International Affairs: A Monthly Survey

BY Prof. M. VENKATARANGAIYA, M.A. *

No event in recent history has made statesmen and leaders in the international world bestow such deep thought on the serious predicament in which humanity finds itself today as a result of the growth of meaningless fanaticism as the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace and non-violence. Universal tributes have been paid to his work as a teacher of mankind for nearly fifty years. He conveyed the message that what matters in man is his essential humanity and not the colour of his skin, the race to which he belongs, the creed which he professes or his economic status in society. It is because this simple but eternal truth is forgotten that bitterness and hatred prevail between nation and nation, religion and religion, race and race, class and class, leading to the prostitution of man’s ever-growing knowledge, not to constructive effort but to the devising of more and terrible instruments of destruction and devastation and the plunging of the world into all the horrors of modern warfare. The greatness of Mahatma Gandhi consisted in this, that he not only preached the gospel of non-violence but practised it every moment of his life and in all that he spoke or did. Who could have dreamt that an embodiment of universal kindness and child-like simplicity like him would have an enemy bent upon taking his life? But the thing has happened, revealing once again that the beast in man is ever active, that culture and civilisation have only produced a superficial effect on him, and that the disparity between what man can become if he truly disciplines himself and what he is actually under the influence of his untamed passions is still as wide as ever. Let us hope that the martyrdom of this Prince of Peace will do something to awaken the higher self in man and enable the world to march at least a short distance on the road of universal brotherhood.

The realisation however of such a hope requires a change of heart and outlook on the part of those who are at the helm of affairs in the leading countries of the world, especially countries like the United States, the U.S.S.R. and Britain. Events are not pointing to such a change.

Britain has now aligned herself definitely against Soviet Russia. This has been made clear by Premier Attlee’s broadcast on January 3rd, Mr. Herbert Morrison’s speech a week later, and the House of Commons’ debate on the statement of foreign policy made by Mr. Bevin in the last week of the month. In his broadcast Premier Attlee charged Russia with pursuing a policy which threatened the other nations of Europe with a new form of imperialism–ideological, economic and strategic. He frankly stated that in Russia and the satellite countries of Eastern Europe the voice of criticism is silenced, that only one view is allowed, and that it is ironical that the absolutists, who suppress opposition much more vigorously than the kings and the emperors of the past, masquerade under the name of upholders of democracy. Mr. Morrison not only repeated these views but also repeated them in much stronger language. He said:

“There is nothing we should like better than co-operation with the Soviet Union for protecting peace and promoting the social well-being of mankind. But we cannot be expected at all times to lie down to untruthful and malicious attacks upon our country and our Government by the reckless propaganda machines of the Russian Communists and of the Communist Parties of the world which conduct themselves as the servile automatic outposts of the Soviet Foreign Office. We cannot be expected to be happy when country after country in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe find themselves subject to undemocratic and unrepresentative Communist governments, coupled with the suppression of other political parties and freedom of the press, wholesale witch-hunting and even the very judicial execution of non-Communist political leaders…..And it adds to our sorrow and indignation that this process should so untruthfully and noiselessly be proclaimed as promoting Democracy and anti-Fascism.”

Mr. Bevin accused Russia of playing power politics and imperialist expansionism, not merely in Eastern but also in Western Europe, and stated that “if the policy is pursued of trying to dominate Europe by whatever means, indirect or direct, we are driven to the conclusion that it will inevitably lead again to another world war”. For him the question was what precautions should be taken to avert such a war and to obtain victory if, in spite of all efforts, a war were to become inevitable. It is in this context that his constructive proposals assume special significance.

These proposals fall roughly into two categories. The more important of them is the formation of a West European Union as a counterpoise to the Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe. This is to consist of all the democratic countries of Western Europe–England, France, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg and the Scandinavian States–who have common political and cultural traditions of their own, distinguishing them from the countries of the East. It may be an economic and commercial union to start with, but should develop into a political one in due course. Italy should also be invited to join it. The second proposal of Mr. Bevin was that the West European States which happen to possess colonies should take special steps to exploit them, so that they might supply to their metropolitan countries a larger quantity of raw materials, food and other products of which they have in plenty. This, according to him, is the only way by which the West European Union would be in a position equal in economic strength to the United States and U.S.S.R. which have tremendous internal resources of their own. In addition to these he made it clear that Britain would make special efforts to build up a system of co-operation in economic and other fields in the Middle East which would carry with it responsibilities for mutual defence on both sides. The revised treaty with Iraq, the proposal to revise the treaty with Transjordan and to commence negotiations afresh with Egypt on the revision of the Anglo-Egyptian treaty, are parts of the new policy to be adopted in the Middle East. By these means the British hope to arrest the further growth of Soviet Imperialism in Europe as well as in Western Asia.

