Prof.
M. VENKATARANGAIYA, M.A.
It
is in a divided world that we are living and this is the reason why even on
matters of life and death it has not been possible to arrive at unanimous
decisions. This is best illustrated by the controversy over nuclear tests.
Three
opinions are being expressed to-day on these tests. There is the opinion that
they must be stopped immediately. This is the opinion held by the Prime
Ministers of India, Japan, Burma and Ceylon and a few other statesmen.
Expression was recently given to it in the joint communiques issued after
Pandit Nehru’s visit to Ceylon and the Japanese Prime Minister Mr. Kishi’s
visit to India. The first of these communiques stated as follows: “The Prime
Ministers regret that despite the declared intentions of all nations not to
embark upon war, and the mounting opinion and anxiety in the world in regard to
the grave and growing menace of these tests to the present and future of
mankind, the Great Powers concerned have not yet decided to refrain from their
hazardous ventures in this field which have already proved injurious to
populations in lands near to the location of such tests, dangerously polluted
the world’s air and water and threatened the present and future generations
with both known and unknown risks and consequences. The Prime Ministers,
therefore, make an earnest and urgent appeal for the immediate suspension of
these nuclear and thermo-nuclear test explosions pending their abandonment.
Such suspension would not only limit the dangers that have already arisen and
help in easing international tension, but would also lead to an effective
consideration of the problem of disarmament.” Similar views found a place in
the joint statement of Pandit Nehru and Mr. Kishi and of U Nu of Burma and
Kishi. All these are agreed on the disastrous effects of H-Bomb tests wherever
they might occur–in the Pacific, or Siberia or Nevada or Australia. As Mr.
Krishna Menon observed in moving his resolution in the Lok Sabha on the
suspension of the tests there is no force whatever in the contention that the
explosions of the Soviet Union were conducted in their own territory as the
atmosphere of the world could not be partitioned. Apart from the views of
responsible statesmen like these there are the views of experts on the subject.
The latest to express them are some of the leading French doctors and
physicians and one of them observes: ‘No increase of radiation is tolerable
from the genetic point of view. The hereditary effects of radiation involved
blindness, idiocy and haemophilia. At the present rate of the growth of radio
activity we may in the space of a generation see the incidence of these
catastrophic effects doubled;’ and another of them said: ‘Our unanimous desire
is that these explosions should cease. But we are not the ones who decide.’
Among those who have the power to
decide are the dictators of the Soviet Union. They are in favour of suspending
the nuclear tests provided that the United States also suspends them. This is
the second school of opinion on the subject. But it has no practical effect
whatever as these dictators are not prepared to take unilateral action. Pandit
Nehru had them in mind when he pointed out in the Lok Sabba that while putting
forward various proposals they simultaneously carried out a chain of test
explosions without waiting for the consideration of such proposals by the other
parties concerned. Views like these have only propaganda value.
The
third set of opinions have been expressed by the spokesmen of the United States
and Britain. They are determined to stockpile nuclear weapons. This
necessitates continuous research in new and more effective weapons and in their
being tested when once they are manufactured. They naturally minimise the
harmful effects of increasing radio activity following the test explosions.
Their standpoint is purely political. Their policies are rooted in the belief
that the U. S. S. R. is aiming at world domination, that this would mean the
triumph of communism and the destruction of human freedom and all the spiritual
values associated with it and that as it is not possible to oppose the U. S. S.
R with conventional armies of the old type based on superior man-power they
have no other alternative than to rely on nuclear weapons in the manufacture of
which they have still a superiority over the Soviet Union. They also have
scientists to support them. There is, for instance, Professor Marcus Oliphant,
a noted Australian atomic energy authority who said that mankind need have no
fear of harm from nuclear tests for at least fifty years if the tests continued
at the present rate. Another noted American Scientist Dr. W. F. Libby while
answering a warning by Dr. Schweitzer that radio activity was a
catastrophe for the human race said that the risk to human beings from nuclear
test explosions was extremely small compared with other risks which ‘persons
everywhere take as a normal part of their lives.’ The
policy aspect was recently made clear by the British Prime
Minister and the British Foreign Secretary. The former observed: ‘The
government’s policy is to work for the abolition of nuclear tests within the
framework of a comprehensive disarmament agreement...Both conventional and
unconventional disarmament are connected and I am not prepared and I do not
believe any British Prime Minister is prepared to put this country in a
permanently weaker position.’ It was more emphatically explained by the Foreign
Secretary, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, who said, ‘Another world war, whatever weapons are
used, would be fall to civilisation. To imply that another world war fought
with conventional weapons would be comparatively respectable was absolute
nonsense; another war would mean destruction and with any weapons it would mean
the end of us. The H-Bomb was the greatest deterrent to war that the world had
ever known. We in the West want to settle matters peaceably. We want a
comprehensive disarmament involving a drastic reduction of conventional weapons
and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Until we get such an agreement the H-Bomb
is an essential deterrent, really a necessary defence of the freedom which we
enjoy...If the United States had not possessed the nuclear deterrent during the
past ten years we might already have had another war. Russia might have taken advantage
of her superiority in conventional weapons.’
