INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: A SURVEY

By Prof. M. VENKATARANGAIYA, M.A.

Everyone is now aware that the serious flaw in the philosophy of Marxism lay in interpreting all historical movements and phenomena in terms of economics, and of economics only, and ignoring the significance of politics and religion. Man’s history on earth has been observed to consist of a series of struggles. It was interpreted in ancient times as a struggle between the Devas and Asuras, the forces of light and of darkness, between truth and falsehood, between wisdom and folly, and between knowledge and ignorance. The Marxists borrowed this idea of perpetual struggle from the preceding philosophies but gave to it a new twist, referring to it as a struggle between those who had property and those who had no property, between the capitalist and the worker etc. Their idea that the struggle would come to an end and that the millennium would be achieved when economic classes cease to exist and a classless society emerges, was also borrowed from the idea of the golden age–the Krita Yuga of the Indian tradition–again with a twist due to their over-emphasis on the materialistic aspects of man’s life.

If there is any single principle in terms of which all struggles may be interpreted, it is the principle of power. Power is the capacity which one individual possesses over another to compel the latter to behave in the way in which he wants him to behave. There is always a struggle for power in this sense, a struggle for the acquisition and retention of power. This love of power is much more universal than even the love of wealth. People want wealth because it is a means for acquiring power. Men in power know that they can get any thing they want through its exercise. When once people come into power and taste its fruits, they are most unwilling to part with it. It is much easier to persuade men of wealth to part with it than to persuade men in power to transfer it into the hands of others. The Marxists speak of the evils of the concentration of wealth, but the evils arising out of the concentration of power–which is the dominant characteristic of all one-party totalitarian States–are far more serious and more demoralising. If there is a case for diffusion of wealth there is stronger case for the diffusion of power.

Claims for power have been based on all sorts of factors and not merely on possession of wealth and property. Sex has been one such factor. There were matriarchal and patriarchal societies. The colour of the skin has been another such factor. Race has been a third factor. Superior intellect which enables men to probe into the mysteries of nature has been another such factor. The power exercised by the priests as well as that exercised by scientists belong to this category. The real struggle on earth is thus the struggle between those who have power and those who have not. When power based on one set of factors is destroyed, it is a mistake to think that power itself is destroyed. It only assumes another form. This is the experience of history. It is in this sense that revolutions are never finished. One kind of revolution gives place to another.

The world today illustrates this process of struggle between the coloured races and the whites who have been in power for the last three centuries, the struggle between Asia and Africa on one side and Europe on the other. There is the struggle between one Western nation and another to monopolise power over the world. This is the case with the struggle that has been going on between Soviet Russia and the United States for the last five years,–the ‘cold war’ as it is usually termed, but a cold war which, with the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, has become a really hot war. There is the struggle for power between political parties,–a struggle assuming a violent form in countries where the Communist Party is anxious to capture power, and a less violent form in countries where the struggle is between parties having faith in democracy. There is also the struggle for power in Countries like Soviet Russia, China, and the countries of Eastern Europe in which Communism has been established. It is the struggle between the victorious Communist Party on one side and the so-called counter-revolutionary parties and groups on the other, or it is a struggle inside the Communist Party itself between rival individuals or groups leading to all sorts of purges and even mass executions occasionally. No one should be under the delusion that, with the establishment of Communism, the instinctive struggle for power comes to an end.

Among the centres where this struggle for power is being carried on, Korea has been regarded as the most important. For there the two great giants of the world today are facing each other. On one side are South Korea, the United States, and the countries allied with the United States; on the other side are North Korea, China, and Soviet Russia. If it had been merely a war between North and South Korea, it would have come to an end within a few weeks of the outbreak of hostilities in June 1950. It is the open participation of the United States forces on the side of South Korea, and the open participation of Chinese forces on the side of North Korea and the concealed support given by Soviet Russia to them, that have kept the war going on till today. The so-called armistice negotiations which began in July 1951 are still going on; but at the same time the military operations, the massed air-attacks, are also going on side by side. There is no cease-fire as yet. No one knows when there will be a real armistice. One latest forecast–and that by a Canadian General–is that the world may have to wait for six months more for it.

