So, I wanted to write with some reflections on the visit of the Belgian monarch to the #DRC. Like most others, I believe that the Belgian King should apologise. The politics and philosophy of state apologies is complex, of course, but it is simplified in this case . . .
King Leopold II *owned* the ancestor of the current #DRC, the Congo Free State, as his personal fiefdom. So, the King as well as his royal successors benefitted *hugely* from the atrocities that he and his regime oversaw. This was *personal wealth* . . .
and it remains so and therefore I'd go further and say that the monarchy must pay reparations. An apology is not good enough. Congolese people bled for money that has *directly* led to the enrichment of the Belgian monarchy. It is hard to dispute this.
How much money are we talking about? Honestly, we don't know. Why? Because King Leopold II burned *lots* of the financial records pertaining to the Free State. As such, we must gather what we have and make a guess. And effort should be put into this . . .
Burning archives should not be rewarded with impunity. Rather, it should be punished as far as I can see. I think these arguments are by now fairly well known so I'll move onto one that needs more attention . . .
There is a tendency to see the Congo Free State and the Belgian Congo, its successor, as distinctly Belgian. All of the atrocities are to do with Belgium. This is *not so*. Both of these states relied on outside capital to make money. Foreign resources shaped these states.
I am not denying Belgian involvement. But as UK subjects, we must enquire into our own part in these reprehensible states. Why? One of the major concessions in the Free State era was the Anglo-Belgian-Indian Rubber Company (ABIR) - clue is in the name here of course.
If you want a more detailed look at ABIR, here is an article: jstor.org/stable/3601320. But UK involvement was *fundamental* to its existence.
But didn't UK involvement stop with the end of the Free State/ABIR? No, obviously not. Not only were there UK shareholders in the Mining Union of Upper Katanga (UMHK) but @Unilever was deeply involved in the Belgian Congo.
Together with my dear colleague @HenrietBenoit, I have written about @Unilever involvement in the Belgian Congo if you wish to read more: doi.org/10.1080/030865…. Again, I'll let the article speak for itself re what happened here.
In 2013, Lord Lea apparently heard Daphne Park, former head of MI6, that she had organised the death of Lumumba in 1961 (bbc.co.uk/news/world-afr…). Park's claim is probably an exaggeration. But it is difficult to see the UK not being complicit in Lumumba's demise.
But overall, you get the idea, the UK has been involved in the colonisation and disastrous post-independence violence of the Congo. It is not just a Belgian affair. And I have just mentioned the UK. I haven't time to survey US complicity in all this but I probably don't need to.
US involvement in the Congo is, I hope, well known. But I hope this helps to start a wider discussion about the Congo's history and politics. Dealing with the history of the Free State and the Belgian Congo is not just Belgium's deal.
End of thread: for now at least!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