It
is futile to discuss which of these three opinions embodies the truth. The
holders of these opinions do not occupy the same position in the international
world. Their approach to the subject of nuclear tests cannot therefore be the
same. Each looks at it from his own standpoint. The stock-piling of nuclear
weapons and the test explosions resorted to are necessitated by the continued
recognition of war as the final instrument for settling international disputes.
If war is abolished then all weapons of war–conventional and nuclear–will
automatically be abolished. If war is recognised as legitimate then any and
every means will be used for obtaining victory in it. The problem before
mankind is the problem of the abolition of war and the use of force for
settling international disputes. It is this that has to be tackled.
The
League of Nations and the United Nations Organisation were brought into
existence with a view to settle disputes by peaceful means and bring about the
necessary changes in international relationships without recourse to arms. The
League failed miserably and the U.N.O. is in no better position. When there is
no stable government inside a country, and when in consequence disorder prevails,
every one tries to arm oneself or to put oneself under the
control of a stronger individual or a group which guarantees protection and
security. He has no other alternative. In a world where war is still a
possibility some steps will have to be taken to deter the aggressors and this
is just what is going on in the world around today. The Soviet Union arms
itself with the maximum amount of the latest weapons because it believes that
it is the only way to prevent the United States from attacking its territory
and power. The United States does the same thing because it believes that
otherwise it would be destroyed by the U. S. S. R. Neither wants a world war as
it would be suicidal. But each is afraid of a surprise attack and it is against
such an attack that it wants a deterrent. For the time being the United
States is stronger in respect of nuclear weapons and it does not want to lose
this advantage. This is the reason why when the representatives of the two
blocs meet in disarmament conferences they are unable to come to any
substantial agreement. What the U. S. S. R. wants is the prohibition of atomic
weapons in which the United States is superior; and what the United States
wants is the reduction in conventional armaments in which the U. S. S. R. is
superior. Each wants to maintain the relative superiority it possesses.
It
is easy to enunciate principles which States should follow if world peace is to
be maintained but it is very difficult to evolve a way or a method for seeing
that those principles are adhered to. The real saviour is one who points out
the way. The Prime Ministers of India, Japan, Burma and Ceylon have declared
that the only right principle for the three atomic powers to adhere to is to
suspend nuclear tests forthwith. But they have not so far been able to find an
effective way of bringing pressure to bear upon the atomic powers to accept the
principle in practice. In the discussions in the Indian Parliament and
elsewhere some ways have been suggested. One is that India should leave the Commonwealth–the
idea being that this will induce Britain to abandon her nuclear tests. Another
is that India should convene a world conference for the purpose. But Pandit
Nehru said: ‘A conference would not be feasible or desirable and will not help
this cause except to produce irritation in regard to India and reduce our
capacity of working for the cause we hold dear.’ Another suggestion is that
persons of the eminence of Sri C. Rajagopalactari should undertake a tour of
the U.S.S.R., the United States, and Britain, and create, through lectures and
discussions, a strong public opinion against nuclear tests. Of course people
forget whether he will be allowed to enter U. S. S. R. for a purpose like this
or whether any one will be propelled to listen to him in a matter like this in
Britain and the United States. The only hope lies in those who are principally
engaged in nuclear tests and in the manufacture of nuclear weapons realising
that they cannot indefinitely go on with their armaments race and they must come
to some kind of understanding as to where they should stop and under what
conditions. External pressure can do little to convince the two world powers of
their folly. The light must come from within.
This
is just what is taking place now. There is now a feeling that the disarmament
talks which have been going on for so many years without producing any fruit
are now taking a slightly favourable turn. This is because the cost of building
up armaments has become unbearable even for the richest countries of the world.
The Soviet Union finds it necessary to divert part of its man-power in the
defence forces to industries and agriculture. The United States with all its
resources finds it burdensome to simultaneously increase the strength of her
conventional armaments and of the new nuclear weapons. The same is the case
with Britain. She has already scrapped a great deal of her conventional defence
forces and is concentrating her attention on atomic weapons. Apart from this a
new factor has been influencing the United States and the U. S. S. R. At
present they and Britain are the only atomic powers. But there is a possibility
of other states manufacturing atomic weapons and using them in warfare. If the
number of such states increases the dangers of atomic war will become greater
and the regulation of the use of atomic weapons will become more difficult. It
is therefore best for the three atomic powers of the present day to come to
some understanding immediately. It is influences like these that have created a
situation in which some disarmament seems likely. It is too soon to say
what its precise nature will be. But, if this becomes an accomplished fact, it
may pave the way for further disarmament later on and for the easing of
tension between the two blocks.
Developments
in the Middle East have as usual attracted world attention in recent months.
One favourable development was the practical settlement of the Suez problem.
Britain, France and the Western powers in general have become reconciled to the
nationalisation of the Canal by President Nasser. When once the joint invasion
of Egypt by the British, French and Israeli forces failed they had no other
alternative before them. In a declaration which Egypt issued in the last week
of April, Egypt agreed to operate the canal according to the spirit of the
international convention of 1888. She undertook not to increase the tolls above
one per cent per year, develop the Canal in accordance with the needs of modern
shipping, and create a reserve fund to meet future contingencies. The
declaration was found satisfactory by almost all the users
of the Canal. Even Britain which thought of boycotting the Canal finally
decided on using it. France alone continues to boycott
it. She brought up the question before the U. N. Security Council but found
little substantial support for the stand she took. It may therefore be
regarded that the Canal crisis is over and that it has ended with a complete
triumph for President Nasser. The Western powers are now thinking of other ways
of lessening his prestige and bringing down the importance of the Canal as an
international highway. There are proposals to construct oil-pipe lines by way
of Iraq and Turkey into the Mediterranean ports without the need for using the
Canal. Bigger tankers are also being built far carrying oil from the middle
east to Europe by way of the Cape. This may affect the revenues which Egypt
gets from the Canal. Apart from this it is quite possible that some
difficulties will be created in the way of President Nasser getting financial
aid for his economic projects unless he separates himself completely from the
Soviet Union and adopts a strictly neutralist policy. Steps have already been
taken to weaken his leadership in the Arab world and there are indications that
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon might form one group, leaving Syria
alone to work along with Egypt.
This
split in the Arab camp is the outcome of the developments in the small kingdom
of Jordan. An attempt was made there to dispossess the young ruler Hussain of
all power and to set up a military regime, pro-Soviet and pro-Communist in
character. This was however frustrated mainly because of the threatened
military intervention by the United States which moved her sixth fleet to the
eastern coast of the Mediterranean with a view to put into operation the
‘Eisenhower Doctrine’ recently enunciated. According to this doctrine the
United States is ready to help any state in the Middle East falling a prey to
international communism and to extend substantial economic aid to such a state.
During all these ten years of the cold war the United States has regarded
international communism (identified by her with Soviet imperialism) as her
worst enemy and she has devised the Truman Doctrine, the NATO, the SEATO, and
the Baghdad Pact (though she has not become a formal member of this pact) to
meet it. She does not want that, now that the British influence is completely
destroyed in the middle east, Soviet influence should take its place. What the
revolutionaries to Jordan tried to do was to establish this very influence. She
was afraid that it would result in all the oil of the area being controlled by
the U. S. S. R. and the prosperity and the defence strength of the NATO
crippled in consequence. It was this that led to the enunciation of the
‘Eisenhower Doctrine’ and for the time being it may be said that she has
succeeded in her 0bjective. King Hussain is safe on the Jordan throne. He has
come to some kind of understanding with Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
But
no one can say whether the conditions in the middle east have become completely
stabilised. Though the United States is extending her economic aid to
Jordan and other states there is a strong anti-American feeling among the
people in the area. It is partly due to her supporting the feudal regimes which
are not very much interested in improving the lot of the masses. It is partly
due to the indirect support she has been extending to Israel whose very
existence is detested by all the Arabs. Apart from this the whole area is subject
to intrigues and counter-intrigues by the emissaries of the U. S. S. R. and the
United States. It is an area where the cold war is being fought and no
stability is possible until either of the two powers gets complete control over
it or the two powers come to some kind of understanding as to the future of the
area. No part of the world has escaped from the effects of the cold war. The
difficulties in the way of the re-unification of Germany, of Korea and of
Vietnam are the difficulties which are being experienced in the way of
conditions becoming stabilized in the middle east. The struggle for power
between the two giants–the U. S. S. R. and the United States–is at the root of
the troubles in many parts of the world.
