Limburg in the Netherlands The developmental stage of borderland Limburg in 1918 and 1919 Ties Brock Bachelor project June 30, 2014 International Political Geography: A Future Without Borders? Instructor: Darshan Vigneswaran Word count: 8399 1 Index Introduction 3 Paragraph 1 5 Paragraph 2 10 Paragraph 3 15 Paragraph 4 17 Conclusion 25 Bibliography 26 Archival data 29 Figures 33 2 Introduction The catholic Limburg politician Charles Ruijs de Beerenbrouck was appointed Dutch prime minister by Queen Wilhelmina in 1918. This event is generally accepted as the coronation of the Limburg integration in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, that would have come to a close during World War I.1 Just eighty years earlier, between 1830 and 1838, the biggest part of Limburg had been a Belgian province, that only through military violence and international pressure came under Dutch control. As much as Limburg did not feel part of the Holland-dominated state, national authorities and inhabitants of the Northern Netherlands had little interest in the outer province. The region was historically and geographically the most peripheral province in 19th century Netherlands.2 Historical literature suggests that the integration of Limburg in the Netherlands had been just completed in 1918. However, it was at this moment in time that the political position of the borderland was contested by a territorial claim by a foreign state. In the aftermath of World War I, Belgium demanded a large area of the Dutch province as an integral part of its sovereign territory. The Belgian push for Limburg during the years 1918 and 1919 caused a stir in the province. Both provincial and national elites participated in a pro-Dutch campaign in the region. The Limburg attitude differed greatly from 1838, when a great majority of the region had opposed heavily to becoming part of the Netherlands. In this research project, I answer the question in what stage of development borderland Limburg was in 1918 and 1919. To typify the position of Limburg as a border region, I use the model by Baud and Van Schendel, who argue that borderlands gradually change over time. 3 They present five possible stages in a borderland’s existence: infant, adolescent, adult, declining and defunct.4 Using archival materials, I analyse the reaction of national and regional elites to a possible annexation of Limburg. This research project makes it clear to what extent Limburg was integrated in the Netherlands in 1918 and 1919. This case study is primarily meant to provide a better understanding of the historical development of Limburg as a border region. A second goal is to contribute to further development of the Baud and Van Schendel framework. In the first paragraph, I elaborate the theoretical framework based on the Baud and Van Schendel model of borderlands. I lay down definitions of key concepts and defend the use of Baud and Van Schendel model within the discipline of border studies. In the second paragraph, I clarify the case selection of this research project. I defend the choice for Limburg as a borderland in 1918 and 1919 as a case study in the Baud and Van Schendel framework. This paragraph also contains a review of 19th century Limburg to track down the development of the border region. In the third paragraph, I 1 “During the war (…) the Limburg population reconciled itself with the Dutch national state”, P.J.H.Ubachs (2000) Handboek voor de geschiedenis van Limburg. Hilversum:Verloren. 364; “During the war, the integration process was completed”, Maria de Waele (1996) 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen. Nationale gevoelens en botsende ambities', Bijdragen tot de eigentijdse geschiedenis 1. 200.See also: Piet Orbons (2001) ‘Limburg vindt zijn vaderland’, in Jos Venner ed., Geschiedenis van Limburg. Deel II (pp. 44-47). Maastricht: LGOG.; Thunnis van Oort (2007) Film en het moderne leven in Limburg. Het bioscoopwezen tussen commercie en katholieke cultuurpolitiek (1909-1929). Hilversum: Verloren. 2 Rico op den Camp (1993) ‘Vreemd vaderland. Limburg en de Nederlandse natie in de 19e eeuw’, Spiegel Historiael 28(10). 3 Michiel Baud and Willem van Schendel (1997) ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’, Journal of World History, 8(2) 211-42. 4 Ibidem, pp. 223-5. 3 lay down operational terms and methods of this research project. I define operational concepts and defend the use of archival material to answer the central question. In the fourth paragraph, I present the results of this research project. I argue in which stage borderland Limburg was at the time of the Belgian claim for the province in 1918 and 1919. I discuss archival data on which my arguments rely and argue why Limburg was an adult borderland in 1919. I will end with some concluding remarks on the position of Limburg as a borderland within the Netherlands and the study of border regions in general. 