On the whole Mr. Bevin’s call for greater consolidation of Western Europe has been welcomed in all political circles in West European countries and the United States, although the Communist Parties have bitterly attacked it on the ground that it would make impossible any rapprochement between U.S.S.R. and the Western democracies. It is quite possible that the cleavage between the East and the West might become widened if a West European Union is formed. But the question which one should ask oneself in this connection is whether Britain and the Western democracies have any other alternative in the face of the ideologies and the practical policies of Soviet Russia. One should not forget in this connection that the Soviets believe–it is a part of their Marxian creed–that they should do their utmost to bring about a world communistic revolution, that until it is brought about there is no prospect of Communism becoming permanently established in U.S.S.R., that Communism in one country can never be a success and that the Socialism for which the British Labour Party and similar Socialist Parties in the West European States stand is no Socialism at all. It is also a part of their creed that monopoly capitalism which is at the root of British and American prosperity is inevitably bound to collapse, that the boom which America is now enjoying will be followed by depression and that all this will pave the way for Communism and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Western world also, and that in consequence there is no need to enter into any kind of friendly alliance or co-operation with capitalistic States, and that all attention should be concentrated on opposing them everywhere, creating difficulties at home as well as abroad, so that their disruption and disintegration may be brought about at a much quicker pace. There is of course another explanation of this policy of persistent opposition and obstruction pursued by the Soviet representatives in almost all international conferences. It is that they are anxious to get the support of their own peoples for the domestic policies they are pursuing–policies which have resulted in a scarcity of consumer’s goods even of an essential character and the concentration of disproportionate effort on the production of capital goods and goods needed for purposes of war–and that such support would be forthcoming only when they are made to believe that the West is determined on making war on Russia and destroy the new classless civilisation which the Communists are trying to build there. Whatever it be, the enunciation of a new clear-cut foreign policy by the British has set a final seal to Britain’s preference for open separation from Russia and her alliance with the United States. One remarkable feature of the debate in the House of Commons was that the large majority of the Labour back-benchers, who in the past were vociferous in attacking Mr. Bevin for his anti-Soviet attitude, not only refrained from opposing him during the debate but also welcomed the new policy outlined by him. And among those that welcomed it was Mr. Richard Crossman, one of the most persistent of Mr. Bevin’s former critics. The view is now gaining ground that the Soviet would not care to adopt a policy of conciliation so long as it feels that its opponents–Britain, France, etc.,–are weak, that these States cannot become strong unless they come closer together, and that the proposed unity among the Western nations is the safest road to peace.

Meanwhile the United States is proceeding with her measures to prevent the worsening of the economic situation in Western Europe and driving the peoples there into the fold of Communism and Soviet influence. The State Department gave full details of the various kinds of commodities–grain, coal, steel, machinery, petroleum, etc.,–that it proposes to supply to each of the sixteen countries which are to receive aid under the Marshall Plan during the next four years. This gives to the whole Plan a more concrete form than it possessed so far. In addition to this, both Mr. Marshall and President Truman conveyed to Congress the opinion strongly held by them that if the Aid Plan did not get through Congress, or if it failed for any other reason, the country’s security would be threatened and that the people of the United States would in effect have to live in an armed camp and that the programme should therefore be put through at all costs, even though there was the avowed determination of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party to sabotage it at every turn. The intimate connection between European recovery and the maintenance of peace in the world was forcibly brought out by Mr. Marshall when he observed:

“So long as hunger, poverty, desperation and the resulting chaos threaten great concentrations of people in Western Europe–some 270 millions–there will be steadily developing social unease and political confusion on every side. Left to their own resources, there will be no escape from economic distress so intense, social discontents so violent and political confusion so widespread that the historic base of Western civilisation will take on a new form in the image of the tyranny that we fought to destroy in Germany. The vacuum which was created in Western Europe will be filled by forces of which wars are made.”

Here is the connection between the Marshall Plan and Mr. Bevin’s Plan for a West European Union.

