International Affairs: A Survey

Among recent international developments there are three which deserve notice in this survey. The first is the series of political revolutions resulting in the establishment of the rule of army commanders in some of the countries of Asia. The second is the extension into the offshore islands of China and the Formosa Straits the cold war tension which previously had its centre in the Middle East–especially in Lebanon and Jordan. The third is the endless and fruitless debate in the United Nations on Disarmament and the suspension of nuclear tests–a debate which makes it quite clear that the World Organisation is at present only a forum for propaganda and mutual recrimination by the Soviet and the American blocs, and that unless and until it is completely transformed it cannot become an organ for the maintenance of peace and security–the most important of the purposes for which it was brought into existence.

(1)

It was in Iraq that the first of the political revolutions broke out. A few army generals inspired to a great extent by the example of President Nasser of Egypt plotted secretly against the old government, murdered the King and his Prime Minister and made themselves the rulers of the country. They established a military regime in place of the old feudal one. There was no democratic urge in the country and not only did the people not make any protest against military rule but they also welcomed it, as they expected that it would change those policies of previous government which ran counter to the spirit of Arab nationalism. All the States in the world–the Communist as well as the non-Communist ones–recognised it.

As was expected it established closer contact with President Nasser who today is regarded as the best embodiment of Arab nationalism. It also established closer relations with Soviet Russia and other Communist countries, thus reversing the policy of the earlier government which favoured the West and which was a party to the Baghdad Pact. It also called on the British to evacuate the few air bases which they still had in Iraq. It is this anti-westernism that is the most spectacular result of the military coup in Baghdad. Whether it will be able to solve the social and economic problems which are of a more fundamental character, modernise the outlook of the people and raise their standard of living, is a question which it is not possible to answer now. The main fact to be noted is the setting up of a military regime of a dictatorial character. There was no attempt at establishing democracy.

The next country in which political power was seized by the military is Pakistan. It closely followed the Middle Eastern model–the model of Nasser–in this connection, though in every other respect it is poles apart from Egypt. The army coup here is certain to produce more serious consequences than that in Iraq or elsewhere. Pakistan is a big country; it has a large population and a well-trained and homogeneous army. It is an active member of both the Baghdad and S. E. A. T. Organisations and as such is closely allied with the United States, receiving from that country substantial military and economic aid. A military regime in a country like this will be a more disturbing factor to the neighbouring States, speaking the language of war in the settlement of any disputes she may have with them.

The military revolution here is significant from another point of view also. The Constitution which was framed for Pakistan and finalised in 1956 was a democratic one. It was expected that under it free institutions would come to stay here. But all such hope is now lost. One of the reasons put forward by those who established the military regime in justification of their action is that in a country like Pakistan, with only eighteen per cent of the population being literate, democracy could not work. In their opinion a long period of tutelage would be necessary before conditions become ripe for introducing democratic institutions. One of the speeches of General Ayub Khan, the dictator, made it clear that several years earlier such an opinion was entertained by Gulam Mohammed who invited him on that ground to take over power. Those who love free government will naturally regret the happenings in Pakistan.

Under pressure from the army the President of Pakistan, Iskandar Mirza, who swore two years ago to preserve the Constitution abrogated it. He dismissed the Central and Provincial governments, dissolved the National Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, abolished all political parties and set up a regime of total martial law. The reasons assigned for taking these drastic steps would justify the establishment of military regimes in all the countries of Asia and perhaps in many countries in other parts of the world. It was said that in the course of the last few years self-seekers in the garb of political leaders ravaged the country, bartered it away for personal gain, with self-aggrandisement and thirst for power as their main objectives. By their conduct they created chaotic conditions throughout the land. They accentuated provincial feelings, religious animosities and racial bitterness. The country came to be filled with smugglers, black-marketeers and other “social vermin, sharks and leeches.” These became responsible for scarcity of food, for high prices and for other widespread evils. Instead of moving forward the country began to move wards. In the midst of this unhealthy and corrupt atmosphere there was only one institution that was pure. It was the army. “It was free from politics, a model of devotion to duty and integrity and imbued with the spirit of service to the people and capable of effectively defending the country.” The conclusion was drawn that the country could be saved from the rapacity of politicians and other unsocial elements by the Army leaders. There was no other way of salvation.

This is how throughout history military dictators justified their rule. In a democracy, when things are mismanaged by the party in power, it can be replaced by another party without any recourse to force. This is its great virtue. A military dictator may, of course, cleanse the evil atmosphere to some extent through a reign of terror. But what guarantee is there that he will have the wisdom and the ability to carry out all the social and economic reforms that the country needs or that administrators under him would be less corrupt? What if some other aspirants for power in the army conspire to overthrow him? Military dictatorship is no answer to the defects in Asian societies which in many cases are a legacy of either feudal rule or colonial rule.

The proclamation of martial law was naturally followed by strict censorship of the press, the arrest of political enemies and rivals and the so-called black-marketeers, the prohibition of strikes and peaceful demonstrations, house searches etc. Whipping has been made the punishment for very many crimes. It remains to be seen to what extent this strong regime will be able to carry out the necessary economic and social reforms. This is the big question mark.

