INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: A SURVEY
By Prof. M. VENKATARANGAIYA
For
about twenty years from 1924 when he became the sole dictator of the Soviet
Empire, Stalin was more than a god to his subjects. But he was a primitive god
inspiring a sense of fear among them, and not of love or respect. He was
praised to the skies during his lifetime by the top-ranking members of his
Party. He was a terror to them, reminding them of some of the Czars of Russia,
like Ivan the Terrible, or of Chingiz Khan. But from the moment of his death
there began a reaction against him and his memory, and this reached its
culmination on February 25 of this year, when he was denounced in the strongest
terms possible by Khrushchev, the present Secretary of the Communist Party, and
was dethroned from the divine pedestal which he hitherto occupied. This
denunciation of Stalin, not only by Khrushchev but also by one and all of his
former accomplices in the execution of his policies, is the most significant
event in the international world during the period under survey. Besides this,
note has to be taken of the visits made to New Delhi of the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of Britain, the United States and France and their discussions
with Prime Minister Nehru, which indicates a realisation by all of them that,
though some of the smaller States of South Asia like Thailand and Pakistan may
be their allies, nothing of importance could be achieved by them unless they
understand and appreciate the Indian point of view. Equally noteworthy was the
growing opposition to the Baghdad Pact among the States in the Arab world of
which Egypt aspires to become the undisputed leader, and the continued tension
in the Middle East and North Africa. Calm continued to prevail in the American
Continent and in Australasia.
It
was at a closed and secret meeting of the Twentieth Communist Party Congress
that Secretary Khrushchev denounced his former leader. It was only two to three
weeks later that the news of this denunciation percolated to countries outside
the Iron Curtain. Even then no one knew exactly and correctly all that was said
by him, why he said all that, and why that particular moment was chosen to say
it. All this is shrouded in mystery, leading to a variety of interpretations in
different quarters. But it is clear that Stalin was denounced as
a murderer, a torturer, an executioner, for private and selfish reasons, of
thousands of his comrades, and one who indulged in frequent purges of his
Party, leading to the death, or exile to concentration camps, of several lakhs
of citizens. This was one part of the indictment. He was also condemned for the
many blunders of policy which he committed in domestic as well as foreign
affairs, his failures to understand the trend of events which led to Hitler’s
invasion of Russia, and the mistakes in carrying on the subsequent campaign
against him. More than this was the fault in the whole system of Stalin – the
system of a single dictator based on what his critics now call “the cult of
personality” standing above law. It was thus a wholesale denunciation of Stalin
as a person and as a ruler, and of his policies and system of government. The
Communist Congress and the Soviet public were told that, in future, collective
leadership of a number of persons at the top would be substituted for Stalin’s
system.
Why
should any significance be attached to this denunciation of a dead man by the
world at large? The non-Communist world has all along been condemning Stalin’s
reign of terror, the inherent evils in a system of government under which all
opposition is suppressed and the fundamental rights of individual freedom of
thought, speech, movement and association are denied, and the disturbance to
international peace which the cold war inaugurated by him and the activities of
the Comintern, inspired by him, caused. Most of the colleagues of Stalin shared
these views about him and his policies during his lifetime, but they had to
wait three years before they could dare give expression to them. It now becomes
more than clear that, for the tensions in the world in the past decade, the
main responsibility is that of Stalin and his system, and that they can be
lessened if his successors in power are men of a different character, adopt a
different system of government, and follow a different line of policy.
For
more than a generation it has been recognised that Communist Parties outside
Russia have no individuality of their own, that they are the mere mouthpieces
of Soviet Russia, that they have no allegiance to their own mother country, and
that their primary and sole loyalty is to “holy Russia”. All this is borne out
by the way in which those Parties responded to the condemnation of Stalin by
the Soviet Communist Party. In Hungary, in Czechoslovakia and in other
countries of Europe, in China and in India, the Communist Parties met and
passed resolutions condemning Stalin and revising the views which they had all
along held about him. The Communists even in the People’s Republic of China–our
great neighbour–swallowed their previous praises of Stalin and said that he
indulged in inordinate exaltation of his own role, became self-conceited and
failed to pay proper attention to the further development of agriculture and
the material welfare of the peasantry.
It
may be argued by some that self-criticism is an essential characteristic of the
Communists and that they are the first to confess their mistakes and errors
when once they come to see them. The serious defect in this argument lies in
the Communists not giving opportunity to others to point out in proper time
their mistakes. It took nearly thirty years for Soviet leaders to discover
their errors and in the meanwhile millions of people at home and abroad had to
suffer untold miseries. This is an inherent defect in the Communist system,
whether leadership is in one individual or in a collective body. The system
does not tolerate any open criticism of the leadership, a criticism which is
accepted as a matter of course in all democratic countries. Collective
leadership may be advocated by Khrushchev because under it there is less risk
of its members meeting the fate of Trotsky or Beria, but, from the point of
view of the public, it is as defective as single leadership. It denies, as
effectively as the latter does, to the public any say on matters of policy,
however detrimental it may be. It is no virtue to come to know of the errors
made when it is too late.
