INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: A SURVEY

Prof. M. Venkatarangaiya

In the quarter under review two events have been considered as of major importance. One is the conclusion of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by the United States, Britain and Soviet Russia; and the other is the widening of the ideological rift between Soviet Russia and Communist China in consequence of the failure of the talks between them at Moscow.

In estimating the importance of the Test Ban Treaty it is necessary to understand clearly what it proposes to do and what it does not. What it proposes to do is to prohibit nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. It does not prohibit underground tests. It is therefore not a total but only a partial ban on tests that the treaty provides for. A total ban was not found possible because while violations in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water can be discovered without on-the-spot inspection such an inspection is necessary in the case of violations underground; and Soviet Russia is not yet prepared to permit such on-the-spot inspections.

The treaty also suffers from other limitations. Any nation signing the treaty is given the right to withdraw from it after giving three months notice in advance if it considers that by adhering to it its supreme interests are jeopardised. Secondly it does not prohibit the production of nuclear weapons and making additions to the existing nuclear stockpiles. Thirdly it does not prohibit the use of nuclear weapons in future wars. The danger of nuclear warfare continues, in spite of the treaty.

In spite of these limitations the treaty has a large amount of importance primarily because it is the first time within eight years that there is an accord between the East and the West which have been engaged in a cold war for about seventeen years. Eight years ago they agreed on the terms of the Austrian treaty but on every other question which they subsequently discussed they could not arrive at any compromise. The conclusion of this new treaty is the first step in the march towards the abandoning of the cold war atmosphere and towards world peace. It is the first step that is always the most difficult one. Now that it is taken, it gives a sort of guarantee that other steps would be taken to solve through peaceful negotiation other questions at issue between them. As President Kennedy has put it, “This treaty is not the millennium. It will not resolve all conflicts or cause the communists to forego their ambitions or eliminate the dangers of war….But it is an important first step–a step towards peace–a step towards reason–a step away from war.”

The treaty also secures some other advantages. Nuclear tests are costly and their prohibition releases large amount of funds for being spent on peaceful pursuits. These tests also cause the pollution of the atmosphere through their radioactive fall out. Though it is possible to reduce the fallout no process has yet been discovered to bring about its complete disappearance and the fall out has been found to cause cancer in the bones, Leukemia in blood and poison in the lungs. The danger of such fall out is all the greater as the new nations like China which are anxious to become nuclear powers are not acquainted with all the latest scientific processes by which advanced nations like the United States and Soviet Russia have been able to reduce it. A third advantage which the treaty may hope to secure that it can serve as a check to the spread of nuclear weapons to nations who do not now possess them. It is expected that other nations will become parties to the treaty. India has already agreed to sign it. The force of world opinion will compel other nations who are in a position to become nuclear powers–nations like Japan, Italy etc.–to adhere to the treaty. So far it is only France and China that have opposed the treaty. It is much more dangerous to have nuclear weapons distributed among a dozen nations than among two or three. There is a greater danger in that case of one nation or another acting in an irresponsible manner and starting a nuclear war. The treaty prevents it to a large extent.

The question is asked by several people why both President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev were anxious to conclude a treaty like this now, while they failed to do so in the past. This is not the first time that attempts at a limited test ban were made. The conditions now were however more auspicious than at any other time. Khrushchev especially was in need of such a treaty so that he might demonstrate to his critics at home and to his Chinese critics that the policy of co-existence is practicable. Moreover he wanted to make peace with the West so that he might be more free to deal with China which became his enemy number 1. De-Stalinization also raised high expectations among the masses of people in Soviet Russia. They were now demanding more consumers’ goods and a higher standard of life. The new generation had not the same revolutionary fervour as the old. All this demanded a reduction in expenditure on armaments and the test ban treaty was naturally looked upon as a real step in that direction. President Kennedy was eager to respond to him. In American interests, as well as in the interests of world peace, it was necessary to strengthen the hands of Khrushchev in his ideological war with Communist China and break the monolithic structure of the International Communist Party. These were some of the circumstances that made possible the conclusion of the test ban treaty at the present juncture.

It is thus clear that there is some connection between the treaty and the ideological war between Soviet Russia and Communist China to which we have now to turn our attention.

The point which requires to be noted in connection with the dispute between Moscow and Peking is that it is only partly ideological. To a greater extent it is due to divergent national interests. Ideologically the Chinese regard themselves as the true exponents Marxism-Leninism and dub Khrushchev and those who follow Russian school of thought as revisionists. To the Chinese the only way by which communism could be spread throughout the world is through a policy of war with capitalist and feudal states. Peace with them is unthinkable to the Chinese. It may be that today the capitalist nations led by the United States are militarily stronger than the communist powers. This does not mean in the Chinese view that the latter should make peace with them. On the other hand they must build up their armaments, work in close co-operation among themselves so that in due course the manpower of China supplemented by the scientific resources of Soviet Russia might be in a position to carry on a war to the finish with the capitalists, destroy them and make the world safe for communism.

It is to this view that Khrushchev is opposed. It is his conviction as well as that of a majority of Soviet leaders that war today with a capitalist power like the United States is bound to be a nuclear war and that such a war would be suicidal. What is the kind of communism, he asks, which can be built after the destruction of hundreds of millions of people in the United States and Soviet Russia along with their cities, their industrial centres and their agricultural farms and with the radio-active fall out causing ruin to the people in every part of the globe? We should think therefore of discovering peaceful means of spreading communism and we have to accept meanwhile the principle of peaceful co-existence as the only principle for regulating relations between states with different political and social systems. Marxism is a religious creed and like all religious creeds it has developed sectarian differences, differences like those of Hinayana and Mahayana in Buddhism, Sunni and Shia in Islam, and Catholicism and Protestantism in Christianity. There is no possibility of resolving such differences and it is no wonder that the Moscow talks between the representatives of the Soviet and the Chinese interpretation of Marxism failed.

But the differences between the two are not merely ideological. Their national interests have become divergent. A strong and powerful China is bound to prove a menace to Soviet Russia. China has a claim to large areas of Siberia and Central Asia which are now in possession of Russia. China has a population of seven hundred millions and outlets are needed for them. The vacant spaces of Siberia are most alluring to them. It is the realisation tahat a strong China–especially with the revolutionary militancy which now characterises her present rulers–will be a source of ultimate to Soviet Russia that has been responsible for the cooling of relations between the two countries. Even those Soviet leaders who do not agree with Khrushchev in all matters of domestic and foreign policy are at one with him in thinking that China poses a threat to their nation’s interests. This accounts for the withdrawal of Soviet aid to China, the recall of Soviet technicians from that country, the continuous diminutions in trade between them and the refusal of Soviet Russia to help China in her attempts to occupy the off shore islands, to give atomic weapons to her or to back her in her border dispute with India. The failure of the Moscow talks only show how serious the differences are and it is now becoming clearer that they are even unbridgeable. Nationalism is a stronger force than communism.

The Chinese use ideological arguments because it serves their purposes. From their point of view a nuclear war might destroy Soviet Russia but this will ensure her leadership in the communist world. Even if several millions of her own population die in such a war there will be a sufficiently large number of survivors who can help their country to become the greatest power on earth. It is this nationalism that makes her argue that Soviet Russia should not extend economic or military aid to a bourgeoise country like India. It is this that has made her enter into a defence pact with Pakistan, a non-communist dictatorial state.

From the long period point of view of world peace and stability the rift between Soviet Russia and Communist China is welcome. A monolithic communist bloc extending from the Baltic the Pacific can exercise tyranny over the whole world.

The rift between the two communist states is part of a break up of the alliances which came into existence in the years following the Second World War. The world then became divided two blocs–the Soviet and the American–each opposed to other and each building up alliances with other states to strengthen itself. The NATO and the Warsaw Pact states in Europe, and the SEATO in South-East Asia were such alliances. Now that the cold war between the two shows signs of disappearing, the alliances are becoming looser. Among the Warsaw Pact states Rumania has shown open resentment towards Soviet Russia. She doesn’t want to remain a purely raw-material-producing state. She is anxious to become industrialised. All this is opposed to the principle of complementary economics on which the Warsaw Pact is built. She is also supporting Albania and China in the ideological war. Communist Parties in Hungary and other satellite states are also demanding a relaxation of Soviet hold over them as the price for supporting Khrushchev in the ideological war.

