INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: A SURVEY

By PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA

The seventeen-nation disarmament conference, which met at Geneva in March to bring about an agreement between the United States and Soviet Russia on the banning of nuclear tests and on a detailed plan for universal and complete disarmament by stages, was adjourned sine die, after more than two months of fruitless debate. As usual, the United States would not agree to a ban unless it was accompanied by a fool-proof system of international inspection and control, and the Soviet Union was equally insistent on not having any such system. The non-aligned states at the conference tried their best to bring about a compromise, but to no effect. The two big powers could not even agree on the wording of a declaration urging a moratorium on war propaganda. As all the time of the conference was taken up with debates on nuclear ban, the problem of general disarmament was not at all considered. The result is that the nuclear arms race is going on. The United States has resumed its series of tests; and the Soviet Union is planning for another round of them. Each is bent upon achieving its own superiority in the possession of the most destructive nuclear arms. The only consolation is that the Conference was adjourned instead of being dissolved. This gives the hope that the discussions would be resumed.

Meanwhile, an Anti-Nuclear Test Convention was held in New Delhi under the auspices of the Gandhi Peace Foundation. Not only non-officials like Dr. Rajendra Prasad and C. Rajagopalachari, but also officials like the President and the Prime Minister of India participated in it. Eloquent speeches were delivered in support of an immediate ban on tests and of general disarmament. Every one agreed that, as pointed out by Dr. Prasad, the race for nuclear weapons would lead to a thermo-nuclear war between East and West which would result in the annihilation of whole populations on either side, destroy civilization and turn the world into a radio-active waste land. There was also an agreement on the need, as pointed out by Dr. Radhakrishnan, for all nations to surrender their national sovereignty and submit to a Rule of Law. But there was no effective answer to the only important question as to how to induce the two nuclear powers to stop the tests. The only device, that the Convention could think of, was to have a resolution passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations banning all tests. Now that the non-aligned Afro-Asian nations have a large numerical strength in that body, there might be no difficulty in getting such a resolution passed. But what guarantee is there that it would be respected by the two great powers? The suggestion of C. Rajagopalachari that they should be expelled from the United Nations if they do not respect it, was thrown out, and rightly also, by the Convention. The majority of the delegates realized that the world body would cease to exist if the two powers left it. The Convention could not think of any other sanctions. The suggestion of Dr. Rajendra Prasad that India should set an example to other nations by unilaterally disarming herself, was considered to be impracticable and inadvisable. The net result is that the situation continues to remain what it was before the disarmament conference met at Geneva.

The only hope lies in the two powers growing wiser and in their realizing that the nuclear race is destructive of both. Both of them know this, but they do not have the wisdom to benefit by their knowledge. It is also quite possible that both of them may come nearer each other if they come to think of Communist China as their common enemy.

One outcome of the rivalry between the two powers is the growing unity among the States of Western Europe. Western Europe is more or less of the same size as India, and like India it has been for ages divided politically into a number of independent sovereign states in spite of the fact that there is a large amount of cultural unity among them. Modern nationalism with its emphasis on the absolute and unlimited sovereignty of the state had its birth here–the English and the French having been the earliest nations. There are also differences of language among the peoples of Western Europe. Attempts made in the past–by the Holy Roman Emperors in the middle ages, by the Bourbons and the Hapsburgs in the early modern period, and by Napoleon, Kaiser William and Hitler later on–to unify Western Europe politically–ended in failure. To-day, however, the atmosphere is quite different. In communism and Soviet Russia, all the States of Western Europe find a common enemy. Each of them has come to realize that it can’t defend itself in isolation. Moreover, they have found that they should all come closer together if their economies are to be properly developed in the new technological age. The United States has been encouraging them to come closer together for both political and economic purposes. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was the first step in this direction. The European Common Market, which is being organized at present, is the second step. And many regard that sooner or later it will be followed by the third step–the formation of a sort of West European Federation consisting of almost all the States on this side of the Iron Curtain. The era of national States in the history of Europe has practically come to an end. The era of regional federations has begun. The decision of Britain to enter the European Common Market clearly points out that this is the direction in which events are moving in Europe. A West European Federation will be one of the strongest and economically one of the most advanced of the States of the world. In a shrinking world there is no place for States of small size like Britain, France, Belgium or Holland. They have to become either satellites of a great power or be federally united.

Not only in Europe but also in other parts of the world, this tendency will grow strong. It is this that gives significance to the Malaysian movement in South-East Asia. Singapore is to be merged in Malaya, and this is to form part of a bigger federation of which British Borneo and the other remaining colonies of Britain in this part of the world are to be members. There is already a sort of cultural union between Malaya, the Philippines and Thailand. All these are States threatened by the aggressive Communist China. It is, therefore, quite possible that in due course all the States of South-East Asia might come closer together both politically and economically. It is in a similar direction that the Arab States of Western Asia and Northern Africa are likely to move.

The organization of the European Common Market and the entry of Britain into it may weaken the Commonwealth of Nations. The transformation of the British Empire into a Commonwealth of Nations has been rightly regarded as a unique event in history to which there is no parallel. All other empires broke up, and though the British Empire also broke up like them into a number of independent states, these have preferred to come together on a free and voluntary basis as members of the Commonwealth. Even republics like India have found a place in it. The members have been linked together by cultural and economic ties and the Commonwealth has been serving as a moderating factor in the settlement of international issues.

It has been pointed out by several authoritative writers that the English language and parliamentary democracy are the outstanding cultural links that hold the Commonwealth together. Even after the one time dependencies of the British empire became independent–as in the case of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Ghana–they have not given up the English language which in the days of British rule served as a common medium of communication among the educated classes in them. Whatever antipathy might have existed towards the English language, as the language of an alien country, in the days of foreign rule, it has gradually disappeared and efforts are being made in the Asian and African member-states of the Commonwealth to retain English and to raise its standard. As a recent writer on the Commonwealth pointed out, “By 1960 the maintenance of English as a cultural language had become the official policy of all the member Governments.”

In addition to these cultural links, there have been two other links which bound the members together. One is the recognition of the principle of racial equality. The Commonwealth is an inter-racial entity. There is no place for the colour bar in it. It was because of the policy of colour bar to which South Africa rigidly adhered that it found that it had no place in the Commonwealth and prudently gave up its membership. Otherwise, it might have suffered the indignity of being expelled. So strong was the resentment felt by all other members towards her policy of Apartheid. The other is the economic link. The member states enjoy a sort of preference for the entry of their goods duty free into Britain, and this is of great advantage to them in earning foreign exchange.

The entry of Britain into the European Common Market is sure to break the economic link. Commonwealth countries like India will, in future, not be in a position to send exports to Britain duty free. The trade policy of Britain will be influenced more and more by the rules and regulations of the Common Market, and Britain will be drawn closer to the countries of Western Europe and away from those of the Commonwealth.

Two other tendencies which may weaken the Commonwealth also deserve notice. One is the growth of authoritarian forms of government in States like Pakistan and Ghana and their moving away from the institutions of parliamentary democracy and the Rule of Law. The other is the introduction, though indirectly, of a sort of colour bar in Britain as a result of the new Immigration Act. In the past, all citizens of the Commonwealth were allowed to migrate and settle in Britain without any restriction. Under the new Act several restrictions have been imposed and several of them have been imposed specially to prevent, the people of India and Pakistan from entering the country.

In a world where the need to preserve old links is so great and where the Commonwealth has been serving a highly valuable purpose, it is a matter for regret that such links should become weaker.

The movement for freedom from colonial domination has shown appreciable progress in recent months. Algeria has become free in spite of the opposition and the killings resorted to by the French Secret Army Organization. The killings and the work of destruction carried on by the organization were on an unprecedented scale. Even women and children were not spared. Hospitals were destroyed. Oil wells and refineries were burnt, and a regular scorched-earth policy was pursued for more than two months. The free Government of Algeria bore all this with patience. It did not resort to reprisals and immerse the country in civil war on the eve of freedom. Its statesmanship yielded valuable dividends. The Secret organisation realized that its efforts to create anarchy and delay the emergence of a free Algeria were futile and reconciled itself to the new state of affairs. With the referendum on July 1, a new independent State of Algeria has come into existence and a century-old French rule has come to an end.

