INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

By Prof. M. Venkatarangaiya, M.A.

WITH the conclusion of the North Atlantic Pact which will be formally signed on April 4, the most important step was taken by the anti-Soviet powers with the United States as their leader, in the preparation for World-War III which now seems inevitable unless a miracle happens in the meanwhile and there is a change of heart among those who are in power in the United States and U.S.S.R. in accordance with the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, God’s Prophet in the Atomic Age. The seeds of this war were sown so early as 1945 when the Second World War was still going on. One step after another was taken, first by one party and the next by the other until both parties resolved as it were not to learn anything from the experience of history and to resort to the traditional method of war for gaining their ends–which consist of nothing else except the destruction of the enemy. History has taught mankind that the actual outcome of any modern war is nothing but destruction on a colossal scale.

The antagonism between Soviet Russia and the so-called democracies of the West is the product of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and is therefore a generation old. The democracies tried their best to destroy that revolution but did not gain their ends. In their turn the Bolsheviks tried hard to create trouble in every country with the idea of bringing about a world-communistic revolution but gave it up as a hopeless task, especially because it led to the growth of Fascism in countries like Germany. One extreme always leads to another. A sort of compromise was then brought about and Soviet Russia was admitted into the League of Nations in 1934. But there was in reality no change of heart on either side. To both it was a mere matter of expediency. The democracies were bent on destroying communism and for this purpose they did not shrink from helping Mussolini, Hitler and Franco–the Fascist dictators and surrendering to Hitler at Munich in 1938. But they miscalculated and Hitler turned against them instead of against Soviet Russia. Events that led to the Second World War clearly demonstrated that peace could be preserved only on one condition and that was the union between Soviet Russia and the Democracies. The latter failed to understand this and by the time they realised it, it was too late. All this confirmed the suspicions of Soviet Russia towards the democracies.

To purchase the goodwill of Soviet Russia in the later stage’s of the Second World War–when there was even a fear of her entering into separate treaty with Hitler in protest against the failure of the democracies to open a second front in Western Europe–President Roosevelt agreed to Soviet Russia becoming supreme in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and including in her sphere of influence countries like Poland Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, Albania and Yugoslavia. If this agreement had been strictly adhered to by the United States there would have been less of friction between her and Russia. But Roosevelt died and his successor Harry Truman did not inherit the breadth of outlook and the statesmanlike vision of his predecessor. Militarists gained control over him. The Churchillian tradition was preferred to the tradition of Roosevelt. And moves were begun to oust Russia from the predominant position which she gained in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe–and also in Manchuria and Korea–first through her military campaigns and next through recognition by her allies in the war. It is from these moves that the present friction between Soviet Russia and the Western democracies originated.

The hitch which arose in 1945 became more and more widened. It was a bad augury for the smooth and efficient working of the United Nations Organisation which even otherwise would have had to face the same difficulties as the League of Nations. It stood in the way of the conclusion of peace treaties with Germany, Austria and Japan. From this moment onwards it became the keynote of the foreign policy of the United States to bring pressure on Soviet Russia, outflank her and weaken her in South-Eastern Europe, the Middle East and in China. It first took the form of aid to Greece and Turkey which bordered on Soviet Russia and her sphere of influence and which would secure to the United States air and submarine bases from which Soviet Russia could be easily attacked. It gradually developed into the Marshall Aid Plan for the economic recovery of Western Europe which were to serve as bases for attack on Russia from the West. The grant of military aid to countries included in this plan became an integral part of it. In Britain itself which had now practically become a satellite of the United States–Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin succeeded in spite of the opposition of the rebel group in the labour party in persuading the British public to think of Russia as their enemy and the need for aligning their country with the United States in all matters of foreign policy. The outcome of this was the Anglo-French alliance and the formation of the Western Union consisting of Britain, France and the Benelex countries, a union primarily for military purposes, Subsequently this led to a closer understanding between the United States and the countries of the Union regarding the policy to be pursued in Western Germany. It was concluded that Western Germany should be consolidated into a separate political entity, that her industrial resources should be developed, that she should come once again an arsenal but that this arsenal should help the Western democracies in the war against Russia. The Atlantic Pact is the culmination of all these successive steps for making of Western Europe an integrated political, economic and military unit working under the leadership of the United States in a future war with Russia. For a generation and more the interests of Canada have become so closely bound with those of the United States that it is impossible for her to follow an independent foreign policy. This is how the countries on either side of the North Atlantic have now become members of the new pact. To these countries–Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxemberg, Norway, Denmark, Canada and the United States–Portugal and Italy have now to be added. In spite of the opposition of the communist members the Italian Parliament voted in favour of the Pact. The Government of Portugal has also signified its willingness to become a signatory to it although such a course is opposed to her existing treaty with Spain. This is however a minor matter. For it will not be surprising if in the name of military strategy to put down communism Spain also is invited to join the Pact.

