International Affairs

By Prof. M. Venkatarangaiya, M.A.

THE lifting of the nearly one year old blockade of Berlin and the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers after a long interval of nearly twenty months are regarded as the most outstanding events of the month. The world has been greatly relieved at least for the time being of the fear of a third world war in the near future although it is too early to say whether there is a sound basis for such relief. The welcome which has throughout been accorded to the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers shows, however, how eagerly and anxiously the world is thirsting for peace, for stability, and for carrying the needed social and economic changes on an ordered non-violent basis.

One will be a confirmed optimist if one were to say that it will all be smooth sailing in the Council of Foreign Ministers and that the tension between the East and the West which began even while all the great powers were fighting a common foe could be completely eased and that they will work together in the interests of the world and humanity as a whole. The differences between Soviet Russia and the Western democracies are basic and fundamental and it requires a spirit of extraordinary toleration and even humility to get over them. The specific problem which the Council has to solve is the future of Germany and the conclusion of a treaty of peace with that country. Both parties have been saying that they want a unified and not a partitioned Germany, that it should be a democratic state and that all steps should be taken to prevent that country from again becoming a source of menace to Europe and to the rest of the world as she did in the days of Hitler. This kind of agreement between the East and the West was always there but when these generalities has to be given a concrete workable form differences arose in the past and it remains to be seen whether the present meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers would get over these differences and arrive at a solution satisfactory to all of them and also to the German people.

The main difficulty in the way of such a solution is that the Soviet’s understanding of democracy is different from that of the Western powers. The latter mean by it a State where there is liberty for the individual, freedom for rival political parties to come into existence and carry on peaceful fighting with each other, and free elections. The Soviet, however, has a quite different conception of democracy. It does not attach much value to the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and movement in a society where there are acute economic inequalities. It does not believe in the need for rival political parties as they would undermine the organic unity of the State. Free elections in which candidates are set up by the different political parties and voters are given freedom to choose from among them has no meaning for it. It believes in one party rule in the period of transition between capitalism and communism. It is on this basis that it conducted the recent elections in the Eastern Zone of Germany–elections in which nearly forty per cent of the voters voted against the single list of candidates put forward by the communist party.

The question therefore is whether the western powers would agree to give up their own view of democracy knowing that it would result in the government of United Germany being dominated by the communists and whether the Soviet would abandon its cherished view and allow bourgeoise Parties or Socialist parties to come into power. For it is now an axiomatic truth that communist governments would ally themselves with Russia and that Socialist or bourgeoise governments with the Anglo-American powers. Each side is therefore anxious that united Germany should become its ally. This is the crux of the whole problem and all other aspects pale into insignificance by its side.

Not that these aspects are unimportant. On the other hand they also raise formidable issues. For instance, there is the question of the extent to which Germany should participate in the European Recovery Programme. The Western powers think that this is absolutely necessary and all along they have been proceeding on that hypothesis and have provided for Western Germany which has just now been constituted into a separate federal state being included in that programme. The Soviet, however, has been opposed to this programme and a Germany unified in accordance with her view of democracy will be a communist Germany having nothing to do with the programme of European recovery. This will make a wide difference to the success of the programme as a whole and would interfere with the way in which it has been able to make progress during the last two years. There are other questions also. There is the question of reparations from current production. There is also the question as to the extent to which the Soviet should participate in the control of the Ruhr industries.

The conclusion, therefore, that emerges from this brief reference to the issues with which the Council of Foreign Ministers will be faced is that it will be a miracle if any agreement is arrived at on them. Nothing short of a spiritual change based on “Unity in diversity” will bring about this miracle. The Soviet should be prepared to confine its activities to Europe east of Germany and to those regions in Asia where she had already established herself. The Anglo-American powers should also be equally satisfied with the influence they have in the other areas of the world and not try to undermine the foundations of the Soviet political and economic sphere. The idea that either the one or the other power should dominate the whole world to the exclusion of the other has to be completely abandoned. And on the basis of such self Surrender should the two be prepared to work hand in hand for the maintenance of peace and for the orderly progress of the whole of humanity. It is a change of heart that is needed. And some doubts arise on this point when one sees how in the very first meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers which met to discuss the German problem the Soviet Foreign Minister raised the subject of the peace treaty with Japan. We have therefore to wait and watch the situation.

