Some Problems of the Peace ConferenceHaskins, Charles Homer
History
Some Problems of the Peace Conference
Haskins, Charles Homer
Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions
The Dutch have interpreted this strictly as giving the joint commission
control only over the pilotage (two concurrent services) and over
keeping the channels open and properly marked and buoyed. The Belgians,
on the other hand, have contended that the commission should have
cognizance of matters upon which the extent and security of the
channels depend, such as diking, drainage, encroachments on the river
and its accessory waters, etc., their ground being that the Scheldt
constitutes a single hydrographic problem, no portion of which can
be properly treated without reference to the whole. They allege the
failure to make sufficient modern improvements on the western Scheldt
because of the indifference of the Dutch authorities, and they also
complain of the serious difficulties of drainage in Belgian Flanders
caused by raising the level of the Dutch lands between it and the
Scheldt. Being interested in the use of the river to a far greater
degree than the Dutch, the Belgians find it intolerable to be dependent
on Dutch consent to every act of maintenance or improvement. Belgium
pays the entire cost of improvements, but the consent of Holland is
necessary. Thus the Terneuzen canal, which connects Ghent with the
Scheldt, was built by Dutch engineers but at Belgium’s expense, and the
Dutch portion does not correspond to the portion south of the frontier.
Holland’s position throughout is essentially negative. The Scheldt
furthers no major interest of hers; she has no important towns along
its banks, no foreign trade which it carries; its improvement benefits
only a commercial rival.
In time of war Holland interprets her sovereignty as compelling her to
close the river to belligerents. In August 1914 English reënforcements
were thus forbidden to relieve Antwerp, although their purpose was to
maintain Belgian neutrality, while Belgian troops were denied exit by
the river and forced, to the number of several thousand, to suffer
internment in Holland. Such control of the river nullifies the centre
of Belgium’s defensive system at Antwerp; it might also permit the
turning of her Flemish defences in case of a war with Holland. The
Dutch maintain that the neutrality of the Scheldt during the Great War
was of real assistance to the Allies, who would otherwise have suffered
from German submarine bases along its banks; but the Belgians point out
that the closing of the river in war destroys at one blow the whole
foreign commerce of Antwerp, a result that might ensue even in a war in
which Holland was a party and Belgium neutral.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account