Thailand is another country where power over the State was taken over by the Commander-in-chief of the army. Of course this is not a new phenomenon in that country. There was there at all times a struggle for power among rival leaders and it was last year that the present Commander really established himself in control of the State. But till about a few weeks ago he kept up the appearance of having the country ruled by Ministers, with a National Assembly, with political parties and a free press functioning more or less normally. He now chose to abrogate all these and proclaim himself the sole dictator. He must have been very much influenced in this by what happened in Pakistan.

There is one thing which is noteworthy in regard to what happened in Thailand. The reason put forward in justification of the new military regime is the growing menace of Communism. The Communists, it is said, have become more active in recent months and they have been able to win over several organs of the press and several sections of the people. The military revolution in Thailand is thus definitely anti-communistic.

The same feature is perhaps the dominant characteristic of what happened in Burma.

Burma is a democratic State. For ten years democracy was worked successfully in that country. General elections were held and stable ministries, with stable majorities behind them in the national legislature, were formed and they functioned effectively. The world was naturally taken by surprise when at the end of September the Prime Minister announced his decision not only to resign but also totransfer the office of Prime Minister to General Ne Win, the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces. At the end of October the decision was given effect to. Today Burma is ruled not by a ministry really responsible to Parliament but by one which depends for its power on the army.

Why did U Nu decide on such a transfer of power? All the facts are not known but one or two points are clear. There was split in the Anti-Fascist Freedom League which was the party that brought freedom to Burma and which was in power all these years. There was a dissident group in it which wanted to get rid of U Nu and which moved a vote of no-confidence in him and his ministry. But U Nu secured the support of certain sections of the opposition–which was mostly leftist and had communist sympathies and saw that the vote of no-confidence was defeated. Serious trouble been from that fateful day. Since then U Nu was suspected by several sections of the public of moving in the direction of Communism and paving the way for the establishment of a Communist government. This suspicion gained strength when he granted certain concessions to the Communists on the understanding that they would surrender their arms and work as a constitutional party. There was nothing illegitimate in adopting a policy like this but the public misunderstood him because of the rumours that the Communists were not really prepared to surrender arms, that it was all their tactics to take part in the elections which were originally proposed to be held in November, and that they would resume their rebellious activities if in the elections they failed to get a substantial success. This suspicion was strongest in the army circles. For ten years the army had been engaged in fighting the Communists who were carrying on a war against constituted authority. The army felt that U Nu was now betraying it. There were also rumours of a plot–by Communists–to assassinate the army commanders, disband the army and take over power. All this contributed to unrest in several regiments which began to defy civil authorities and resort to all sorts of crime in several localities. There were also rumours of an army coup. Law and order were undermined. It was then that U Nu came to the conclusion that so long as he was suspected by the army as being in league with the Communists there was no possibility of his government carrying on its work in a normal manner. He could have resigned and advised the President to dissolve the Parliament and hold general elections. But he felt that owing to the breakdown of law and order and the growth of brigandage free and fair elections could not be held.  It was then that he decided that the only course was to invite the Commander-in-chief of the army to become the Prime Minister, form his own non-party Cabinet and carry on the government.

There is, however, an essential point of difference between what happened in Burma and what happened in Iraq, Pakistan and Thailand. In Burma the democratic Constitution is still in force. There is still a National Parliament. Political parties are free to carry on their activities. There is no censorship of the press. Above all the understanding is that General Ne Win should within the next six months restore complete peace and order and create all other conditions necessary to have free and fair elections in April 1959. There is no murder of democracy in Burma. It is only in temporary eclipse. Subsequent developments will show whether there will be any need to revise our views about the future of democracy in that country. For the time being, however, power in Burma is held by the Commander-in-chief of the army (though it is said that he holds it in his individual capacity and not in his official capacity) as is the case in Iraq, Pakistan and Thailand. This is the reason why it is included here among countries which have recently undergone a political revolution.

It is already known that in the republic of Indonesia democracy did not meet with a better fortune. In accordance with the principle of “guided democracy “ as laid down by President Soekerno real power is exercised by him and his cabinet of ministers and an advisory national council associated with them. The suspension of democracy and the postponement of general elections to 1960 were the outcome of disturbances caused by discontented groups in different parts of the republic. It was also due to toomuch criticism of governmental policies indulged in by opposition parties and the resort to strikes rather too frequently, not with a view to better the economic condition of workers but to achieve political objectives. Whatever it be the conclusion follows that in most of the countries of Asia political power is passing into the hands of either military commanders or self-chosen leaders. It is only in India, Ceylon, Malay, the Philippines and Japan that the forms of democracy are being kept up.

There was a time when it was universally believed that the world should strive for democracy. The enthusiasm for it was at its height in the years following the First World War. Then carne the era of Fascism and Communism. Many parts of the world have fallen under the control of authoritarian dictators. This movement is gradually spreading. It is time for serious students to consider what it is that lies at the of this movement and whether it is one that deserves to be encouraged.

