4. Would Belgium have forfeited the right of having her country held
inviolable if she had committed "acts in favor of France," even if these
acts were not actually hostile acts? Yes, according to Article XVII. of
The Hague Convention.
5. Did Belgium commit "acts in favor of France," and was Germany,
therefore, justified in disregarding the inviolability of her territory?
The Main Question.
This is the important question, and the answer must be left to the
Supreme Court of Civilization. The weight of the evidence would seem to
point to a justification of Germany. Yet no friend of Germany can find
fault with those who would wish to defer a verdict until such a time
when Germany can present her complete proof to the world, and this may
be when the war is over.
Throughout this argument the famous passage of the Chancellor's speech
in the Reichstag has been disregarded. It reads:
Our troops have occupied Luxemburg and perhaps are already on
Belgian soil. Gentlemen, that is contrary to the dictates of
international law. It is true that the French Government has
declared at Brussels that France is willing to respect the
neutrality of Belgium so long as her opponents respect it. We
knew, however, that France stood ready for invasion. The
wrong--I speak openly--that we are committing we will endeavor
to make good.
This has been understood to mean that the Chancellor acknowledged that
Germany was breaking the Treaty of 1839 without warrant, and that
Germany, therefore, deserved the contempt of the world. May it not bear
another interpretation? Thus:
The Chancellor, like Gladstone in 1870, did not consider the 1839 Treaty
enforceable, but saw the guarantee for Belgium in The Hague Convention.
He did not wish to offend Belgium by announcing to the world that she
had lost her rights as a neutral because of her acts favorable to
France, for when he spoke he was still of the opinion that she would
accept the German offer which guaranteed to her both her independence
and integrity.
And just as Servia would have accepted Austria's note if Russia had
permitted her, so Belgium would not have resisted the German demand if
it had not been for England.
This can be proved by the British "White Paper," Nos. 153 and 155. In
the former the King of the Belgians appeals "to the diplomatic
intervention of your Majesty's Government to safeguard the integrity of
Belgium," being apparently of the impression that Germany wished to
annex parts, if not the whole, of his country. The London reply advises
the Belgians "to resist by any means in their power, and that his
Majesty's Government will support them in offering such resistance, and
that his Majesty's Government in this event are prepared to join Russia
and France, if desired, in offering to the Belgian Government at once
common action for the purpose of resisting use of force by Germany
against them, and a guarantee to maintain their independence and
integrity in future years."
Has Mr. Beck really not noticed in this promise the omission of the word
neutrality? By the Treaty of 1839 Belgium enjoyed not only independence
and integrity, but also perpetual neutrality. Does Great Britain offer
to fight Germany for the enforcement of the Treaty of 1839? No! Because
hereafter the word neutrality is dropped from her guarantee, and since
she alone of all the great powers has not ratified the articles of The
Hague Convention concerning neutrals she alone will be able to disregard
the inviolability of Belgian soil, even though Belgium kept strictly
neutral in a future war.
And what, finally, does she guarantee her? Independence and integrity!
That is exactly the same that Germany had promised her. For this Belgium
had to be dragged through the horrors of war, and the good name of
Germany as that of an honest nation had to be dragged through the mire,
and hatred and murder had to be started, that Belgium might get on the
battlefield, from the insufficient support of Russia and France and
England, what Germany had freely offered her--independence and
integrity.
Casual readers would not miss the word neutrality from Sir Edward Grey's
guarantee, because they do not differentiate between the words
integrity, independence, and neutrality. Great Britain and her ally
Japan, marching through China into Kiao-Chau, may be said to have
violated China's neutrality, but not her independence, nor, so long as
they refrain from annexing any Chinese territory, her integrity.
Fixing the Blame.
Nobody familiar with the careful work of Sir Edward Grey can for one
moment believe that Sir Edward inadvertently dropped the word, just as
little as J. Ramsay Macdonald and other British leaders believe that he
inadvertently dropped one of the two remaining words, integrity and
independence, when he told Parliament of Germany's guarantee, and why
Great Britain should not accept it, but go to war.
When the blame for the horrors committed in Belgium are assessed these
facts must be remembered: