Final answer:
Yes, Leopold should be held responsible for crimes committed in his name in the Congo, regardless of whether he personally visited the colony.
Step-by-step explanation:
Leopold II should be held responsible for crimes committed in his name in the Congo, even if he never set foot there. As the ruler of the Congo Free State, Leopold had full control and authority over the colony, regardless of whether he personally visited it or not. His policies and actions led to the brutalization, exploitation, and suffering of the Congolese people.
Leopold's intermediaries, who acted on his behalf in the Congo, brutalized the local population through means such as raids, floggings, destruction of villages and fields, and murder and mutilation. The goal was to extract wealth from the colony, primarily through the ivory and rubber trade. Leopold's direct involvement in these actions is irrelevant because he established and maintained a system that allowed these crimes to happen.
Furthermore, the international community and the Belgian Parliament eventually recognized the atrocities committed in the Congo and took action to end Leopold's control over the colony. The establishment of the Belgian Congo and the assumption of direct administration by the Belgian government in 1908 were responses to the public outcry and evidence of the crimes committed under Leopold's rule.