One
other centre of disturbance in the Arab world is Algeria. France is keeping an
army of half a million for the purpose of suppressing the national movement in
this land. She has not learnt any lesson from her failures in Indo-China. The
situation of course is complicated here owing to a million Frenchmen having
settled there and occupying some of the best lands in the country. In a free
Algeria with about eight million Arabs the French will be a minority and they
cannot hope to enjoy the privileged position which they have been enjoying for
such a long time. The whole Arab world is in sympathy with the nationalists of
Algeria and it will be a costly and impossible task for the French to suppress
the national movement. It will be the path of wisdom for them to recognise
facts and to do in Algeria what they have already done in Tunisa and Morocco.
In the war between nationalism and colonialism the former is bound to win.
The
conduct of the British is in this respect a happy contrast to that of the
French. It shows their greater political maturity and statesmanship. It was in
March last that out of some of their colonies in West Africa they created the
independent republic of Ghana which has accepted membership of the
Commonwealth. The new republic was admitted as a member into the United Nations.
This is an event of great significance in the history of Africa. It is now
proposed to confer independence on Nigeria–another British colony in Africa.
Outside Africa too the British have been following more or less the same
policy. Malaya is to become independent soon and the first steps have been
taken in creating a self-governing Singapore. All this indicates how, as a
consequence of the practical wisdom of the British, the area of the free world
is expanding.
Countries
which have attained freedom after a long period of colonial dependence have
many problems to face in the contemporary world. There is the constitutional
problem of the sort of governmental system to be established in them. And this
problem becomes complicated when the country is large in size and when it is
inhabited by different groups of people among whom the sentiment of nationalism
is not yet deep-rooted. There is also the economic and social problem. Most of
these countries are underdeveloped and they are in haste to have a higher
standard of living immediately after the achievement of freedom. It is the
presence of problems like these that is responsible for the unstable conditions
found in some of them and this is best illustrated by the recent happenings in
Indonesia.
This
republic consists of a large number of islands scattered over South-East Asia.
It has been found difficult to work a unitary and democratic system in the area
though it was such a system that was established here after the withdrawal of
the Dutch. The relations between the Civil and Military authorities have not
been cordial and in some of the islands there have been military revolts with
Army Commanders setting up independent authority. There is also the demand for
a more decentralised system of government. Some of the islands feel that their
interests are not properly looked after by the central government which is
located in Java. In addition to this there are numerous political parties–some
like the Muslim party belonging to the extreme right and some like the
communists to the extreme left. With so many parties in the legislature it has
not been possible to establish a stable government. As a consequence of all
these factors–revolts in islands like Sumatra, agitation for more of local
autonomy and disagreement among parties–all governmental authority has recently
been transferred by the President to a body of experts and leaders outside the
regular cabinet or council of ministers; and this has been found to work more
satisfactorily than the usual instruments of democratic government.
The
problem of re-unifying Germany continues to perplex the continent of Europe.
President Tito of Yugoslavia continues to condemn the Soviet statesmen for the
ideological warfare they are carrying on with him and for their dictatorial
policies in Hungary, Poland and other Communist States in Central and Eastern
Europe. There has been no change in the policy of Apartheid pursued by
the ruling power in South Africa, a policy which, in due course, is sure to
bring ruin upon the whites in the whole continent. South American republics
continue to be the centres of revolutions in which one dictator tries to take
the place of another–all in the name of democracy. The outbreak of
anti-American riots in Formosa have attracted wide attention.