It
has been pointed by several people that though Stalin was condemned by the
Soviet Leaders of today, they have not brought about any fundamental changes in
their domestic or foreign policies. At home they continue to emphasize
investments in heavy industries as distinguished from those producing
consumer’s goods of which the masses are in great need. In agriculture they
continue to insist on collectivisation, even though the peasantry are against
it. Abroad they are not prepared to give up their hold over their satellites in
Eastern and Central Europe or over the Communist Parties. They are determined
on holding firmly the advantages which Stalin brought to them by the
imperialist policies which he followed. What they are interested now is in the
consolidation of the gains made during his life-time and a change in tactics to
be used for extending their power and influence.
It
may be asked that if there is to be no real change in the objectives of
domestic policy or of foreign policy, what could have been the motives of
Soviet leaders in resorting to this extreme step of denouncing Stalin.
Reference may be made to two points in this connection. In
spite of the extraordinary economic progress achieved in Soviet Russia after
the revolution the standard of living of the masses has not risen to an
appreciable extent, due in the main to the scarcity of consumer’s goods. People
are dissatisfied with this state of affairs and something had to be done to
alleviate this dissatisfaction and make them co-operate with governmental
policies and plans. Throwing all the blame for the present state of affairs on
Stalin might have been regarded as an effective means for this purpose. So far
as the international world is concerned there was equal necessity to convince
foreign countries that Soviet Russia is really interested in peace and in
lessening world tensions. The leaders might have felt that they would be able
to convince them by attributing to Stalin whatever mistakes
were committed in this matter in the past, that today there is a real change in
the attitude of Soviet Russia and that she is keen on a policy of peaceful
co-existence. It may therefore be concluded that with the denunciation of
Stalin a new era begins in international affairs, an era during
which the ambition of Russia to extend her power and influence, as well as to
extend the area of Communism, will be pursued less by direct military and
warlike efforts than by diplomacy, economic aid and exploitation of the
distrust towards the West found in many countries of Asia and Africa. Some
success has already been achieved in this direction in the Middle East and
signs are not wanting to indicate that it may pay dividends even in Western
Europe.
There
has been a definite change in the attitude of France in the matter of the
defence of Western Europe. The central feature of the defence system created
during the period of the cold war is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of
which France, along with several other countries, is a prominent member. With
the help of the United States she has been maintaining an army. She had also to
reconcile herself to West Germany being armed and admitted on terms of equality
into NATO. But now that Soviet Russia has been expressing herself so very much
in favour of peaceful co-existence and non-aggression, the French Government is
thinking of revising her terms of alliance with the United States. M. Mollett,
the French Premier, said recently: “The basic principle of our foreign policy
remains the same. We continue the will to defend liberty wherever it may be
menaced, to make our contribution to that defence and to hope for the
co-operation of others in that defence. But we are trying to get our partners
in the Atlantic world to change their attitude...The manner in which the
Western powers have proceeded in recent years has not been particularly
happy... The Socialist-led French Government has no
intention of breaking its alliance with the British and the Americans but it
has the intention to say to both, if we continue like this we will lose the
game’...” So it looks as if in consequence of the new tactics of Soviet Russia
there will be a rift in Western alliances.
It
was pointed in the last survey that no Western policy would succeed in South
Asia unless it secured the co-operation of India. Prime Minister Nehru has all
along taken a firm stand on India, and as many of the other
Asian States as possible, following a policy of non-alignment with either the
Anglo-American or the Soviet bloc and against these
States entering into military pacts like the SEATO and the Baghdad Pact. Any
co-operation between these countries on one side and the two blocs should be
through economic aid without any political strings being attached to it. There
is no prospect whatever of Pandit Nehru modifying his attitude on any of these
matters.
While
the Soviet leaders had shown in recent years a clear tendency to appreciate the
viewpoint of India, the Americans has by their actions as well as their
statements continued to ridicule what they called his “neutralist” attitude.
This resulted in a misunderstanding between the two
countries which had harmful effects on world peace in general and the political
moves in Asia. It is in this context that one has to look at
the significance of the visits made to New Delhi by the Foreign Ministers of
Britain, the United States and France. There was a frank
discussion of all questions at issue and the result has been a better
understanding of India’s attitude by the Western powers–and especially by the
United States. There is now a better appreciation of the “neutralism” of India
and some other Asian countries. Although there is no prospect of the Manila and
Baghdad Pacts being scrapped, these visits have resulted in more emphasis being
placed on the economic than on the military aspect of the Pacts. The Congress
is being asked to set apart more funds for economic aid.
There
are two additional reasons why Nehru’s emphasis on economic aid is being
appreciated by the United States. One is the stalemate in military matters due
to Soviet Russia having become the equal of the United States 1n the matter of
manufacturing nuclear weapons. The other is the capacity of Soviet Russia to
grant economic aid to several undeveloped countries. Duping the last ten years
the United States was the only State in a position to do this. She had no
competitor. But now the situation is different. Soviet Russia has entered the
field. She is prepared to offer a loan even to Britain.
Under these circumstances there is no use in attaching importance only to
military pacts. It is therefore gratifying to find that under the cumulative
influence of all these factors, American economic aid is to play a more
important part in future. It is also of some significance in this connection
that, during his recent visit to the United States, the President of Italy also
observed in connection with the defence of Western Europe that military power
alone would not deter Communism, that economic conditions must be improved and
that NATO should be expanded to include economic co-operation. In a recent
statement on the Baghdad Pact M. Mollett said: “I cannot emphasize enough that
during my talks with Sir Anthony Eden we reached perfect agreement on the need
for giving increased importance to economic action in the Middle East as in
other regions of the world.”
Walter
Lippmann, the well-known American publicist, remarked in this connection: “The
United States has a moral obligation to the less fortunate people. We cannot
justify the enjoyment of our high standard of living without helping other
countries to proceed along the same road. Without our help
the gap between the richer and the poorer countries is
bound to widen.…With less than 10 per cent of the non-Communist world’s
population and only 8 per cent of its area, the United States is consuming more
than half of the non-Communist world supply of such fundamental materials as
petroleum, rubber, iron-ore, manganese and zinc. At the very least we owe it to
the world to return in some form some part of the resources which, with our
greater power and wealth, we have been able to command from the underdeveloped
regions of the world.” All this is a clear proof that the emphasis laid by
Pandit Nehru on economic as distinguished from military aid is bearing fruit.
In
the Arab world there are now strongly at work one negative and two positive
forces. There is an irresistible movement to get rid of domination by the
West–the British and
the French. This
negative force gained immense strength in recent months in Jordan and Cyprus,
and in the French colonies in Northern Africa. It is true that Cyprus is not a
part of the Arab world. It is an island inhabited by Greeks who are in a
majority and by Turks who are in a minority. It was taken from the Turks by the
British in 1878. Though it had not been a Greek territory since ancient times,
there is now a strong movement to get rid of British rule and to unite it with
Greece. The British are not prepare for such union, as it is their last bastion
in the Eastern Mediterranean after their evacuation of the Suez and as its
possession is necessary as a strategic centre to hold their influence in the
Middle East. Under the leadership of Archbishop Makarios the
Cypriot movement for union with Greece has been gaining momentum. Terrorist
outrages frequently broke out and the latest British answer to them was the
deportation of the Archbishop. The situation has since grown more tense; and the
British are resorting to all sorts of military measures to maintain “law and
order”. It is however a losing battle that they are fighting. It is alienating
them from Greece, a member of the NATO. Even Americans are angry with the
British, but no way out has been found for restoring calm.
In
Jordan with which Britain has a treaty of alliance, things have proved quite
unfavourable to them. The British Commander, General Glubb of the Jordan
legion, was summarily dismissed. This is a severe blow to her prestige. Jordan
also refused to enter the Baghdad Pact of which Britain, along with Turkey,
Iran, Iraq and Pakistan, is a member. This marks a definite stage in the
decline of her influence and power in the area.
In
Northern Africa the French were compelled to grant independence to the Sultan
of Morocco and a large measure of self-government to Tunisia. It is however in
Algeria that the nationalist movement is strongest and most troublesome. The
complication there is due to the presence of more than a million French
settlers in that colony, alongside of nine million Arabs. The French settlers
enjoy a privileged position at present. They will lose it in case Algeria is
granted self-rule. For maintaining their privileged position the French
Government has diverted most of its military and naval forces to that colony.
Guerilla warfare is raging there with great intensity. The French are sure to
meet there the same fate as they met in Indo-China but they are at present
determined to fight.
Among
the positive forces in the Arab world are the attempt on the part of Egypt to
unite the whole area under her leadership and the attempt of Soviet Russia to
extend her influence, partly through economic aid and partly through the supply
of arms. Egypt has been able to secure the co-operation of Saudi Arabia and
Syria. She has been encouraging the anti-British forces in Jordan, and the
anti-French forces in Algeria. It is her ambition to lead the Arabs in a war
against Israel and put an end to that republic if possible. It is all this that
has given Soviet Russia an opportunity to extend her influence into the Middle
East.
The
oil of this area is vital to Britain and to some extent to the United States
also. They do not like the idea of their being ousted by Soviet Russia. But they
have not agreed as between themselves what line of action they should take in
case of a war between Egypt and Israel, or whether any action to which Russia
is not a party will succeed. Britain has ceased to be a power there but America
has not yet established herself. It is this uncertainty that is
responsible for the tension there. The matter of Egypt-Israel dispute is now
before the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the UNO has been
deputed to study the subject on the spot. Everything therefore is
in a state of uncertainty.
The
forces released by the French Revolution created a new political world in the
nineteenth century. The forces released by the Russian Revolution and the
Second World War are bound to create another political world. The process of
its birth is what we see now. China, India, an Arab Federation under Egyptian
leadership, a Soviet Russian Empire, a West European Federation, a Pan-American
Union, seem to be the major units in this world. It is developments in the
non-Arab portions of Africa about which there is
uncertainty. Australia and New Zealand will continue to be intimately
associated with the United States. All the other smaller States of Asia and
Europe will have to remain affiliated with their neighbouring major
units. Tensions today are the result of the difficulties involved in old States
adjusting themselves to a new environment.