BY
Prof. M. VENKATARANGAIYA, M.A.
Though
the Korean War is among the last of the happenings of the quarter from the
chronological standpoint, it is among the most important of the events. It has
been examined from various points of view–legal, moral and political. Some have
condemned the action taken by the United States and the U. N. Security Council
while others welcomed it. It is not easy to arrive at any conclusion regarding
this affair on which there will be general agreement. Differences of opinion
are bound to exist, partly because the standpoints are different. Some look at
the affair from the legal point of view, some from the moral and some others
from the political, and it is very difficult to estimate the relative
significance of each of these points of view. As in so many other matters, here
also there is the possibility of conflict between what is valid from the legal
standpoint, and what is right from the moral, and what is expedient from the
political. And we have always to take into consideration the temperament and
the general outlook and even the prejudices of the person judging the
situation. Today some have become temperamentally Communist and pro-Soviet, as
they do not draw a distinction between Communism and Sovietism. Others are
prejudiced in favour of ordered freedom which is democracy, and which they have
come to identify with the American way of life. This is the reason why we have
different comments made on the Korean War by different people–all equally
interested in knowing the truth themselves and conveying it to others.
Korea
is a small country with a population of 30 millions. Since 1945 it has been
divided by the 38th parallel into Northern Korea of ten million people,
industrial and Russian dominated, and Southern Korea of twenty million people,
mainly agricultural and dominated by the Americans. The division is artificial
but it was undertaken during the last stages of the second World War in a
moment of hurry, as there was no time to discover a long-term solution. But
both the Russians and the Americans agreed that at a later stage they would
strive to unify Korea, place it under a government, national and democratic,
resulting from fair and free elections. But that agreement was not given effect
to, owing to the rise of acute differences between the two world powers on a
variety of matters and the outbreak of the cold war between them. The division
of Korea had consequently continued. It affected adversely the economy two
parts. Patriots bent on the creation of a unified national State resented
it. The matter was brought before the United Nations by the United States, in
spite of the protests of Russia that it should not be left to the decision of
the international body. The U.N.O. appointed a commission, and under the
auspices of the commission a general election was held. But the election was
boycotted by the people of North Korea. The party that secured a majority in
the election formed a government. The U.N.O. recognised this as the legitimate
government of the whole of Korea, even though it had no control over the North.
In the latter part of 1948 both the Russians and the Americans withdrew their
occupation forces. Even after that the political division between the North and
the South continued.
Strategically
Korea occupies a position of the greatest importance. This is why, in the past,
the Russians and the Japanese fought for it. Russia is determined to make it
Communist and bring into her sphere of influence; and America is equally determined
to prevent such a thing from happening. There is however one difference between
the two world powers. Russia has a clear grasp or what it wants, dominated as
it is by one leader and one party. She is able without any scruples whatever to
resort to all means for sealing her objectives. America is on the other hand
vacillating. Her leaders do not know their own mind. They are torn by
conflicting views. The result is that while Russia created a well-knit
Communist party in the North and trained a Communist army, the Americans,
believing in the efficacy of democratic freedom, left matters to drift in south
Korea, so that the North had become strong enough to invade the South and try
to bring about the unity of the country by war.
It
was on June 25, 1950 that the North Korean forces invaded the South and came
very near Seoul, the southern capital. It was then the Americans realised the
seriousness of the situation and resolved from sending their forces to South
Korea and save it from conquest by the North. To give a legality to the course
of action which she contemplated, she brought the question before the U.N.
Security council. The Council passed a resolution declaring that North Korea
was the aggressor in an unprovoked war, that she should cease hostilities, and
that if she did not withdraw, sanctions–military, economic, etc.,–would
be used against her. All the members of the United Nations were informed of the
resolutions passed by the council. Most of them endorsed the resolutions and
some of them agreed to send their navy, air-craft and even ground forces to
help the Americans in their war in Korea. Legally of course, it does not look
like an American war. It is a war fought under the auspices of the United
Nations, as it has been authorised by the Security Council.
But
the legality of the action taken by the Security Council has been questioned by
Russia on various grounds. From her standpoint there was no evidence to show
that North Korea was the aggressor. She has also argued that the government of
North Korea is the lawful government of the whole country, and that in invading
the South the northern government has been merely engaged in suppressing rebels
and bringing that area under its control. In putting forward this argument
Russia went so far as to draw an analogy between what the Northern Korea has
been doing now and what the government of the United States did to suppress the
Southern rebels in the great American Civil war. Russia has also argued that no
action taken by the Security Council on an important issue like this could be
legal when she herself, being one of the permanent members, did not take part
in voting on the issue. Of course all these legal arguments have been refuted.
There is an U.N. Commission in Korea and it was on the information supplied by
it that the Security Council declared North Korea to be the aggressor; and the
very fact that in a few days the Northern forces have been able to occupy such
a large part of the South is adequate evidence for concluding that the North took
the offensive in the matter. There was again the resolution of the U.N.O.
recognising the government of the South as the only legal government and most
of the other States of the world extended their recognition to it. It is
therefore preposterous to say that the Northern government is the legitimate
government. As regards the absence of Russia from the Security Council, it has
been pointed out that on previous occasions it was recognised that abstention
from voting by any permanent or temporary member did not amount to a negative
vote, and that therefore in the present case Russia could not argue that her
not being present at the Council and not voting in favour of the resolution
amounted to voting against it. Above all, that the charter of the United Nations
recognises the right of self-defence and that both South Korea and the United
States were justified in taking any steps deemed necessary by them in the
interests of self-defence.
This
is the real truth of the situation. For three years America has been carrying
on a cold war with Russia. She is determined on arresting the further progress
of Communism through war and violence. Peace and security in the Pacific region
are vital to her. It is not to her interest that Korea should fall into the
hands of a Communist regime, as all Communist governments have now come to
rally themselves round Soviet Russia and become her satellites. The
intervention of America therefore in Korea is politically necessary for her,
whatever be the legality of it.
Of
course there are some who condemn the action of the United States from what may
be called the moral standpoint. It is their View that the people of Korea
should be left to themselves to settle their affairs in any way they like, and
that in sending their forces to Korea the Americans have violated the great and
noble principle of national self-determination and of the sovereignty of the
people of Korea. It is always difficult to decide questions relating to moral
right and wrong. But it is too late now in the day to speak of the
inviolability of the principle of national sovereignty. In an age when distance
has become significant and when each country has become the immediate neigbbour
of every other country, however widely it might appear to be separated from it
by physical distance calculated in miles, and when all countries have become so
interdependent, it is futile to argue that it ought to be a matter of
indifference to other countries as to what is taking place in any particular
country. And it is in recognition of this that the saner section of the world
found it necessary to create a League of Nations after the first World War and
a United Nations Organisation at the end of the second World War.
There
is thus ample justification for the action taken by the Security Council and
for the intervention of America in the affairs of Korea. Let us see what the
consequence would be if America abstained
from intervention and allowed Southern Korea to be conquered by the
North. It would mean the expansion of Communism into another country of great
strategic importance. It will certainly encourage the Communists of the other
countries in South-East Asia–Indo-China, Siam, Indonesia, the Philippines and
Burma–and within a short period of time the whole of South-East Asia would
become a Communist bloc.
It
is in reflecting on the consequences of an ultimate situation like this that
the temperamental differences of observers have their influences. There are
many who welcome, and welcome fanatically, a situaation like this; and there
are others who abhor it and who are frightened by it. Who can say who are right
and who are wrong? But let it be noted that in the present context of the world
the spread of Communism cannot be separated from the spread of Russian
imperialism. One cannot be separated from the other. And imperialism–the
domination of one country by another–is always reprehensible, whatever be the
spiritual basis on which such domination is justified. It is the lesson of
history that people whose main motive is acquisition of power exploit
religion–just as they exploit other instruments–for their own purposes. It is
in the name of Islam that the Saracens of the Seventh and the Eighth Centuries
conquered a large of the world. The Muslims of the middle ages tried to do the
same. It was in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity that the
revolutionary armies of France and Napoleon conquered the major part of Europe.
It was in the name of individual freedom and superior civilisation and culture
that the Europeans conquered Asia and Africa in the modern age. That is just
what Soviet Russia is now doing in the name of Communism. The communistic ideal
liberation of the working classes from the yoke of the moneyed classes has a
wide appeal. But it is being exploited by Soviet Russia to expand her own
political power and pursue the policies of imperialist expansion inherited by
her from the Czars like Peter the Great and Catherine. Soviet foreign policy
today is a continuation in essence of the policy of the despotic rulers of
Russia in the past.
Apart
from this there are other reasons why Communism should not spread. It
substitutes a totalitarian tyranny of a small well-disciplined minority for
the power of the unorganised capitalists of today. It totally denies the values
of individual freedom. It is entirely materialistic in its outlook. And the
means which it adopts–the sabotage, arson, loot and murder made so evident even
in India in recent days–for reaching its goal results in incalculable suffering
and misery. Those therefore who are fighting against Soviet imperialism are
fighting against totalitarianism and the disappearance of even small sphere of
freedom for the individual. The non-Communist world may not be an attractive
world. It is full of evils, misery and suffering. But one has to think twice
and thrice before one is called to fly from the frying pan into the fire.
People
are asking themselves whether the Korean War will be localised or whether it
will gradually transform itself into third World War. It does not look as if it
can be completely localized. For, the Americans have now begun to see that they
should take active steps to strengthen themselves in South-East and East Asia.
They are determined to see that Formosa is not occupied by Communist China and
that Ho Chi Minh does not get control of Indo-China. There is thus a
possibility of the war spreading into these areas while the Americans are
engaged in Korea. There is equally the possibility of the Communists in Eastern
Germany trying to occupy the whole of Berlin and enter Western Germany. There
is of course the possibility of trouble in the frontiers of Yugo-Slavia. The
Americans will continue to fight until they are satisfied that there is no
danger to stability and security not only in Korea but also in Indo China,
Siam, and the whole of South-East Asia. Not merely Americans. It is to the
interest of Britain, of Australia and New Zealand that such stability is
achieved.
For, even before the outbreak of the Korean War, the Americans revised their Far-Eastern policy when they decided upon extending their economic as well as military aid to Indo-China. The proceedings of the Sydney Conference held in May, at which the representatives of all the Commonwealth countries were present, also reveal how much importance Australia, Britain and the other Common-wealth countries attach to stability in South-East Asia which, in current terminology, amounts to the arrest of Communist expansion in that area. As a matter of fact, the attitude of Britain towards the problems of Asia has undergone a revolutionary change. Bevin and other spokesmen of the British feel–and the debates in the House of Commons in May and June reveal this–that they can no longer ignore the nationalist movements in this part of the world and that they should do something to aid the poverty-stricken peoples of S.E. Asia if they are to maintain stability there. Australia is specially interested in this. It is a life and death problem for her as to how she can retain the White superiority in the face of an awakened China, a resurrected Japan and a free Indonesia, suffering from over-population and anxious to obtain outlets. The time may not be distant when the Chinese and the Japanese and other Asiatic peoples, free and industrially and technically advanced, may use force forgetting into the vacant spaces of the Australian continent. That is the real problem in this part of the world. Australia is interested naturally in preventing such a thing from happening. This is why she took the lead in calling the Sydney Conference. But it remains a question as to whether anything substantial was achieved at the conference. A resolution of course was passed that eight million pounds should be spent within a course of six years for extending aid to the free peoples of South-East Asia–from Burma to Indonesia–and this is to be spent after information as to the needs of these countries is collected and after a study is made of the extent to which these needs can be satisfied by local resources. It is expected that by the time that a similar conference meets at Colombo in September this information would be collected, and that it would be possible to draw detailed plans regarding the distribution of aid. But how much can eight millions accomplish in an area occupied by nearly two hundred millions of people? And why all this fuss about information when, for three years, the ECAFE has been engaged in a study like this? A bolder and a bigger step should be taken by the Commonwealth in cooperation with the United States (which also wants to extend aid to these areas) and the problem has to be tackled on a larger scale and all this has to be done at a quicker pace. People are only talking of plans. Plans are not being drawn and much less are they being executed.