(2)

There is not much to be said about the situation in the offshore islands of China and in the Formosa Straits which at one stage threatened to develop into a major war between the United States on one side and the Soviet-China bloc on the other. The difficulty here has arisen owing to the unrealistic policies adopted by the United States. There is a belief still entertained by a section of the American public that the Communist regime in China can be overthrown and that Chiang can be brought fromFormosa and made the supreme ruler of the Chinese mainland. It is because of this that a strong American fleet is stationed in the straits of Formosa and large amounts of American military aid including in it the latest atomic weapons are being granted to him. Formosa has become one of rile biggest American military centres.

The communist regime which has been in effective control of the whole of China’s mainland wants to complete its task by occupying Quemoy and Matsu–the offshore islands–and the island of Formosa. These have been a part of China and whoever ruled over China also ruled over them in recent centuries. By the use of force the Communists drove away Chiang from the mainland and they would have succeeded in driving him away from the offshore islands and Formosa, had it not been forthe Americans who are standing in their way. There is nothing illegitimate in their using force to take possession of the offshore islands, and their shelling of Quemoy since August is the logical outcome of this view of theirs.

The tension in this area cannot be eased until China and the United States come to a reasonable understanding on the issue of these islands. The best course is for the United States to recognize that it is mainly a domestic issue to be settled by negotiations between the Communists and Chiang. The former are quite ready to enter into such negotiations. The latter refuses to have anything to do with them because of the American help that has been promised to him. Large numbers of Americans feel that the defence of Formosa has nothing to do with the possession of Quemoy and Matsu by Chiang. It is only prestige that stands in the way of the United States government accepting this view. If it shows courage and imagination in accepting it, there is a prospect of the tension being eased temporarily at least and negotiations may be started on the future of Formosa. It is quite possible that China may not embark on a war with the United States on the issue of Formosa, though she may be unwilling to agree to Formosa being made a separate State–a proposal which has often been put forward by the Western allies of the United States who speak of two Chinas. Or the future of Formosa may be left to be decided by a plebiscite. International opinion is very much in favour of the United States permitting Communist China to occupy the offshore island and it is best for her to yield on this limited issue. If this is done there will be a more favourable atmosphere for settling the problem of Formosa.

By withdrawing its forces from Lebanon the United States has shown that it is prepared to follow clearly expressed world opinion. It will be a good thing if in respect of the offshore islands also she conducts herself quite in conformity with world opinion.

(3)

Endless debates have been going on in the United Nations on the question of the suspension of nuclear tests and of disarmament. But they have not so far produced any results. Soviet Russia wants that the tests should be stopped for all time and that they should be stopped unconditionally. The United States and Britain are prepared to suspend them for one year and consider the question of stopping them for all time if a system of effective control and supervision is introduced meanwhile, and if some progress is achieved in the matter of reducing conventional armaments in which the Soviet bloc is far superior. They want a guarantee that Soviet Russia would strictly adhere to any agreement arrived at in regard to the stopping of the tests and they are firmly of the view that such a guarantee cannot be effective unless it is accompanied by a system of control and inspection.

This is, however, only one of the issues involved. An equally important issue is sure to arise when other States like France take to nuclear tests as they are likely to do in the near future. An understanding among Britain, the United States and Soviet Russia must be followed by a similar understanding with France and any other future nuclear powers.

A second issue arises with reference to China. China is not a nuclear power today. All the same no system of supervision and control will be effective unless the agency established for the purpose for has got access to China. China cannot be expected to give such access to an international body in the setting up of which she has no hand. There is the danger that the Geneva talks on the suspension of nuclear tests may fail because of the exclusion of China.

The question of the suspension of nuclear tests is also bound up with the question of the reduction of conventional armaments in which the Soviet bloc is far superior to the Western bloc. The latter rely for defence on nuclear weapons and, if a ban is placed on their manufacture and use, they will naturally insist on a substantial reduction of the conventional armaments possessed by the Soviet bloc. Here again no such reduction will be effective unless China is brought into the picture.

All this makes quite clear that, in the present world set up, with each State claiming complete sovereignty in the matter of armaments and in resorting to war to settle its disputes with other nations, the problem of international peace and security is insoluble. The suspension of nuclear tests and the reduction in armaments may bring other advantages–advantages from the point of view of health and the utilisation of resources now spent on armaments for improving the economic condition of the masses of people in the under-developed areas of the world. They will not, however, solve the problem of peace and security. There were wars in the pre-nuclear age. There were wars when the armaments in the bands of States were far less in quantity and had far less destructive capacity than is the case today. The solution therefore to the problem of peace lies in what is called universal and complete disarmament and in creating a world organisation which is legally empowered to punish States, individuals and groups who secretly and illicitly manufacture arms or resort to force to secure their aims. And no such organisation will be in a position to punish them unless it has adequate forces of its own for this purpose. In other words the world organisation should have a monopoly in regard to the use of force and every State should be legally prohibited from using it. It is only in this way that domestic peace and security have been achieved and it is only in a similar way that international peace can be secured.

The one problem confronting humanity now is whether nations are prepared to surrender to a world organisation the sovereign powers which they now have in the matter of raising armaments and in using them for settling their disputes. Unless they are prepared to do this there is no possibility of securing peace. It is on this one subject that the attention of mankind should now be concentrated.

October 31, ’58