In the American bloc also similar loosening is making its appearance. De Gaulle of France is determined on following an independent line of his own. He has withdrawn his naval forces from the Atlantic alliance and entered into a separate pact with West Germany. He does not want Britain to be admitted into the European Common Market or into any other continental alliance. In Britain itself there is a growing mistrust of some of the policies of the United States. In the South-East Asian Treaty Organisation Pakistan which received so much aid from the United States to defend the free world against Communist China is openly proclaiming her friendship with that country and is determined to use the American aid against India.

In a statement which Ambassador Chester Bowles made at his first Press conference in New Delhi he said: “The world has arrived, it seems to me, at a kind of watershed between the two eras–with all the uncertainties that such a watershed suggests. Although the full dimensions of the new era are still largely obscure, one thing at least is certain. In such a period it is inevitable that India and the United States will be going through a period of adjustment which will call for great patience and understanding on the part of all of us.” The struggle between Soviet Russia and the United States has become less important. There is a possibility of a no-war pact between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact states and both the blocs working closer together in an attempt to contain Communist China. India also should now follow a bolder and more dynamic policy towards the same purpose and enter into a closer working partnership with the United States and Soviet Russia in arresting Chinese expansionism.

One other event of importance in the quarter is the holding of the conference of the Heads of thirty independent States in Africa at Addis Ababa the capital of Ethiopia, the oldest state in the continent. This opened a new chapter in the history of Africa. The division of the independent states into a Casablanca group and a Mourovia bloc was hailed and all the states were now prepared to work in concert to solve their common problems. One such problem was the ending of colonialism in the Continent and of Apartheid in South Africa. Measures were taken against both Portugal which is now the only important colonial power in the Continent and also against South Africa. It now looks certain that within a short period of time Angola and Mozambique will become free. Even South Africa may be compelled by action here and at the United Nations to revise her Apartheid policy. The non-White races are no longer in a mood to tolerate the White domination.

It is from this standpoint that the recent incidents in the United States where the Negroes are adopting the Gandhian strategy of non-violent demonstration to achieve their rights as American citizens are of great significance. The Negroes in that country number 19 millions in a population of about 180 millions. Though as a result of the great Civil War fought a century ago they were emancipated from slavery and granted by an amendment to the Constitution all rights of citizenship they have in practice been treated as second class citizens especially in the Southern States, the original home of slavery. Their position as regards seggregation and the denial of equal economic and educational opportunities is much worse than that of our Harijans before 1947. While we have been doing everything to remove in India the evil of untouchability and to improve their social and economic position, nothing like that has been done in the United States. Conditions have not appreciably improved. Hence their revolt today.

President Kennedy has come forward with a Bill, guaranteeing to them equal civil rights with the Whites. It is now left to the Congress to take action on it. Apart from it what the situation requires is the multiplication of schools into which Negro children can be admitted alongside of White children, equal facilities for vocational training, and equal admission to all jobs. More jobs have to be created for them, more houses have to be built and more slums have to be cleared. All this has to be done as rapidly as possible. Otherwise there is a danger of the extremist elements gaining control of the situation and non-violence giving place to violence.

One should welcome the attempts that are being made to proclaim the Federation of Malaysia on August 31. It will for the present consist of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo. Brunie which is another State in Borneo, now a colonial possession of Britain may join later. The Federation will have a population of ten millions, nearly half of them being Chinese. President Sukarno of Indonesia is opposed to the formation of the Federation as it would deprive him of the opportunity to include the northern part of Borneo in the Indonesian State. He insists on a referendum being taken in North Borneo and Sarawak before they are included in the Federation. This position is an unreasonable one. In the case of West Irian which has been recently made a part of Indonesia no such referendum was taken. It is to be hoped that he will not insist on this procedure and allow the new state to come into existence. Its value will greatly lie in its becoming a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in South-East Asia.

August 1, 1963.

Back