The
Americans have now come to the conclusion that peace with Soviet Russia is not
possible. Mr. Acheson, the Secretary of State in the United States, has been
reported to have come to London for talks with the British and French Foreign
Ministers in May last with “a conviction, deepened by long experience and
study, that the cold war must be accepted as a permanent feature of future
planning and that all efforts must, therefore, be directed to strengthening the
political, economic and military forces of the Atlantic Powers.” No effect
seems to have been produced on this view by the mission undertaken by M. Trygve
Lie, the Secretary-General of the U.N.O. to Paris, Moscow and London to bring
about a closer understanding among the great powers and to resolve the deadlock
created in the U.N.O. and its affiliated bodies through the boycott by Russia
and her allies. It was in pursuance of this view that several other steps were
taken by the United States and her friends to tighten up the defences against
Soviet Russia.
This
was done for instance in the Middle East. This is an area which is very much
exposed to Russian pressure. Neither Persia nor Turkey is in a position to
resist it single-handed, or in combination, without the help of the United
States. To expand in the direction of the Persian Gulf, and to obtain control
over the Straits of Constantinople is an integral part of Russian foreign
policy. To prevent Russia from taking any active steps to achieve this aim, is
a necessity for Britain and the United States. Another disturbing factor in the
Middle East is the tension between Israel and the Arab powers and also the
friction between the Arab League on one side and the Kingdom of Jordan on the
other. The League is dominated by Egypt and she has not as yet reconciled herself
to the establishment of the independent State of Israel by the Jews, though it
is now a settled fact. Jordan with its King Abdulla is more realistic in this
matter and she is disposed to be friendly towards Israel, as that helps her
control over Arab Palestine and perhaps achieving her aim of Greater Syria in
due course. During the last quarter these questions occupied the attention of
Britain, France and the United States, with the result that they carried on
successful negotiations with Israel and the Arab States and issued what is
called a Three-Power Declaration, under which they have agreed to supply arms
to Israel and the Arab States on condition that they are not used for
aggressive purposes. And they also obtained assurances of non-aggression from these
States. And they have made clear that they would take prompt action against any
State violating frontiers or disturbing peace in any other way. It is a global
policy that any world power has to pursue today, and from this point of view
stability in the Middle East is of special importance to the United States and
Britain.
At
one time it was feared in some quarters that the change in Government in
Turkey, in consequence of the free elections held there in May, might become a
disturbing factor. For the last twenty-five years Turkey had been ruled by a
political party associated with Kamal Ataturk, the creator of the present
Republic. It was regarded as a totalitarian party. It rendered great services
especially in modernising and westernising the country. There was a feeling
that it would be impossible to oust it from power except through the use of
violence. But the progress in national unity achieved during the last
twenty-five years was a reality. The elections therefore were fought on the
basis of complete freedom. The Democratic Party, dominated by the middle
classes, won and a new government has been formed. But this government is as
nationalistic as the previous one. It is as much afraid of Russian expansionism
as its predecessor, and it has announced that there would be no change in its
foreign policy. This is not welcome to the Atlantic Powers.
In
this attempt to tighten up the defence against aggressive Russia, the Atlantic
Powers took one more step when, at their London meeting in May, they took the
important decision to “build up a system of defence equipped with modern
weapons and capable of withstanding any external threat directed against any of
them.” This has been looked at as a revolutionary decision by certain
commentators, as it would lead to the creation of a common defence force as
distinguished from the individual defence forces maintained by each country.
The Council also decided upon the creation of a Merchant Shipping Planning
Board to cooperate with the other North Atlantic Committees in defence
planning. To give practical effect to these and other decisions, a Committee of
Deputies to run the whole organisation has also been set up. Each of the twelve
members who are parties to the Atlantic Pact will nominate a
member. The committee will elect its own chairman and organise its own
secretariat. In the past, it was after the war started that
the allies began planning. Now everything is being done in advance so that if,
unfortunately, a war breaks out, everything might be ready to meet the
aggression.
So
the last three months constituted a period of great activity on the part of the
United States, the Commonwealth and the Atlantic Powers to tighten up their
defences, to take concerted action to maintain stability S.
E. Asia, the Middle East and Western Europe. What Soviet Russia and her allies
have been doing is a sealed mystery. But both parties are fiercely
engaged in carrying on the cold war which is now threatening, through the
outbreak of hostilities in Korea, a hot war. Important events have also
occurred in this period in Germany, France and other countries. There is no
space here to refer to them, to events like the Schuman plan, the national
movements in Germany, etc. We are living in revolutionary times and a new world
is being created.1
1
July 9.