The Pact contains thirteen articles. Articles 5 and 6 are the most important ones. Under article 5 “the parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such armed attack occurs, each of them...will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic Area. Under article 6 the meaning of the terms North Atlantic Area and of attack are made as comprehensive as possible.”

The ratification of the Pact by the Senate of the United States which is now a foregone conclusion–as on all fundamentals of foreign policy both the political parties are agreed–will for all practical purposes enable the President to resort to military action to enforce the terms of the Pact without waiting for any formal declaration of war by the Congress as required under the constitution. In this way the constitutional difficulty referred to in the last issue has been overcome.

It is necessary to understand the exact nature and significance of the Pact in the present international set-up. In the first place it is a clear recognition of the ineffectiveness and failure of the U.N.O. as an instrument for maintaining world peace. This was what Mr. Bevin himself has said in his broadcast. “There has long been a striving to get organized to prevent war. We were hopeful as a result of the bitter experience we have all been through, that the steps we took toward the end of the war would provide us with an organisation likely to secure that end. That organisation was the United Nations. But frankly, just as the League of Nations did not fulfil the purpose, neither has the United Nations.” Mr. Dean Acheson, the U.S. Secretary of State, gave expression to the very identical view. The Atlantic Pact therefore tries to bring into existence an organisation which is a substitute for the U.N.O.

It is in the second place a Pact which relies on force and war for bringing peace. It is now announced that the U.S. State and Defence departments prepared a $1,800,000,000 arms programme for Western Europe to resist communist aggression. It is also reported that President Truman “would seek wide authority to allocate funds between North Atlantic Treaty Members and other nations whose security was vital to U.S. interests. This would allow swift movement of military supplies in the event Russia stepped up pressure on any single country.” All this is in addition to the enormous sums set apart for defence purposes in the United States itself.

It is here that the tragedy of the whole situation lies. It is the verdict of history that pacts and measures like these inevitably lead to war. And history tells how heavy and irreparable are the losses of modern warfare. It has been calculated that in World War I the Allies mobilized 42,190,000 troops of whom 5,160,000 were slain, 13,000,000 were wounded, and 4,120,000 were prisoners and missing and that the Central Powers mobilized 23,000,000 troops, of whom 3,380,000 were killed, 8,400,000 were wounded, and 3,600,000 were prisoners and missing. World War II produced 15,000,000 deaths in battle among the great powers: U.S.S.R. 7,500,000; Germany 3,000,000; China 2,200,000; Japan 1,500,000; U.K. 300,000; U.S.A. 300,000; Italy 300,000; France 200,000. In U.S.S.R. there were 8,000,000 civilian lives lost and a similar proportion of civilian losses in other countries. The material costs of these war run to astronomical figures. They came, it is said, to 338,000,000,000 dollars in World War I and to 1385,000,000,000 dollars in World War II. And these sacrifices have not led to more of human welfare, or freedom, or security or democracy. The position is much darker to-day than in 1939 or 1914.

It is staggering to think what a Third World War is likely to bring in its train. The horrors of atomic bombing can be better imagined than expressed. And all this will be in addition to the havoc caused by the other methods of deadly warfare. Few will survive such horrors and those few will have to lead lives more miserable than those led by the primitive savages.

The United States and all other countries which have become parties to the Atlantic Pact are proceeding on the hypothesis that the arrangements they are now making and those that they hope to make in time to come will give them a sure victory in the Third World War. But this is a doubtful proposition. There is an equal doubt regarding the prospects of a Soviet victory. What is only certain is that the road chosen by U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., the only two great powers now left to struggle for world supremacy have chosen a wrong goal as well as wrong methods and means of reaching it. They should drop the idea of world supremacy. They should also realise that war will never help them in the achievement of such an ambition. The total annihilation of human culture and civilisation would be the only outcome of it.

To India and to the countries of South-East Asia and Africa the Atlantic Pact brings another implication. Among the parties to the Pact are leading colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, and Belgium. The Pact will be effective only on condition that there is a complete understanding between the United States on one side and these colonial powers on the other and such an understanding can only be on one basis viz., that the United States gives its support to these powers in their determination to hold their colonies under imperialistic control. There is therefore a danger that the Pact will tighten the grip of these powers over their colonies in Asia and Africa which are now struggling for independence. The Western democracies are not democratic in their dealings with their colonial dependencies. Their policy in this respect is characterised by extreme racialism, feudalism, economic exploitation and oligarchic and bureaucratic rule. As a recent writer has put it: “Most of the pioneer work in developing the theory and practice of modern totalitarianism was done not by the opponents but by the exponents of modern liberalism. Although the Government of colonial empires is rarely mentioned in this connection, colonialism actually gave the Western World its first great opportunity for dictatorial experiments...Governments which, in their domestic affairs, were firm believers in the value of constitutional democracy, found it natural in the field of colonial administration faced by the necessity of maintaining minority rule over a subject population, were unable to preserve the concept of freedom under law in its European vigour.” The Atlantic Pact will therefore perpetuate the totalitarian methods of rule in the colonies.

That this is no imaginary danger is borne out by three significant happenings in March. The Dutch have not as yet reconciled themselves to the need for implementing the resolution passed in January last by the Security Council on Indonesia. Even the watered-down resolution initiated by Canada has not been given effect to. They took no notice of the resolution passed at the Asian Conference. This is because they are sure that America to which the Atlantic Pact is of greater moment than the freedom of colonies will not bring any pressure to bear on them in their dealings with Indonesia. In the second place Senator Tom Connally, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared thus while referring to the fear that American aid to the Netherlands might contribute towards the strengthening of Dutch military operations in Indonesia: “According to our information the Dutch have not incurred heavy military expenditure in excess of their expenditure in that area prior to December 21 last year (where they started their military action against the Republic). Moreover, it is reported that these operations are supported from local revenues and do not constitute a charge against the national budget of Netherlands. Under these circumstances it seems to the Committee most unwise to cut off aid to the Netherlands and thus completely disrupt Dutch recovery and seriously impair the entire European Recovery Progrnmme.” Thus in the eyes of America Dutch recovery has priority over the freedom of Indonesia. A third point to be noted in this connection is the American proposal to develop backward colonial areas with a view to provide new services of raw material and badly needed supplies of strategic materials like manganese, tin, iron ore, and tungsten. A development on these lines will mean the continuance of the old colonial policy under which the peoples of these dependencies had to be cont with their role of suppliers of raw materials for the industries of their imperial masters.

It is in this context that one has to examine the significance of the conference of the (British) Commonwealth Prime Ministers to be held on April 21, in London. Making a statement on this subject in the British House of Commons Mr. Attlee said that the conference was intended to discuss and settle certain constitutional questions not fully discussed at the last October meeting. The need for settling them has become urgent today as the policy which the Commonwealth as a whole should adopt towards the Atlantic Pact has to be decided. Britain is a party to the Pact and so also Canada. Australia and New Zealand have had close defence ties with the United States since the Second World War and they will naturally welcome the Pact. South Africa too may have no objection to it. It is the attitude of India–and Pakistan and Ceylon to some extent–that has now to be clarified. And this is the reason why the leaders of British public opinion have come to see that in the conference Pandit Nehru will occupy a leading position.

It will be his duty to place two important points before the conference. One is that India is determined to declare herself under the new constitution to be a Republic. The conference should accept this position. The other is whether the older Dominions and Britain can evolve a constitutional formula which will maintain a close association between the Republic of India and the Commonwealth. The Crown has all along been the external symbol and link and it can no longer serve this purpose when once India along with Eire becomes Republic. The older Dominions are not prepared to give up the Crown as the link. Under these circumstances some other means has to be devised which will keep up the unity of the Commonwealth. It is proposed by some that the Commonwealth might consist of two categories of members–members accepting a common Crown and members not so doing. There would be no objection to such a course if it does not carry with it any inequality of status. It is this constitutional question that has to be settled.

Apart from this the more substantial and meaningful issues is the implications of any association between India and the Commonwealth. Here there is a real dilemma for Indian leaders to face. If any such association implies that India should adopt the same foreign policy as Britain and the older members of the Commonwealth do this would be indirectly committing India to the upholding of the anti-Soviet Atlantic pact. This raises serious issues. But if India is not prepared to adopt a policy Britain and the other Dominions may not be very much intrested in keeping India in the Commonwealth. The situation therefore is a highly delicate one and it is quite possible that the London Conference might only be exploratory and might not come to decisions on matters of foreign policy. It may tackle only the constitutional issue although this issue has no importance by itself.

There are British leaders who hold the view that it would be best for Britain not to tie herself to any Atlantic Pact and consequently to the dictates of American Foreign Policy and that it would be to her interests as well as to the interests of world peace if she becomes neutral in the power-contest between the United States and Soviet Russia. In a war between these two States under the terms of the Atlantic Pact Russian invasion of Western Europe would be a matter of certainty and it would mean the bombing of Britain and her ruin. Referring to several other aspects of such a war Professor G. D. H. Cole observed more than a year ago: “It (such a war) would, whatever its outcome and its effects on the two main belligerents, be plainly a sheer disaster for the rest of the world, and above all for the former Great Powers of Europe, which have lost their effective standing on a level with these two giants. At any rate, it would be a supreme disaster for both France and Great Britain, on whichever side they were ranged. It would be so because both France and Great Britain are too tired and weakened by the wars they have fought already to have any prospect of facing another without sheer collapse, and also because neither of them could hope to enter such a war as a whole-hearted supporter of either of the main belligerents–so that there would be added to the disaster of international the high probability of civil war, or at the very least of fundamental divisions that would tear their societies to pieces.” There is much wisdom in this observation and it may be that a powerful neutral bloc alone could save the world from a Third War. India should become associated with that power which will eagerly cooperate with her in averting such a catastrophe. Is it too much to expect from our Premier Pandit Nehru that before committing himself to any active association with the Commonwealth he would have this aspect discussed and clarified?

Back