755.00/36
The Minister in the Netherlands (Emmet) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 27.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that the recent declaration of King Leopold of Belgium,14 made in the Cabinet Council, regarding the future policy of Belgium, has been received with warm approval in this country. His declaration that Belgian military policy, like its foreign policy, which necessarily determines it, must be directed not to preparing a war, more or less victorious as the result of a [Page 361] coalition, but to keeping war away from Belgian territory, evokes a warmly responsive note in the public opinion of the Netherlands, at least as expressed in the Netherlands press. This is scarcely to be wondered at, as the proposed Belgian policy coincides almost precisely with the military and foreign policy of this country.
The King’s declaration has excited wide comment in most Western European countries and there seems to be considerable confusion and difference of opinion as to the purport and meaning of it. In the Netherlands, however, it is welcomed as the declaration of a policy which has been pursued successfully here, and which represents the safest position for a comparatively small nation to take in the midst of European ambitions, yearnings and hopes that the larger nations are attempting to express in the present disturbed conditions of Western Europe, and that are continually rising to the surface as the pot underneath simmers before coming to the boiling point.
The London Times says that as a declaration of policy to the outer world, the speech must clearly seem irregular, and that there was an agreement between the western Locarno signatories to abstain from unilateral pronouncements of such wide importance during the present discussions. It explains the speech by saying that the Belgian Government was confronted by the urgent necessity of piloting a new defense bill through Parliament, where its passage was not expected to be easy, and goes on to say that a declaration of policy carefully attuned to the prevailing currents of public opinion in Belgium, which includes a marked dislike of foreign entanglements and a consequent suspicion of the Franco-Soviet Pact, seemed to be demanded by the paramount aim, namely, to provide the necessary military means for guaranteeing the territorial integrity of the country. The Times holds that King Leopold’s declaration of policy is not to be taken to exclude Belgian participation in a new settlement of Western Europe but on a fair interpretation of the speech it will be a limited participation in a system of mutual bilateral pacts strictly conforming to the Covenant of the League. Such limitation of Belgian commitments might, it is thought, exert some attraction on Holland. In France the speech appears to be regarded as a new and disturbing element in an already uncertain situation. It is questioned whether Belgium can find juridical justification for what appears to be a denunciation of the Locarno Treaty which, the French contend, was not destroyed by unilateral German repudiation.
It will be recalled that last spring, when Herr Hitler announced the military reoccupation of the Rhineland, and in many quarters was thought to have completely repudiated the Locarno Treaty, he threw out the suggestion of a future pact to which Belgium would be a party and went on to say that he would consider the question of taking in [Page 362] Holland as a party as well. This statement on the part of the Führer was not taken with good grace or even enthusiasm by this country. (See Legation’s despatch No. 381, of March 20, 193615). The resolute, independent character of the Dutch was rather affronted by the suggestion that they should become entangled in any alliance of that character, with Hitler and Germany in the forefront of it. While no invitation was, of course, given them at the time and no response made, the position of the Dutch with regard to any such suggestion was pretty well evidenced by their promptly taking steps to appropriate money for the defense of the German frontier and to undertake to strengthen in every way they could their defenses on their eastern border. In a conversation I had at the time or shortly afterwards with Premier Colijn, he scoffed at any acceptance by the Dutch of an invitation to enter into such alliances. (See Legation’s despatch No. 381, of March 20, 1936).
The repercussion of the Dutch, therefore, to the recent speech of King Leopold is one of satisfaction that a neighboring and smaller nation is adopting practically the same policy which Holland has pursued. The hope of smaller nations in collective security received a rude shock when the League of Nations failed to save Abyssinia. As M. Spaak, the Belgian Foreign Minister, said in a speech in Brussels last week: “Remember Abyssinia, which was led to believe that by basing her defense on the policy of collective security she would be saved. Do you want that to happen to us? Collective security and mutual assistance are to be encouraged, but it must be recognized that they are yet fragmentary.”
This afternoon I had a talk with Jhr. de Graeff, the Foreign Minister, and he expressed himself in most enthusiastic terms with respect to King Leopold’s statement. He told me confidentially that he had known for some time that some expression on the part of the Belgian King as to Belgium’s military policy was to be forthcoming, but he was gratified immensely that it was so clearly expressed and followed so closely the policy which Holland has always pursued. He said that it was not likely that any similar statement on the part of the Government of the Netherlands would be forthcoming because the military and foreign policy of the Netherlands was well known and has been established so long that it was not necessary to reassert it.
As an illustration of Dutch opinion on the recent speech of King Leopold, I append a few extracts from the Netherlands press.16
Respectfully yours,