When Belgium became a nation in 1830, it had almost no
tradition of long-distance trade or colonial activity. Even in the first
decades of its existence, it showed little inclination toward overseas
expansion. Although a few attempts were made by the first king, Leopold I
(1790–
1865), these were not successful. If this small
European country nevertheless succeeded in ruling a vast colony in Central
Africa, this was due only to the tenacity of its second king, Leopold II
(1835–1909).
THE
CONGO FREE STATE (1885–1908)
Leopold II, an ambitious and enterprising monarch,
was fascinated by the Dutch colonial ‘‘model’’ in Java and wanted to enhance
his country’s grandeur by exploiting a vast colonial domain, destined to enrich
the mother country. After several unsuccessful attempts in different parts of
Asia and Africa, Leopold developed a keen interest in Central Africa. The king
took several personal initiatives, without the formal backing of his country’s government
and even without the support of Belgium’s leading economic players.
In 1876 Leopold convoked an International Geographic
Conference in Brussels, where prominent geographers and explorers were invited.
Under the cloak of humanitarian and scientific interests, he then created successive
private organizations, the most important of which was the Association
Internationale du Congo (AIC). These organizations, controlled by the king
himself, had in fact a commercial purpose. When France, in the early 1880s,
started to develop a political hold along the banks of the lower Congo, the AIC
(which, in the meantime, had hired the British explorer Henry Morton Stanley
(1841–1904) as its local manager) also began to conclude treaties whereby
African chiefs recognized the association’s sovereignty. Because the United
Kingdom, France, and Portugal had conflicting interests in this region,
Leopold’s skillful personal diplomacy succeeded in playing the contradictory ambitions
of these countries against each other.
In the margins of the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference, the
world’s main powers recognized the AIC as the legal authority over a vast
territory in the heart of Africa, a new ‘‘state’’ called the Congo Free State.
The main contenders in this region, particularly France and the United Kingdom,
hoped to reap the benefits of Leopold’s ‘‘whim,’’ which, in their opinion,
would not last long. Indeed, in the beginning, the Congo Free State seemed to
be an unviable enterprise. The Free State’s expenses outstripped its incomes.
Setting up an administration and waging exhausting military campaigns in order
to secure the Free State’s grip on a territory more than eighty times as large
as Belgium turned out to be very expensive. The Congo survived mainly through
the king’s personal funds. But from 1895 on, the Congo Free State, which Leopold ruled as an absolute monarch,
was saved from bankruptcy by the growing demand for rubber.
The king imposed a harsh labor regime on the Congolese
populations in order to extort ever-growing amounts of wild rubber. On the
Congo Free State’s own domains, as well as on the vast tracks of land that had been
conceded to private companies, brutal and repressive practices took the lives
of large numbers of Africans—though exact figures are impossible to establish. The
Congo Free State, officially presented to the world as a humanitarian and civilizing
enterprise destined to abolish slavery and introduce Christianity, became the target
of an international protest campaign, led by the British activist Edmund Dene
Morel (1873- 1924) and his Congo Reform Association. In the first years of the
twentieth century, the Congo question became an important international issue,
since the British government took this matter to heart, especially after an
official enquiry commission, appointed by king Leopold, had confirmed the
existence of excesses (1904). Belgium itself could not stay aloof, because of
its growing involvement in the Congo Free State. An increasing number of
volunteers had joined the public service and the military in the Congo; Belgian
Catholic missions had been protected and promoted by the Free State’s
authorities; the Belgian Parliament had granted loans to the Congo; and
important private groups had started investing in colonial enterprises,
particularly in 1906. Consequently, the Belgian Parliament agreed in 1908 to accept the Congo as its own colony, in order
to avoid international intervention or a takeover by a foreign power.
THE
CONGO AS A BELGIAN COLONY (1908–1960)
The so-called Colonial Charter of 1908 set out the
main lines of the Belgian colonial system: a rigorous separation between the
budgets of the colony and the mother country; a strict parliamentary control of
executive power (in order to avoid the excesses of the former Leopoldian despotism);
the appointment of a governor-general in Congo, whose powers were strictly
limited by the metropolitan authorities; and a tight centralism in the colony itself,
where provincial authorities were granted little autonomy.
In reality, Belgium’s political parties and public opinion
showed little interest in Congolese matters. Consequently, colonial policy was
determined by a small group of persons, in particular the minister of colonies,
a handful of top civil servants in the Ministry of Colonies, some prominent Catholic ecclesiastics, and the
leaders of the private companies that were investing increasing amounts of
capital in the colony. A classic image depicts the Belgian Congo as being run
by the ‘‘Trinity’’ of administration, capital, and the (Catholic) Church.
These three protagonists had an enormous influence
in the colony, and assisted each other in their respective ventures, even if
their interests did not always coincide and, indeed, sometimes openly
conflicted.
The Belgian administration of the Congo was run by a
relatively modest corps of civil servants (in 1947 only about 44,000 whites,
3,200 of whom were public employees, were present in this vast country, inhabited
by some 11 million Africans). The lowest level of administration consisted of
the indigenous authorities, the more or less ‘‘authentic’’ traditional African
chiefs, who were strictly controlled by Belgian officials. On the local level, in close contact with the African population, the
missionaries played an important role in evangelization, in (primary)
education, and in health services. Protestant missions were present in the
Congo next to Catholic ones, but the latter enjoyed, during most of Belgian
rule, a privileged position.
As in most colonies, the Congolese economy consisted
of a heterogeneous mix of different sectors. The rural masses were primarily
engaged in a neglected and stagnating indigenous agriculture, aimed at
self-subsistence but facing growing difficulties feeding the increasing population,
particularly from the 1950s. The colonial authorities also obliged these
agriculturalists to produce export crops (e.g., cotton), which made them
vulnerable to the ups and downs of world markets. A third economic sector
consisted of large-scale plantations (e.g., palm oil production by the
enterprise founded by the British businessman William Lever [1851–1925]), also
oriented toward export. The Congo was also characterized by the
extraordinary development of huge mining industries (particularly in the
province of Katanga, well known for its copper, and in the Kasai region, famous
for its industrial diamonds).
From the 1920s on, heavy investments in the exploitation
of the colony’s rich mineral resources transformed the Congo into a major actor
in the world economy. During both world wars, the Belgian Congo played a great
role as purveyor of raw materials for the Allies, while the Congolese troops
also engaged in warfare against the German and Italian forces.
In order to wipe out the stain of Leopoldian ill treatment
of the African population and gain international respectability, the Belgian
authorities tried to turn the Congo into a ‘‘model colony.’’ Although forced labor,
repression, and a ‘‘color bar’’ (a form of racial segregation) persisted till
the very end of their domination, the Belgians made serious efforts to promote indigenous
wellbeing, particularly during the 1950s, by developing a network of health
services and primary schools. From the late 1920s, some important mining companies
had also developed a paternalistic policy aimed at stabilizing and controlling
their labor force (Congo had one of the largest wage labor contingents in
Africa). The final decade of the Belgian presence in the Congo was characterized
by a notable improvement of the living standard of the growing black urban
population.
However, one of the main failures of Belgian
colonial policy was the choice not to develop an indigenous elite. Secondary
and university education were seriously neglected.
The Congolese petty bourgeoisie remained embryonic:
local entrepreneurs or proprietors were almost nonexistent. Only a tiny fraction
of the Congolese population, the so-called e´volue´s, succeeded more or less in
assimilating the European way of life, but their Belgianmasters kept themat the
bottom levels of the public service or private companies,without any short-term
prospects of exercising responsible tasks.
Anticolonialism and nationalism found their way into
the Congolese population comparatively late—indeed, not until the second half
of the 1950s. Belgian authorities were caught practically unprepared by the
sudden wave of black political activism, and subsequently engaged in a process of
‘‘precipitous decolonization.’’ In just a few months’ time (from early 1959 to
the beginning of 1960), the political prospects for the colony evolved from a
long-term loosening of the ties between Belgium and the Congo, to the immediate
independence of the African country. When Congo became a sovereign nation on
June 30, 1960, this new state was utterly unprepared to handle the enormous
problems that it had to face, and it slid into years of chaos, internal
disruption (e.g., regional secessions, such as Katanga’s), and civil war—only
to emerge in 1965 under the Mobutu Sese Seko (1930–1997) dictatorship, which
was to last more than thirty years and thoroughly pillaged the country’s
enormous riches.
BELGIAN
MANDATE TERRITORIES IN AFRICA
During World War I, Belgian colonial troops
participated in the military campaigns against the Germans in East Africa. They
occupied a large part of this German colony. After the end of the war, the
Belgian government tried to exchange these territories against the left bank of
the Congo River mouth, which was in Portuguese hands. This plan failed to
materialize, and finally, on May 30, 1919, according to the Orts-Milner
Agreement (named after its Belgian and British negotiators), Belgium’s spoils of
war only consisted of two small territories in the Great Lakes region bordering
the immense Belgian Congo, namely Rwanda and Burundi (their ancient names being
Ruanda and Urundi).
As was the case with the other former German colonies,
the League of Nations entrusted both of these territories to the victorious
power as ‘‘mandates.’’ Belgium administered these mandates through a system of
indirect rule. The pre-colonial social and political authorities, consisting of
a Tutsi king (mwami) and a tiny aristocracy (predominantly of Tutsi origin),
ruling over a vast majority of mainly Hutu agriculturalists, were kept in
place—even if the Belgians reshaped the traditional structures by constantly
intervening in them. Until almost the end of the mandate period, the Belgian administrators,
with the help of the Catholic Church and its schools, did their best to turn
the Tutsi elite into docile auxiliaries of their own rule. Only in the final phase
of their presence in Rwanda and Burundi at the end of the 1950s did the
Belgians change their attitude toward the Hutu majority. They favored the
takeover of political power by the latter, a policy that
succeeded in Rwanda but failed in Burundi. When both countries became
independent on July 1, 1962, Rwanda was governed by a Hutu president, Burundi
by a Tutsi king. Belgian native policy, which had rigidified the ethnic
boundaries between Tutsi and Hutu and consequently had exacerbated the ethnic
identity of these groups, was largely responsible for the intensification of
ethnic rivalry between these groups after the end of foreign rule. This
antagonism, coupled with the high population density in these overwhelmingly
agricultural countries, was to form a volatile environment in the following
decades, causing several interethnic massacres, of which the Rwandan genocide
of 1994 was the most terrifying example.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anstey, Roger. King Leopold’s Legacy. The Congo
under Belgian Rule 1908-1960. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. ‘‘Archives
Africaines’’ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brussels (Archives of the
former Belgian Ministry of Colonies). In French. Available at: http://www.diplomatie.be/fr/archives/
archives.asp.
Maurel, Auguste. Le Congo: De la colonisation Belge
a` l’inde´pendance, 2nd ed. Paris: Harmattan, 1992.
N’Daywel e` Nziem, Isidore. Histoire ge´ne´rale du
Congo: De l’he´ritage ancien a` la Re´publique De´mocratique, 2nd ed. Brussels:
De Boeck & Larcier, 1998.
Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges. The Congo From Leopold to
Kabila.
A People’s History. London: Zed Books, 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment