You seem to imply that because the Belgians made a profit off the Congo natives that colonialism was bad for the natives. But when you make a profit by growing the pie, the result can be good for both the natives and the colonizers. The material quality of live for Congo natives has declined remarkably since the end of colonialism. As one native puts it: "Even if you go 1,000 kilometers down this river, you won't see a single sign of development. When the whites left, we didn't just stay where we were. We went backwards.
There is no doubt that, in large parts of Congo, people are worse off than they were ca. 1960. But do you seriously propose a return to colonialism as the solution? Because that is what your governor Pétillon remark seems to say... I don't believe such plan could get major support in Congo atm.
My objection is with the after the fact justification of colonialism. Charity was never an objective of colonial efforts, it would be very naive to think otherwise. The fact that the rapid decolonization (which was by no means the end of foreign intervention in Congolese affairs) did not lead to a stable and prosperous independant state, is no argument in favour of colonization either.
I'm honestly surprised of the upvotes these neo-colonial comments are getting.
I don't quite understand how pg's essay applies to the Belgian Congo, is there some specific paragraph you are referring to?