Efforts are also being made in the United States to avert the trade depression which is regarded by the Soviet ideologists as inevitable. In the message which President Truman sent to Congress, he called for the enactment of an anti-inflationary programme which would include price and wage controls and rationing powers. He stressed the need for maintaining maximum employment, achieve maximum production and adjust the price-income structure so as to stop the inflationary spiral. It was with the same objective that he proposed a large increase in corporation profits taxes. It may be noted in this connection that the budget proposals made by the President for 1948-49 provide for a very large expenditure on Defence Services. Out of the total budget of 139,700 million dollars, as much as 11,000 million dollars, or 28 per cent, is to be set apart for Defence which includes construction of aircraft, naval ships and other improved types of vessels, and work on Atomic energy. This is how the United States wants to combat Communism and Soviet domination.

A necessary item in the economic recovery of Europe is the settlement of the German problem. Now that all hope of United Germany has been abandoned, the British and the Americans have agreed on proceeding with their programme of work in their respective zones. One significant development in this connection is specially to be noted. Of course it is a logical development of the fusion of the British and American zones that had already taken place and the willingness of the United States to take over from the British most of the costs of occupation. It consists in the reorganisation of the German Economic Council at Frankfurt, which is virtually the capital of Western Germany at present. This is purely a German body. In future it is to consist of two Houses–a Lower one having 104 members appointed by the State Parliaments in the British and American zones, and the Upper one having two members from each of the States, nominated by their governments. Besides this there is to be an Executive Council or Cabinet with a chairman and six departmental heads controlling economics, food and agriculture, transport, finance, communications, and civil service. For the settlement of disputes between this Central Economic Council and the States, there is to be a High Court of nine members established by the Allied military authorities. Two points require attention in this respect. One is that this Council may be a step towards the creation of a common political institution, however loosely organised it may be, for the whole of Western Germany and for the association of Germans themselves in the administration of their country, though subject to Allied control. The other is that no economic reconstruction of Europe can be thought of unless the vast mineral and industrial resources of the Ruhr region are once again developed, The chances of such development seem to be brighter, as there is to be shortly a conference of the American, the British and also the French governments to settle the question of Western Germany. In the reconstitution of the Economic Council the French were not consulted and they were naturally dissatisfied. Now things have a chance of taking a brighter turn.

One would not expect Soviet Russia or her satellites in Eastern Europe to remain indifferent to these developments in Britain, the United States and Western Europe. The help which they have been rendering to the Communist guerillas in Greece is now on the increase. Although their stronghold in the West–Konitza–was captured by governmental forces, it is now felt that a long campaign would be necessary before they are completely suppressed and that such a campaign would not be possible unless with the active help of the American army and navy. The American fleet has therefore entered the Mediterranean for this purpose. There is however the danger that the guerilla government might be recognised as the legitimate government in Greece by the neighbouring Communist States. In such a case, supplying arms to them would be perfectly legal under international law, and the Soviet might bring about such a situation. Another development is the completion as it were of the process of creating a sort of Balkan Union through pacts and treaties which have been shaping for several months. A document revealing a ‘Soviet Plot’ for fomenting strike action in the Ruhr to break the Marshall Plan has been published, although there is some doubt regarding its authenticity. But, as a matter of fact, serious strikes broke out in the British occupied zone, perhaps due to insufficient food rations although they did not continue for long. It is quite possible that tactics like these might be resorted to on a much more extensive scale in future. There is also a move to create a separate German Government for the Soviet zone of Eastern Germany with Berlin as the capital, and a German Government at Berlin is sure to carry more prestige than the one at Frankfurt. It is however more in the propaganda front that the Soviet is active as usual.

The situation in the Middle East is becoming more disturbed. In almost every country in that area there are pro-British and anti-British sections. The latter have been active in Iraq for some days. The present tension is due to the dissatisfaction felt by the younger and the more radical group of people in the country with the new treaty recently concluded with Britain. Under the old treaty of 1930 the British were permitted to station their forces in Iraq, to have two vital air-bases in it and it also enjoined on the Iraq Government that, in all defensive measures, it should act in concert with the British Government. It was to remove these clauses, and have a treaty which would recognise the independent and equal sovereignty of Iraq, that revision was demanded. In view of the growing tension in Palestine the people of Iraq wanted to be free to adopt any military measures they thought desirable, without British interference. But the revised treaty did not come up to these expectations. The modifications were not of a substantial character. British troops would continue to be there. They will still have air-bases. A Joint Defence Board is set up. It is unnatural to expect that with her oil and strategic interests in the Middle East and with the growing pressure of Soviet Russia in that area, Britain would agree to give up the military facilities she now possesses. There was a change of Cabinet in Baghdad but the situation has not been eased. There has also been a deterioration in the situation in Palestine.

* February 2, 1948.

Back