International Affairs

By Prof. M Venkatarangaiya, M.A.

FOR three years the great powers have been engaged in a search for an agreed settlement of the various political and economic issues that have arisen in consequence of the second world war. Institutions, like the Foreign Ministers’ conference, the United Nations Organization and the Security Council were created for the purpose of facilitating such a settlement. Unfortunately however no agreed solution has been found for any of the major issues. The result is that settlements arrived at have been of a one-sided character, each party being naturally dissatisfied with what the other party has done and determined on undoing it. There is tension everywhere. Orderly and peaceful life has become impossible. Conditions continue to be abnormal throughout the world.

There is an underlying cause for this. The revolutions which began in America and Europe in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, and which have laid the foundations for a new era in the progress of humanity, gave birth to the idea of the rights of man as man as distinguished from his rights as a clergyman, a member of the feudal aristocracy, or of the ruling section. Something was done during the nineteenth century to give effect to this new idea but reactionary forces of a counter revolutionary character asserted themselves in course of time, and in the place of the elementary and fundamental rights of man there came into vogue rights of a sectional character designated in a variety of ways like national rights, the rights of the propertied classes, and of the working classes. The elements which differentiate one man from another were unduly emphasised and the essential similarity between man and man arising out of the common humanity found in all was ignored. The real fight today is a fight between the eighteenth century revolution and the counter revolution of the subsequent times. No agreed settlement is possible unless the former wins victory in this fight. But in the actual world as we see around us this aspect has been ignored, and the fight as it is carried on now by the so-called great powers–Soviet Russia, the United States, Britain, France etc.,–and their satellites in Europe,–the Colonial powers like Holland and Belgium–is a fight between one counter revolutionary force and another. Soviet Russia regards only these belonging to the Proletariat as men and fights for their rights (although when we go deeper we find it fighting for the rights of the Russian Nation and the Russian Fatherland). The United States stands for national rights and the rights of the propertied classes. Her ally Britain and the lesser European powers stand for the rights of the white men as against the rights of the coloured peoples in their colonies. It is all this that has made impossible an agreed solution of the major issues of the day.

Attention has been drawn to one aspect of this disagreement among the great powers by M. Tyrgve Lie, the Secretary General of the United Nations in the third report to the General Assembly published on August 7. He observed: “The conflict between the East and West has been the cause, direct or indirect, of many set-s and disappointments in the work of the United Nations during the past year,” and he also issued a warning in the following words: “It would be a great mistake to believe that most of the world has any intention of accepting any single economic system whether based on the Communist doctrine of the classless society or the most extreme American capitalist version of a free enterprise system. In a world where so many forces are at work and so many different civilisations and cultural traditions are stirring and intermingling, domination by any single ideology, whether it be religious, or political, or economic, is unthinkable and impossible.” It is only when this truth is realised, and Soviet Russia gives up the fanaticism with which she is determined on extending the Communist ideology and the United States also abandons her capitalist ideology, that agreed solutions will become possible. They should be prepared to be guided by the ancient maxim, “Live and let live.”

It is this disagreement between them that is responsible for the sad plight in which Korea finds herself today. On the 15th of August it was announced that the Korean Republic was born. The Korean flag was hoisted in Seoul, her capital, in the presence of the American General MacArthur; the Allied Supreme Commander in Japan, and of Dr. Rufino Luna, Chairman, of the United Nations Temporary Commission in Korea. But there was not much jubilation on the occasion. For the new republic extended only over a part of Korea–the part that was under American occupation. The northern part continues to be in the Soviet occupation and there is no prospect of the two coming together under one national government, although when the country was liberated from the yoke of Japan in 1945 the two great powers proclaimed that it was their intention to establish a single free and democratic government for the whole country. The conferences held for this purpose brought no agreement between the two powers. Soviet Russia introduced communistic institutions into her zone and boycotted the national elections which were held in May last under the auspices of a commission appointed by the U.N.O. The National Assembly which came into existence as a result of these elections chose the veteran Syngman Rhee as its President and it is his government that now rules over southern Korea inhabited by nearly twenty million people. Soviet Russia has not only not recognised his government but has arranged for new elections in her Communist zone and had also called on the people in the south to participate in them. These will undoubtedly crea1e a new national assembly of a Communist character for the ten t\million Koreans in the northern part. Force alone will decide ultimately whether Korea is to remain partitioned or become united, and if so whether under a communistic or a democratic regime. Rivalries between the powers and their ideologies are at the bottom of the Korean tragedy.

The ideological conflict which began more than a decade ago between the Communists and the Koumintang in China, and which assumed the form of a terrible civil war in recent years, is becoming more and more intense. The Communists have been able to take advantage of the inefficiency, the corruption, and the unpopularity of the government of Chiang Kai Shek and have brought more territory under their control. The counter attacks launched by the national government in August have not been completely successful and reports indicate that the dissidents from Chiang’s party have entered into negotiations with the Communists and are taking steps to form a coalition government. A recent review of the war published by the Ministry of National Defence said that 217, 552 officers and men were killed, wounded, or captured during the first six months of the year and 89 districts had been lost to the Communists. It is no wonder that under circumstances like these Chiang’s Government is losing much of its original strength and vitality in spite of the fact that the United States is still extending some aid to him. The only relieving feature in the situation is the currency reform undertaken a few days ago and the efforts made to raise additional taxes and balance the budget. These however are belated measures and are not drastic enough to give vigour to Chiang’s Government. Recognition of Communist Government in certain areas of China and the consolidation of his power, in the remaining areas are the only means by which he can strengthen himself. Unless this is done immediately the future of China will become much darker than what it is at present.

Reactionary forces have gained ascendancy in Indonesia also. The U.N. Good Offices Commission has not been able to bring about any understanding between the Indonesian Republic and the Dutch authorities. The latter have succeeded through their blockade in undermining the economic strength of the Republic. And equal success has been obtained by them in setting up a number of States in Indonesia alongside of the Republic. There is now a cleavage between these States and the Republic. They claim to represent as effectively as the Republic, or even more effectively than it does, the real interests of the Indonesians. Some months ago they met at a conference in Bandoeng and it is their delegates that are now in Holland negotiating with the Dutch. This is practically a by-passing of the Republic. It is this division in the rank of the Indonesians that has emboldened the new Dutch Cabinet to draft a bill for the administration of Indonesia until the proposed United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands-Indonesian Union came into being. Under this bill the reality of power is retained by the Dutch representative of the Crown, while matters connected with Defence and Foreign Policy would be entirely in the hands of the Dutch Government. The so-called Federal Cabinet in which there would be at least five Indonesian members is given only restricted powers. It remains to be seen whether the non-Republican Indonesian States of the Bandoeng conference will be satisfied with the grant of this limited authority. Even if this bill regarding the interim government is accepted, there will be great difficulties when the Constitution of the Union is settled. The question as to what extent the United States of Indonesia will be accepted as a real partner in the proposed Union bristles with difficulties. The Dutch idea is to retain the Crown at the head of the Union and to confer upon it real authority and sovereignty. Such an idea, if given effect to, will reduce the United States of Indonesia to the position of a subordinate partner.

The growing strength of the Dutch in their fight with the Republic is due not only to the attitude of the non-republican States but also to that of the United States and Britain. From the very beginning the Republican Government realised that in their war with the Dutch they could not get victory unless they had substantial sympathy and help from these two States. That was the reason why they had their case brought before the U.N.O. and placed much confidence all along in the U.N. Good Offices Commission. It is however now becoming clear that they cannot expect much help or sympathy from these States. This is the inference that is drawn by several competent observers from the ‘boycott’ by the representatives of Britain, France, Holland, and the United States of the reception arranged at Canberra to celebrate the third anniversary of the founding of the Indonesian Republic in the third week of August. A similar absence was noticed at the celebrations in Singapore. Neither Holland nor Britain (which has large investments in Indonesia) desires to accord to the Indonesians elementary human rights which is possible only when they discard the idea of the white man’s superior rights and the colonialism which is its consequence. It is no wonder that, to crush the Republic finally, the Dutch are now contemplating a second ‘police action’.

Things are not much better in Indo-China. The authorities of the Vietnam Republic are showing signs of greater activity and they have inflicted severe losses on the French fighting forces. In spite of this there is no change in French policy. They are determined to be the ruling power in Indo-China. This is the sum and substance of the statement made in the National Assembly by the Premier Andre Marie on August 19, that his government would give its entire and solemn adherence to the agreement signed in June by the French High Commissioner of Indo-China with the ex-emperor Bao-Dai. This agreement provides for the ‘independence’ of the Indo-Chinese States in the French Union. It is very difficult to understand what ‘independence’ really means when it is coupled with compulsory association with France. It was the British who made the world familiar with independence of this type when they unilaterally declared Egypt independent (subject to certain conditions) after the first world war. And it is on this basis that the Dutch in Indonesia and the French in Indo-China are prepared to grant independence to their colonies. The Vietnamese are therefore determined to continue hostilities.

The situation in Malaya continued to be serious throughout the whole of August. In his broadcast of August 3, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, the United Kingdom Commissioner for South-East Asia, pointed out how the Communist terrorists expected to establish on that day in the Malay Peninsula and Singapore island a Soviet Republic and made large-scale preparations for the purpose. Their efforts however were frustrated by the efforts–belated though they were–of the British authorities. But the danger has not been completely overcome. It is now felt that it will take several months before the Communist rising is finally put down. The authorities have recognised the seriousness of the situation and this accounts for their rushing into Malaya some of the best trained regiments from Britain. Australia and the United States are sending their arms into it. Ex-Palestine policemen, well-trained to cope with terrorists and guerillas, have been brought in large numbers. Some of the terrorist strongholds have been taken. The war however is continuing.

Here again, what has now come to be realised is that in the Past the British did very little to gain the sympathy of the public or further their desire for self-expression and self-government. They pursued a policy of divide and rule and created dissensions between the Malays, the Chinese, and the Indians. As in the days of the Japanese invasion, they are getting little cooperation from the people of Malaya in dealing with the terrorists. It is now that they are beginning to see that unless they pursue a different kind of colonial policy and help in the development of the different sections of the people, and especially of the working classes who are being exploited by the British owners of rubber estates and tin mines, they will have to face rebellion in some form or other. Settled conditions cannot be established merely by referring to the Communist bogey, though Communist ideology is making much progress in all countries of South Asia.

No country, however, in this part of the continent has become a victim to Communist trouble so much as Burma. This new Republic is now passing through the most critical phase in its existence. A Communist party has existed in Burma for a number of years. They joined the Anti-Japanese front in the days of the Japanese occupation and merged themselves in Anti-Fascist Freedom League when the British power was re-established in 1945. But between them and the other sections of the League there were acute differences as to the kind of economic and social order that should be established in the re-born Burma. They also accused the other sections of being pro-British. Even after the establishment of the independent Burmese Republic these differences continued, and with the help of the arms they got in the days of the Japanese occupation and by appealing to the peasants who were in the grip of the ‘Chettys’ of India, they were able to organise themselves into a strong force. To overcome their opposition the Prime Minister of Burma announced some months ago that his policy was in no way different from that of the Communists–an announcement which caused excitement among the British–but this did not appeal to the Communists. Subsequently two changes took place. One was the secession from the Anti-Fascist Freedom League–on whose support the Government rests–of a section which sympathised with the Communists and which wanted to have direct dealings with them. The other was the desertion of a number of army regiments. As a consequence of this the Communist rebellion assumed serious proportions, and there is now a regular civil war going on in Burma with many cities like Prome and many areas under Communist control. It was with great difficulty that Government has been able to save Rangoon from falling into their hands. Martial Law has been proclaimed over the whole country and it is quite possible that government may pass into the hands of a military council. From what has taken place in China, and from what is taking place in Burma, we in India have a great deal to learn. It is a warning against complacency. It shows how narrow is the line that separates order from disorder in the tense and revolutionary atmosphere by which most countries are now surrounded.

The Islamic world Is in a disturbed condition. Pakistan is confronted with trouble in the North-West Frontier, and in quelling the disorders there crowds had to be fired upon, resulting in the loss of several lives. The refugee problem has also assumed serious proportions and a state of emergency has been proclaimed with the Governor-General practically assuming powers of a dictatorial character. Preparations for a large scale war against India in Kashmir are going on.

The Arab League has not yet come to terms with the State of Israel and it has rejected the invitation of the Jewish Government to a conference for settling the Palestine issue, as the acceptance of such an invitation would mean the recognition of the Jewish State. The League however forgets that, whether it directly recognises it or not, the Jewish State is an established fact and that it can do very little to destroy it. It is now thinking of revising its policy and converting itself into a regional organisation of Arab States, more closely linked politically and militarily, with a view to press more successfully its views on the General Assembly of the United Nations and carry on war more effectively with the Jews, in case military action comes to be resumed. But it is doubtful whether there will be real cooperation among all the Arab States. The forces which have kept them apart in the past are still active. Any resumption of hostilities in the face of the threat of the Security Council that it will enforce sanctions seems to be a remote contingency, and without the use of force the State of Israel cannot be destroyed, though it is doubtful if this aim can be achieved even with the use of force. Meanwhile the Jews have prepared a four-year plan for their State, providing for large scale immigration and industrialisation. Their application for membership in the U.N.O. is being supported by the United States, and all proposals for future settlement by the mediator Count Bernadotte start on the assumption that the Jewish State is a settled fact. The Arabs may be said to be fighting a losing cause so far as Palestine is concerned.

August has seen the success of the Governmental forces in Greece against the Communist guerillas. The rebels have been driven out of many of their strongholds. Although there is a possibility of the remnants of their forces reorganising themselves in Albania–which has always been helping them, in the same way in which Pakistan has been helping the Kashmir raiders–there is now some hope that before long the Communist trouble in the country would come to an end and the national government ed by the United States would become stabilised. The overthrow of the Greek Communists is a triumph for the Americans in their indirect war against Soviet Russia.

Another country which has not been able to find internal peace even three years after the Great War is France. The tenth ministry that was formed after the inauguration of the Fourth Republic has submitted its resignation after remaining in office only for about five weeks. The policy of the new Finance Minister Reynaud has not found much support in the National Assembly or in the Cabinet, although perhaps it is about the only policy that can restore some kind of economic equilibrium. That France is living beyond her means, that unless production is increased she would become a decrepit and bankrupt nation by 1952 when Marshall Aid would come to an end, that there should be a considerable reduction in expenditure on the army and public services, that efforts should be made primarily to improve agriculture and give better prices to agricultural products, and that there should be a limit to the higher wages demanded by the workers,–these are some of the features of the policy he wanted to pursue. But the idea of limiting wages or reducing public expenditure is repugnant to many, and his demand for legislation on financial matters through executive decrees, instead of through Parliament, has roused much opposition. But there does not seem to be any alternative. And even though the Cabinet in which he was the Finance Minister has resigned from office, it is only when measures on the lines indicated by him are adopted that there is hope for stability. Otherwise the way for the Fascist dictatorship of De Gaulle, or the dictatorship of the Communist minority, will be opened.

There are as yet no indications of a better understanding between Soviet Russia and the Western powers. The conference which met at Belgrade to draw a revised convention regarding the navigation on the Danube–an international waterway–revealed once again how there is no common ground between them. Russia with her six Satellites secured an easy majority and was therefore able to outvote every proposal made by Britain, France, and the United States. A new convention has been drawn, but the Western powers have rightly refused to be a party to it. Here again the settlement is not an agreed one. It is one-sided in character and the Western powers are sure to take the earliest opportunity to modify it, as otherwise they would be losing not only long-standing commercial rights but also millions of capital they invested in the navigation on the Danube. Moreover two of the important States through which the Danube flows are not participants in the conference. Germany was not represented in it and Austria was there only as a mere observer. Its deliberations and conclusions will therefore not be binding on these riparian States.

It is in such an atmosphere that the talks are going on in Moscow on the Berlin crisis. There is actually a four-power conference there, but it is meeting with the same difficulties as were found in the four Foreign Ministers’ conferences in 1946-47. Everyone hopes that the participation of Stalin himself in these talks will result in the Berlin crisis being resolved and the possibility of a third world war being averted. Events alone will show whether it will only be a hope or become a realised fact.