore been to find some other status. to hand was the Ready? League Covenant, which people in Belgium in spite of many on to ? disappointments which it is superfluous dwell just here to as a continue regard real guarantee for small countries. But some could not supplementary guarantee of Belgian independence be found in addition ?Merely to return to the pre-war situation was manifestly out of the question. Of the five powers signatory to the treaties of 1839, two had eliminated them ? deliberately selves Prussia (Germany) and Austria. Russia was off the map. were But England and France left. Could not their former pledges be again obtained in the form of some defensive agreement? as as The Belgian Government applied to them both far back was in no to answer. 1919. England great hurry France, instead, was accepted at once, and it announced the following year that two the governments represented respectively by MM. Millerand and Delacroix had approved the military accord which had been signed September 7,1920, by the chiefs of staff of the French and Belgian armies, and which was entitled: "A Franco-Belgian defensive in case of an agreement unprovoked aggression." 668 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

That agreement was registered at Geneva, though it never be came a formal treaty and has no bearing on the international a status of Belgium. It was, at bottom, strictly military arrange were never ment, the technical specifications of which published and did not have to be. It was of course inevitable that it should arouse mistrust and in and also in certain suspicion Germany, quarters in Belgium. Our nationalists have done their best to foster this feeling, and in fact it has proved long-lived. In the of the Government which was in ? thought Belgian power in 1920 the three great parties, Catholic, Socialist and Liberal, were ? represented in it the defensive agreement with France was to a be balanced by similar agreement with England; and that agreement was almost concluded at the Cannes Conference in But another solution was 1922.4 when those negotiations failed, a sought and in different spirit. The idea of unilateral agreements one was (aimed, whatever says, at somebody) abandoned. And in 1925 the Locarno Agreements were reached, and under the at guarantee of England (Italy joining the eleventh hour) they on a a constituted, basis of mutuality, "defensive agreement in case of unprovoked aggression." The formula was identical with the terms of the Franco Belgian agreement of 1920. In view of that fact, was there any reason for the latter to continue in existence? Had it not been covered, and as it were absorbed, by the Locarno Agreements? a Was it not then the part of wisdom, with view to allaying once for to as and to notice suspicions and all, say much, give that the 1920 agreement had lost all point? In 1931 the Belgian Socialists made a formal declaration in that sense, and I defended the view personally before Parliament. But the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France and Belgium respectively, MM. Briand and Hymans, thought it preferable to a statement on matter. make joint the It may be worth while to quote the statement here in full, for it defines very accurately the relations obtaining between France and Belgium. Said M. on Hymans March 4, 1931: "In view of the series of Locarno Agreements which I have just described and which has been an at solemnized by international agreement signed London with imposing ceremonies, and which in Belgium has been ap 4 case a The proposed agreement included the following: Art. I: In of direct, unprovoked attack once come to by Germany on Belgian territory, Great Britain will at the support of Belgium with use au her naval, military and air forces. Art. II. Belgium will all her military, naval and air forces to defend her frontiers in case of an attack or a violation of territory by Germany. BELGIAN FOREIGN POLICY 669 an act turn roved by of Parliament in signed by the King and E isministers and proclaimed in theMonitor, how are we to define the status of the agreement reached in September 1920 by Mar shal Foch, General Maglinse and General Buat? In the view of the Belgian Government, in accord with the French Govern as ment, its significance is follows: By its very nature, such an arrangement between chiefs of staff has never had and could not to assure a have any other purpose than prepare and in practical sense the technical prerequisites for giving effect to military cooperation between Belgium and France in case of an unpro voked aggression by Germany. The obligation of such coopera tion, already present in principle in the stipulations of the Cov most manner enant, is today specified in the definite by the on stipulations of the Treaty of Guaranty concluded at Locarno October 16,1925, which has defined the undertakings which, along with the Covenant, bind the two nations as regards mutual assist ance. am to I able add that the interpretation I have just given common is the view of the French and Belgian Governments." Although that statement was clear, decisive, and in exact not conformity with the facts, it did result in clearing up, even in public opinion in Belgium, the objections and misunderstand ings to which the unilateral character of the 1920 agreement had given rise. Certain nationalist organs, both in Paris and Brussels, continued referring to a "brotherhood in arms," or to a "mili tary alliance" between France and Belgium, "the advance no guards of Latinity." There has been failure to notice, further more, that though there is nothing under the Locarno system to prevent the various general staffs from proceeding to similar or to exchanges of views the conclusion of similar arrangements in anticipation of specific eventualities, the Franco-Belgian mili tary agreement has remained the sole specimen of its kind. And a in 1931 M. Jaspar's ministry proposed the organization of system of fortifications which, to use the language of the Minister of War of the in an manner "the day, reproduced up-to-date fortification system of Belgium before the war." But under pressure of nationalist elements in the Walloon districts he was forced to organize the defenses on the eastern frontier as a prolongation of the French system. All this still provokes hostile comment in the Flemish districts, where the one consolation is that a Antwerp will not again be made stronghold: "Let theWalloons dig in if they choose, but let them leave us alone!" 670 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

As regards the general lines of Belgian foreign policy, however, movements not these in opposite directions must be credited with an not importance they do really have. M. Henri Jaspar, who headed the government in Belgium between 1928 and 1931, has a on recently published specific and well-documented article the guiding principles of Belgian foreign policy since the war.5 He once more states the real significance of the Franco-Belgian out agreement of 1920, and rightly points that the three Ministers of Foreign Affairs who have succeeded each other during these come past fifteen years, and who have characteristically enough from the three great political parties (Liberal, Catholic and Socialist), have all, with minor variations due to circumstances or a was personal inclinations, been faithful to policy which a excellently defined by former Premier, M. Poullet: "Belgium to an aims be active agent of international cooperation in Europe. She attaches the greatest importance to fostering relations of not peace and confidence with other peoples. She has become to vassal any particular group of Powers. She reposes full confi dence in the League of Nations and offers her heartiest coopera tion in its activities. That policy is stamped with the seal of on continuity. It is independent of those political groupings our are which governments based." Those words reflect the sentiments of the vast majority of Belgians. Since 1919 Belgium has not been under any obligation to to be neutral. But she aspires with increasing energy be neutral of own of of her accord. For members the League Nations, how no ever, absolute neutrality is possible. By virtue of the Cove nant all nations have not rights only but also duties. In 1914 the Belgians took their arms in hand to fulfill their obligations. are Now in peace time, and in the interests of peace, they ready to fulfill with the same enthusiasm the obligations which the Covenant imposes upon them and which they freely accepted. on not They may differ with each other many things. They do on differ that thing; for the interests of a little country like ours coincide exactly with the general interest. 5 UEsprit International, January, 1933.