People are asking themselves why the Soviet has now agreed to lift Berlin blockade. The general answer that is given is that the blockade has failed and that its lifting by the Soviet is only a confession of her defeat. But the answer is not so simple as this. It is not so much the sense of defeat as the sense of victory in a larger and a wider field that seems to be responsible for this change in the Soviet attitude. It is the course of events in China and its repercussions on the countries of South-East Asia that really afford the key to this. The communists of China havenow become the masters of the northern half. They are taking the key-towns which will bring them to the South and enable them to establish their dictatorship over the whole country–a country with a population of 450 millions and with natural resources which when developed with the technological skill and knowledge of the modern scientific age will make her the richest country in the world. So far as foreign policy is concerned a communist China will ally herself with Soviet Russia and not with the Anglo-American bloc. Naturally this has brought about a change in the tactics of Soviet Russia. It is quite true that during the period of the Berlin blockade the United States has consolidated herself in Western Europe and brought the Atlantic Pact into existence. But the communist success in China has brought plenty of compensation for all the loss that the Soviet might have suffered in Western Europe. The lifting of the Berlin blockade is therefore a sort of generous gesture made by Soviet Russia, a gesture which she can now afford to make without any serious material loss to her. It is the events in China that afford a truer explanation of the change in the Soviet policy.

These events are also responsible for several other changes that have become prominent. One is the more conciliatory attitude that the Dutch have adopted towards the Indonesian Republic. For three years they have been fighting with the Republic with a view to destroy it completely and re-establish their imperialism. They cared little for Asian opinion as voiced by Pandit Nehru and by the several conferences which he convened. They cared less for the opinion of the Security Council knowing as they did that it had no sanction based on physical force behind it. They have, however, changed their policy now. They are prepared to give Jogjakarta to the Republican government and allow it to function as a government in some of its former territories. This may not bring complete peace to Indonesia but it may be taken as a first step in the re-orientation of Dutch policy in this part of the world. It is to be observed in this connection that Pandit Nehru’s talks with the British Government during his recent visit to London had a great deal to do with this change in the Dutch policy.

A similar change is also noticeable in the French policy towards Indo-China. The negotiations between the French Government and the ex-Emperor Bao Dai have been completed and he has returned to Indo-China to form a new government. The French Parliament also passed a resolution abrogating the colonial status of Cochin-China and permitting it to be incorporated in the Viet Nam Republic. Bao Dai has made this a condition before setting up a national government. The exact implications of this alignment have to be clearly understood. The French and the other colonial powers are now beginning to see that the forces of nationalism have to be recognised and that any further delay in doing this will only help the expansion of the communist sphere of influence in South East Asia.

It is from this standpoint that events in Burma have to be examined. The government of Burma has not succeeded in quelling the Karen rebels or their communist allies. On the other hand a large area of Central Burma has been lost and a rival state is being set up there. In addition to this there is a steady infiltration of Chinese communists from across the frontiers and the civil war in Burma is, for all practical purposes like the civil war in China, a war between the communists and the anti-communists. If things are allowed to take their course there is the danger that the government of Burma might collapse and communism become firmly entrenched there. It speaks highly of the statesmanship of the present Burmese Premier that in this hour of danger he has not stood on mere prestige but has come out boldly to ask for the help of the neighbouring countries like India, Pakistan and Ceylon and also of Britain. The Governments of these States have now agreed to extend their aid to Burma. In doing this they have been prompted not merely by the fact that they have to depend on that country for the supplies of rice but also by the fact that the triumph of communism there might threaten their own stability. What India, Pakistan and Ceylon now require is peace which will enable them to reconstruct their economy on the basis of ordered progress. They are therefore interested in arresting the further progress of communism outside China. And it is from this standpoint that the course of events in that country has today a world-wide significance.

Ideologically there are now two factors contending for world domination. One is communism and the other is democratic socialism. In every country of Western Europe and in the countries of South East Asia and to some extent in other countries also the fight between the two has reached a decisive stage. In Asia, especially, the revolutions which are being witnessed–the revolutions which in their first manifestations are anti-imperialistic–are both national and social. While the nationalistic aspect appeals to all sections of people in each of these countries it is the social and economic aspect that is more attractive to the masses. And unless this aspect is handled immediately with great skill, imagination and statesmanship there is a danger that communistic forces will gain ground. National governments established in these areas should not merely try to preserve peace and order but direct their activities to economic reconstruction on socialistic and democratic lines. The struggle that is going on in the world today is in the main a struggle between the totalitarian forces of communism and the forces of democratic freedom directed to the peaceful establishment of socialism. They are like different religions and it ought to be possible for both of them to exist side by side just as different religions are existing side by side. The success of the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers may make this a possibility.