4 Paragraph 1 In this paragraph I clarify the theoretical framework on which this research project relies. First, I define key concepts in this study, which are borders and borderlands. I thereafter give a brief introduction of the research field of border studies and argue why the Baud and Van Schendel typology is an apt framework for this case. Finally, I discuss several types of historical developments of borders and borderlands that have been studied in the past. The concept of borders is key to this research project. In the period of analysis the border between the Netherlands and Belgium is at stake. But what exactly is a border? A general definition of the concept is “a line separating two countries, administrative divisions, or other areas”.5 As Bernhard Struck notes, “the primary associations which this term evokes are usually linearity and restriction, a clear dichotomy between “us” and “them”.”6 Such clear borders, Struck suggests, need general acceptance, symbolic demarcation and administrative control.7 However, such undisputed and clear borders in real life are exceptional. The discipline of border studies suggests that borders are fundamentally variable, dynamic and mutable.8 A second important concept in this study is that of the borderland or border region, the geographic area directly adjacent to a boundary. James Scott describes this concept as “an area that closely reflects the physical, political, and social impacts of state borders.”9 According to Scott, there is generally a cross-border dynamic involved, “that involves cross-border trade, work, co-operation, and other forms of interaction.”10 A borderland often has no clear beginning or end and “describes a fluid rather than a static social space.”11 In opposition to the borderland stands a heartland, in which central political authorities that govern the state are based. The research field of border studies is concerned with dynamics and development of borders and borderlands. Rather than a specific scientific discipline, border studies is a research area in which humanities and social science scholars participate with “a mutual interest in what happens at, across and because of the borders to nations and states.”12 Border study scholars investigate what happens in and around boundaries as well as the role of borders within global or regional political regimes. In the field, borders are not perceived as static lines but as fundamentally changeable and dynamic political and social phenomena. Wilson and Donnan argue that “the precise correspondence between nation, state and territory that was once assumed is challenged through concepts such as 5 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/border. 6 Bernhard Struck, (2001) ‘Grenzregionen’, in Institut für Europäische Geschichte, Europäische Geschichte Online. Mainz: IEG. 7 Ibidem. 8 Ibidem; Thomas M. Wilson and Hastings Donnan, (2012) ‘Borders and Border Studies’ in Wilson and Donnan, A Companion to Border Studies (pp. 1-25 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press; Baud and Van Schendel, ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’. 9 James W. Scott (2010) ‘Cross-Border Cooperation in the Periphery of the European Union: Reinterpreting the Finnish-Russian Borderland’, Eurolimes 10, 123-139; Vladimir Kolossov and James W. Scott (2012) ‘Karelia: A Finnish–Russian Borderland on the Edge of Neighbourhood’, in H. Eskelinen, I. Liikanen and J.W. Scott eds. The EU–Russia Borderland. New Contexts for Regional Cooperation (pp. 194-210). London: Routledge. 197. 10 Ibidem. 11 Ibidem. 12 Wilson and Donnan, ‘Borders and Border Studies’, 1. 5 border regions, borderlands and border landscapes.”13 The character and dynamics of a border or a border region can change due to action from the political centre as well as from the borderland itself. Borders change over time, border students Michiel Baud and Willem van Schendel agree, and they present five possible stages in a borderland’s existence: infant, adolescent, adult, declining and defunct.14 The infant borderland exists just after the boundary line has been drawn. National identities are still vague, cross-border social and economic networks are strong, and the possible disappearance of the border seems a serious option to many inhabitants of the region. The second stage is the adolescent borderland. The border has become an undeniable reality, but many people remember the period before it existed. Old networks still form powerful links across the border. In the adult borderland, social networks largely follow the contours of the border. Cross-border social and kin relations are increasingly viewed as problematic. Even new cross-border networks, such as those involved in smuggling, are based on the acceptance of the border. The declining borderland is the result of the border losing its political importance. New cross- or supra-border networks emerge, not posing a threat to the state. Finally, the authors use the term defunct borderland when a border is abolished and physical barriers between the two sides of the border are removed. Border-induced networks gradually fall apart and are replaced by new ones that take no account of the old division.