The tragedy of the situation consists in the fact that the issue which divides the two parties, and which is responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the armistice, is relatively of an insignificant character, relatively though not absolutely. It relates to the repatriation of the prisoners of war. Among the North Koreans and the Chinese that were captured by the United Nations forces are several thousands who refuse to go back to their homes in North Korea or China. They are afraid of being put to death by the Communist governments. They do not have faith in Communism. It is true that they served in the Communist armies and fought against South Korea and the United Nations. They confess that they did so as conscripts under compulsion. They have now repudiated their faith in Communism and they do not want to get back with the certainty that they would be tortured to death. The U.N. delegates on the Armistice Commission have been naturally asking themselves whether it would be humane for them to bring about the forcible repatriation of these prisoners who are unwilling to be repatriated. They recently suggested three alternatives regarding the way in which these prisoners are to be treated. But the Chinese and the North Korean representatives have not agreed to any of them. They have not also suggested any other alternative.

For the sake of these fifteen or twenty thousand prisoners the United States is prepared to continue the war, with all the horrors and destruction associated with it. Thousands of civilians–men, women and children–are losing their lives. Villages and factory-towns are being destroyed; and the whole country is becoming one vast desert. If the Chinese and the North Koreans are really sincere in their negotiations for an armistice, and if the United States is convinced of this sincerity, is it not wisdom to sacrifice the lives of a few thousand prisoners of war for saving the lives of millions of Koreans and restoring peace and prosperity to the country? It is to be hoped that the United Nations General Assembly which is shortly meeting at Lake Success will take up this question and settle it speedily. Otherwise the Korean war will take a more serious turn. It is bound to spread into China proper. To defeat China is not an easy task. Japan found it difficult in the past,–when the central government was weak and when there were several internal dissensions. The United States will find it much more difficult today. China is now united under a strong central government. It has now the help of Soviet Russia. The bonds of friendship between the two countries have become strengthened as a result of a new treaty concluded between them in this September.

It is true that this treaty has not been as favourable to China as it was expected to be, that it perpetuates Soviet control over Port Arthur and Darien, and that what China has gained is a sort of control over the Manchurian railway. The treaty has also been an occasion for Soviet Russia getting a firmer hold over Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang. But such a result is inevitable so long as China is suspicious of the United States. It is this suspicion that drives her more and more into the arms of Soviet Russia and enables the latter to maintain her hold over the former. But it doesn’t look as if the United States is doing anything to remove or lessen this Suspicion. Responsible statesmen in the United States are now speaking not merely of a policy of ‘containment’ of Communism but also of bringing about internal disruption and disintegration in the territories subject to Communist governments,–in countries like China and even Soviet Russia. The Presidential elections will be over in November and there is bound to be a larger amount of definiteness in the U.S. policy towards Korea and the Communistic Powers.

It is from this point of view that one has to observe the developments in Japan. The General Elections held there recently brought back the Liberals in great numbers into Parliament. Not even a single Communist got in. (There were twenty-two Communist members in the previous Parliament). The cabinet is bound to be a cabinet of Liberals, and it was they that were responsible for the Peace Treaty and the hold which the treaty gave to the Americans over Japan. This means that, opposed to a Sino-Soviet combination, there would be an America-Japanese alliance. The policy of rearming Japan would receive a practical shape and the tension in the Far East would continue.

How the struggle between Communist Soviet Russia and the anti-Communist United States is shaping the fortunes of most of the world is shown by the developments in Indo-China. The Viet-Namese under Ho Chi Min have been fighting a war of national liberation against the French for the last six years. There was a time–in 1946, 1947–when the matter could have been amicably settled, as it was done in India by the British and by the Dutch later on in Indonesia. But the French were not disposed to do so. They were determined on continuing their imperial hold over the country. To conceal their real intentions they set up a puppet government under Bao Dai. The ultimate outcome of all this was to drive Ho Chi Min into the Communist camp, so that the struggle became an aspect of the wider struggle between Communism and anti-Communism. After the Korean war broke out the Americans extended their aid–military in the main and economic to some extent–to the government of Bao Dai. The French also changed their policy to a slight extent by raising a national army of Viet-Namese officered by local leaders; and by introducing a larger number Viet-Namese into the civil services. They also made several promises to confer increased powers on the government of Bao Dai. The result is that today there seems to be a small amount of improvement in their military position. Ho Chi Min has not been able to drive out the French. But whether the French would be able to maintain their hold is problematic. The drain on their military and economic resources caused by the Indo-China campaign is telling increasingly upon them. Even some of the parties on the Right in the French National Assembly have begun to feel that it would be best for their country to withdraw from Indo-China. Everything therefore depends now on the attitude of the United States. She claims to believe in the principle of national self-determination. She says she has faith in political freedom. The time therefore has come for her to bring pressure on France to withdraw from Indo-China and strengthen the government of Bao Dai. If this is done all the nationalist forces can be rallied together and a strong government, able withstand the Communistic groups led by Ho Chi Min, may be formed. In Indo-China the immediate issue is not Communism Versus Democracy. It is Nationalism Versus French Imperialism.

As in Indo-China so also in Malaya, Communist terrorism has been put down in recent months to some extent. But the real problem there also is the transfer of power to the people of the country. The difficulty in this transfer lies in the people not being homogeneous and in their being divided into three groups,–Malayans, Chinese, and Indians. In recent months attempts have been successfully made to bring these groups together. There is a suspicion that most of the Chinese are either Communists or are in sympathy with Communism and that they serve as the agents of the Communist government of China. Recently some of the leading Chinese of Malaya have been active in co-operating with the British authorities in suppressing the terrorists and also in leading a movement for the integration of the three racial groups. If this activity makes substantial progress, the time will come for the withdrawal of the British from Malaya and the establishment of a strong national government.

Next to Korea it is the Middle East that is in the most disturbed condition today. Here there are two sets of problems to be faced. One is external and the other is internal. Externally several of the countries here feel that they are still subject to the economic, military or political control of the West, especially the British. Internally the problem is partly political and partly economic, though it is difficult to completely separate the two aspects. Politically these countries are governed by oligarchies for all practical purposes, although in several of them the forms of democracy are seen. Apart from this there is a large amount of corruption and administrative inefficiency. Economically the masses of people are poor. Their standard of life is low. Landownership is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. There are very few industries. The burden of taxation is heavy. Movements therefore found in these countries have their origin in the desire of the people to get rid of the external control of the British, to create honest and efficient administrations and improve the economic resources and raise the standard of living of the common man. These movements are common to all the countries of the Middle East.

One other cause of tension in this area is the establishment three years ago of the State of Israel by the Jews in part of Palestine. This is resented by all the other States–which are Muslim. They have not yet recognised the State of Israel. And there are influential sections in them who are determined to wipe out this State.

It is against this background that recent developments especially in Iran and Egypt have to be examined. In Iran the issue centres round the nationalisation of the oil industry. This means deriving the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company of its rights of ownership which it has been enjoying for nearly fifty years. On the question of compensation, on the working of the oil refineries, on the supply of British technical personnel, on the marketing of the nationalised oil, and on provision for tankers for carrying the oil disputes have arisen. All negotiations have so far failed. The Prime Minister of Iran–Dr. Mossadiq–even threatened recently to break off all diplomatic relations with Britain on this issue. The situation now is that he is willing to reopen negotiations on the subject of compensation and on other questions, provided his government is paid forty-nine million pounds immediately by the British. He does not seem to be so obstinate now as he was in recent months.

The British no longer object to nationalisation. What they want is adequate compensation. The Americans have their own rivalries with the British on the exploitation of oil in the Middle East, but they are at one with the British in the view that there should be no nationalisation without compensation. It is natural for them to take such a view, because they have their own oil companies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere and they are afraid that, if the principle of compensation is given up in Iran, it will have to be given up in the other countries also. They are not prepared to face huge losses resulting therefrom. It remains to be seen whether the British would agree to pay the amount demanded by Mossadiq and begin negotiations. The best thing is for them to do so, as otherwise they will have to face a worse situation. The royalties on which the solvency of the government of Iran depends have not been forthcoming. The government is unable to balance its budget. If this continues the unrest in the country will grow. There will be an internal revolution and a Communist government led by the Tudeh party may come into office. Iran may become another Korea and this will upset the power equilibrium in the whole of the Middle East and even in South Asia. The British have made enormous profits in the past and they should not grudge paying a small percentage of those profits to restore normalcy in the Middle East.