On the same day were born two other independent African States–the Republic of Ruanda and the constitutional monarchy of Urundi. The former has an area of 54,172 sq. kilometers and a population of 2,634,000, while the latter has an area of 27,834 sq. kilometers and a population of 2,213,000. Both are small States. They have all along been under the trusteeship of the United Nations, administered by Belgium. With freedom new problems have emerged.

The people in these two states are primitive. They are still in the tribal stage. There are internal feuds among them. Economically they are backward. There are no trained men to serve as civil servants and administrators. The question, therefore, is how they will use their freedom, and what meaning freedom conveys to them. Even in Congo which is in their neighbourhood and which has been administered for a longer time by Belgium, freedom did not bring either peace or prosperity. Conditions have continued unsettled. Katanga, the richest of the provinces, has not agreed as yet to remain as an integral part of United Congo. Its ruler Tshombe continues to be under the influence of the foreign syndicates engaged in exploiting its mineral wealth. All negotiations between him and the Congo Premier, Adoula, have failed. It is only with the help of the United Nations Forces–of which the Indian contingent forms an appreciable part–that peace is being maintained. The situation in Ruanda and Urundi is much worse and gives cause for concern. One is naturally justified in asking the question: “Is self-government good under all circumstances”?

Most of the troubles in the contemporary world are ultimately traceable to the cold war between Soviet Russia and the United States. Very many of the troubles would have disappeared in due course if the two powers had not intervened in the troubled spots. Berlin in Europe, Formosa, South Vietnam, Laos and even Kashmir continue to be trouble spots because of the great power rivalries. If the United States withdraws its seventh fleet from the Straits, there will be no trouble in Formosa. All the trouble which Pakistan is able to cause in Kashmir, is due to the military help which the United States is giving her. It is the rivalry between the United States and Soviet Russia that is the source of trouble in South Vietnam and Laos. Each is anxious to bring as much area of the world as possible under its sphere of influence. The tensions in the world cannot be reduced unless this cold war comes to an end.

This has been amply illustrated by recent events in Indo-China. The small kingdom of Laos with a population of about three millions has been for years a scene of civil war because of the help which the Communist Pathet Lao party has been getting from Communist China and North Vietnam and the rightist ruling party has been getting from the United States. It is the policy of the United States to “contain” communism and prevent it from engulfing the whole of South East Asia. The Chinese, in their turn, are keen on extending their influence and converting all the States in Indo-China into their satellite States. Because of the growing divergence between Soviet Union and Communist China, the former has seen the wisdom of coming to some understanding with the United States and preventing the growth of Chinese influence in Laos. Both of them, therefore, agreed on making Laos a really independent and neutralist State under a neutralist premier. This agreement has come into effect and if both the States are sincere and if all the foreign armies are withdrawn from Laos, the kingdom will have the opportunity of enjoying peace.

What is good for Laos is equally good for South Vietnam. At present there is a civil war going on in this State between the communists and the governmental forces. The former are helped by the communist government of North Vietnam and China, and the latter, by the United States. These facts have been clearly brought out by the International Supervisory Commission functioning in Indo-China under the Geneva Agreement of 1954. If civil war is to be put an end to, it is necessary that Soviet Russia and the United States should abstain from all interference in this area, and this will be possible only on condition that all the States in the area follow, like India, a policy of non-alignment.

For seventeen years the two great powers have been carrying on a cold war with a view to establish their domination over the whole world. Historians have pointed out that this is similar to the wars that Islam and Christianity fought in the middle ages and Protestantism and Catholicism in Europe in the middle ages. These wars proved futile and ultimately the parties learnt the lesson of “Live and Let Live”. The same is the case today. There is no possibility of either of the two great powers achieving their aim of becoming the sole world-ruler. They should learn the lesson of real co-existence and co-operate in the promotion of peace and prosperity of the whole world. Otherwise, the continuation of the cold war will sooner or later lead to a hot war and result in the destruction of both. History warns them against such continuance.

July 2, 1962

Back