A restoration of normalcy is needed not only in Iran but also in Egypt. Egypt has passed through a miltary coup. King Farouk was forced to abdicate by Genral Naguib; and it is a military government that is now ruling over that country. The basis of General Naguib’s authority is the army of which he is the commander. His is an example of the army intervening in the affairs of the government and taking possession of it. Similar military coups have taken place in Syria and Lebanon–two other States in the Middle East. Naturally these bring to the forefront one great political problem, the problem of the kind of government most appropriate to the countries of this area. It is generally taken for granted that democracy is the only right form of government for any State, and democracy ordinarily means that those who are in power in a State should be elected by the people in a fair and free election. General Naguib does not owe his power to any democratic election. His power is not democratic in character. Is it therefore to be condemned as illegitimate?

Even advocates of democracy–thinkers like Mill–have stated that there are situations and countries in which democracy does not Work and that it is therefore not desirable to introduce that form of government in such situations and such countries. Perhaps the countries of the Middle East are among them. With a population economically backward and therefore not caring very much for political rights, and a population illiterate and incapable of discriminating between what is politically desirable and undesirable, it may not be possible to work democracy. Whatever it be the revolution in Egypt compels many advocates of democracy to re-think their fundamental ideas.

Apart from the right and wrong of the coup itself, General Naguib has succeeded within a short space of time in putting an end to corruption and inaugurating a series of land reforms. He found that the political parties in the country–including the Wafd Party–were also notorious for their corruption. He enacted a new Law on the subject of political parties with a view to purge them of all the corrupt and undesirable elements in them. All this smells totalitarianism but serious situations need seriously drastic remedies. There is a certain amount of drive and quickness of pace in the work of General Naguib and it is these that attract the admiration of many people, even though they may say that his methods are undemocratic.

There are two issues relating to the British which he has still to solve. One refers to the British evacuation of the Canal Zone and the other to their recognising the ruler of Egypt as the ruler of Sudan also. General Naguib has no idea of entering into any compromise on these issues. He is however for peacefully settling them and the British should take advantage of his willingness to enter into negotiations and settle the issues once for all.

To the British and to the Americans the strategic value of Middle East is incalculably great. They have to defend the at any cost against Soviet influence becoming dominant there. If they lose the Middle East they lose not only the oil which is so vital to the economic and military strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Western Europe but also the facilities of transport between the Mediterranean on one side the Far East and South East Asia and Australia on the other. This is why for the last two years they have been trying to organise a separate Middle East Defence. They cannot however do this unless they have the co-operation of the governments and the peoples of the area. They must have strong bases for stationing their forces. Iraq, the Canal Zone and Sudan are among such bases at the present day. British evacuation of the Canal Zone and of Sudan is possible only when a joint Middle East Defence Organisation, in which Egypt and other countries of the Middle East participate, is set up and all the necessary military bases are secured. This is a complicated problem. The nationalism of Iran and, Egypt has to be fully recognised by Britain and the United States, whatever be the cost of such recognition. At the same time the governments of these and other States in the area must become willing partners in the Defence Organisation. The problem has become complicated because of its connection with the cold war. The Middle East is one of the most important areas in which the Soviet and the United States are carrying on their struggle for power. It is this that gives added significance to the struggle which the nationalists of Tunisia are carrying on against France. The problem of Tunisia is more or less of the same character as that of Indo-China.

One significant development of recent months is the passive resistance in South Africa against the government of Malan and the Apartheid policy it has been pursuing. There is now an awakening among the Africans. They are determined to fight for equality and freedom. They have found a weapon in non-violent and passive resistance devised by Mahatma Gandhi and practised by him in South Africa at first and in India later. The movement is gradually spreading and gaining in strength. Five thousand people have already gone to jail and suffered other kinds of punishment at the hands of government. The struggle is however bound to be long and bitter. It is only the beginnings of it that we see today.

The most remarkable feature of the contemporary world is the awakening of Asia and Africa; and it is this that is reshaping the future of humanity. All the events referred to above illustrate this feature.

Back